Abstract

This intervention study aimed to test the effect of writing process feedback. Sixty-five Grade 10 students received a personal report based on keystroke logging data, including information on several writing process aspects. Participants compared their writing process to exemplar processes of equally scoring (position-setting condition) or higher-scoring students (feed-forward condition). The effect of the feedback on writing performance and process was compared to a national baseline study. Results showed that feed-forward process feedback had an effect on text quality comparable to one grade of regular schooling. The feedback had an effect on production, pausing, revision, and source use, which indicates that it supported participants in self-regulating their writing process. Additionally, we explored the students’ perception of the feedback to get an insight into its strengths and weaknesses. This study shows the potential of writing process feedback and discusses pedagogical implications and options for future research.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2023-01-01
DOI
10.1177/07410883221127998
CompPile
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation context

References (69) · 15 in this index

  1. 10.1080/07370008.2018.1456431
     ↗
  2. Written Communication
  3. 10.1037/a0022545
     ↗
  4. Journal of Writing Research
  5. 10.1037/edu0000206
     ↗
Show all 69 →
  1. 10.1002/rrq.197
     ↗
  2. 10.1207/s1532690xci1202_2
     ↗
  3. 10.3102/00346543065003245
     ↗
  4. 10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
     ↗
  5. 10.1080/02602938.2016.1211246
     ↗
  6. 10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.687
     ↗
  7. 10.1080/02602938.2019.1666084
     ↗
  8. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101297
     ↗
  9. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.003
     ↗
  10. 10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00272-5
     ↗
  11. Journal of Writing Research
  12. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.11.004
     ↗
  13. Journal of Writing Research
  14. Journal of Writing Research
  15. 10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445
     ↗
  16. 10.1080/02602930903201669
     ↗
  17. 10.3102/003465430298487
     ↗
  18. 10.1080/0309877X.2017.1349894
     ↗
  19. Cognitive processes in writing
  20. 10.1080/07294360.2019.1657807
     ↗
  21. 10.1080/02602930903128904
     ↗
  22. Research on written composition: New directions for teaching
  23. Journal of Writing Research
  24. Written Communication
  25. Chinese Journal of Second Language Writing
  26. 10.1017/S0272263119000251
     ↗
  27. 10.1080/19388079709558252
     ↗
  28. 10.4018/978-1-59904-895-6.ch011
     ↗
  29. 10.1163/9789004392526
     ↗
  30. 10.1007/s11251-013-9299-9
     ↗
  31. Journal of Writing Research
  32. 10.1007/s11145-007-9086-6
     ↗
  33. Written Communication
  34. 10.1080/02602938.2020.1823314
     ↗
  35. 10.1080/03075070600572090
     ↗
  36. 10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
     ↗
  37. 10.1007/s10758-015-9265-5
     ↗
  38. 10.1080/0260293022000001337
     ↗
  39. Assessing Writing
  40. Assessing Writing
  41. Design principles for teaching effective writing. Studies in writing series
  42. 10.1080/0305498870130207
     ↗
  43. 10.1007/BF00117714
     ↗
  44. 10.1002/acp.3702
     ↗
  45. 10.1006/ceps.1993.1024
     ↗
  46. 10.1080/08957347.2019.1577245
     ↗
  47. Written Communication
  48. Spivey N., King J. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(1), 7–26…
     ↗
  49. 10.1163/9789004248489_003
     ↗
  50. 10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.001
     ↗
  51. Van der Kaap A., Van Silfhout G. (2018). Formatieve evaluatie: Werken aan groei. SLO (National Institute for …
  52. Pedagogische Studiën
  53. Journal of Writing Research
  54. 10.1007/s11145-019-09958-3
     ↗
  55. Journal of Writing Research
  56. 10.1037/edu0000755
     ↗
  57. Computers and Composition
  58. 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.018
     ↗
  59. Thought and language
  60. Embedded formative assessment
  61. 10.1007/s10734-022-00818-8
     ↗
  62. 10.1080/09588221.2019.1632901
     ↗
  63. 10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
     ↗
  64. 10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.660
     ↗