| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Johansson, Victoria, et al.
(författare)
-
Looking on and away from the word currently being typed in expository text writing
- 2015
-
Konferensbidrag (populärvet., debatt m.m.)abstract
- Visual feedback from the writer’s own emerging text is generally assumed to be an important component in the process of writing. For instance, in Hayes’ (1996) model it is considered to be critically involved in the subprocesses of monitoring and revision. Despite this, few empirical investigations have actually addressed this issue and in contrast to general expectations contemporary research by Oxborough and Torrance (2012) suggests that visual feedback from the text may in fact not be essential for the production of coherent texts. However, research (e.g. Johansson et al 2010) shows that writers indeed monitor their texts during writing, and that there is a relation between editing behavior and the amount of time spent looking at the text. One question is which role the visual input has for the writer, since it is does not seem to be necessary for text production, in other words: what do the writer do when she look at the text during writing. Visual feedback from an emerging text can roughly be divided into two categories of gaze behavior: fixations concurrent with keyboard typing and fixations during pauses (when no keys are struck). The current study focuses on the former and used a combination of eye-tracking and keystroke logging to collect data for 14 relatively automatized touch typists when they wrote an expository text for 30 minutes. Collapsed over all participants, this rendered 26 349 instances where a keystroke occurred concurrent with a fixation on the emerging text. Of those keystrokes 18 450 belonged to text production and 4188 to text deletions (e.g. backspaces). On average, 87 % of the text production keystrokes were performed with fixations on the word currently being typed and with a mean location of 6 characters to the left of the inscription point. For the deletion keystrokes, corresponding measures were 68 % and 6 characters to the left of the inscription point. This means that the remaining keystrokes (13 % during text production and 32 % during deletions) occurred together with more distant fixations on previous text segments. While it has been argued that fixations on the word currently being typed are related to monitoring and error correction (Torrance & Wengelin, 2010) very little is known about the role of fixations away from the word currently being typed, and even less whether the visual feedback they provide are useful at all. Qualitative explorations of those instances in the present dataset suggest that they are indeed useful and frequently appear to be associated with referential cuing and content generation.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- van Steendam, Elke, et al.
(författare)
-
Unravelling joint attention in foreign language writers’ collaborative revision process
- 2024
-
Konferensbidrag (populärvet., debatt m.m.)abstract
- By collaborating during writing, writers can pool resources and may benefit from the joint regulation of the writing process. The extent to which group members manage (individual and) joint attention may be a strong predictor of effective collaboration (Schneider & Pea, 213). Joint attention is the tendency of collaboration partners to consciously focus on and/or monitor each other’s attention to a common reference (Tomasello, 1995). However, little is known about when joint attention occurs during collaborative writing and how writers draw each other’s attention to points of interest during the writing process. To shed lights on how and when this may occur, we conducted a small-scale, mixed-method hypothesis-generating study, using a combination of keystroke logging, eye-tracking and audio- and screencapturing. In addition to generating hypotheses, the design also enabled us to explore the feasibility of different methodologies to capture joint attention in an experimental set- up. Ten foreign-language writers participated in an experimental setting, where they were assigned to five randomly composed dyads who revised a familiar and a novel persuasive text. The texts contained both lower- and higher-order textual problems. The revision partners were seated in different rooms but collaborated in the same online environment via audio and screen, a set-up similar that of working in, e.g., Zoom . We collected eyetracking- and keystroke-logging data of each dyad member as well as audio- and screen-recordings of the collaborative writing sessions. In the data-streams (i.e., written, spoken and visual), we identified moments of joint attention and overlap in joint attention. Analyses show that joint attention in gaze was higher in the familiar condition. Joint attention in speech was achieved when dyad partners were jointly coordinating the revision process and/or discussing textual problems. Mapping instances of high interaction (speech) onto instances of high joint visual attention showed that moments of co-occurrence involved focusing on and highlighting lower-order textual problems and reading words and phrases. These results also depend on task type and phase of the writing process. We tentatively explore the transfer of these results to the revision product and discuss their relevance for the study of (joint attention in) collaborative writing.
|
|
| 9. |
- Wengelin, Åsa, 1968, et al.
(författare)
-
Capturing writers’ typing while visually attending the emerging text: a methodological approach
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Reading and writing. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0922-4777 .- 1573-0905. ; 37, s. 265-289
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Knowledge about writers’ eye movements and their effects on the writing process, and its product—the finally edited text—is still limited. Previous research has demonstrated that there are differences between reading texts written by someone else and reading one’s own emerging text and that writers frequently look back into their own texts (Torrance et al. in Psychol Res Psychologische Forschung 80(5):729–743, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0683-8). For handwriting, Alamargot et al. (Writing and cognition: research and applications. Elsevier Science, pp 13–29, 2007) found support that these lookbacks could occur in parallel with transcription, but to our knowledge this type of parallel processing has not been explored further, and definitely not in the context of computer writing. Considering that language production models are moving away from previous sequential or serial models (e.g., Levelt in Speaking from intentions to articulation. MIT Press, 1989) towards models in which linguistic processes can operate in parallel (Olive in J Writ Res, 2014. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2014.06.02.4), this is slightly surprising. In the present paper, we introduce a methodological approach to examine writers’ parallel processing in which we take our point of departure in visual attention rather than in the keystrokes. Capitalizing on New ScriptLog’s feature to link gaze with typing across different functional units in the writing task, we introduce and describe a method to capture and examine sequences of typing during fixations, outline how these can be examined in relation to each other, and test our approach by exploring typing during fixations in a text composition task with 14 competent adult writers.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
