The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Does revision process differ across language of writing (L1 vs. FL), FL language proficiency and gender? An empirical study using keystroke logging data

Does revision process differ across language of writing (L1 vs. FL), FL language proficiency and gender? An empirical study using keystroke logging data
Does revision process differ across language of writing (L1 vs. FL), FL language proficiency and gender? An empirical study using keystroke logging data
Drawing upon cognitive writing process theory and research, this study investigates the influence of language of writing, foreign language (FL) proficiency and gender on the revision processes of 77 undergraduate students studying at an English-medium college in Oman. Their first language (L1) was Arabic and their FL was English. The participants produced two argumentative authentic texts, one in L1 and one in FL. Their proficiency in English was assessed using the Oxford Placement Test (OPT). Participants’ revisions were recorded and analysed, according to the measures amount, location and type, via keystroke logging. The results showed that the vast majority of revisions in both languages were immediate, i.e. at the point of inscription, and focused on language rather than content. In addition, there was consistent evidence that participants made more revisions in the FL than they did in L1. For ‘total amount of revision’ and ‘immediate revisions’, there was a consistent interaction between gender and FL proficiency. The pattern of the interaction indicated two conflicting tendencies: (a) female participants appeared in general to be more motivated to make revisions in both languages than males, and (b) the less proficient they were in FL the more revisions they made. By contrast, the number of revisions made by the male participants did not depend on their FL proficiency. For ‘distant’, i.e. already written text, and ‘end’, i.e. after producing the first draft, revisions the amount of revision depended solely on the language of writing and gender. Furthermore, the results revealed that when writing in the FL, students with greater FL proficiency attended to content revision more than language revision. Findings are discussed in light of process-oriented writing research and implications for writing research and teaching are suggested.
FL PROFICIENCY, GENDER DIFFERENCES, KEYSTROKE LOGGING, REVISION PROCESS
1756-5839
73-109
Al-Saadi, Zulaikha Talib
d33ecf2a-29a3-4172-8ac5-d9ae48d6d277
Galbraith, David
c4914b0d-4fd1-4127-91aa-4e8afee72ff1
Al-Saadi, Zulaikha Talib
d33ecf2a-29a3-4172-8ac5-d9ae48d6d277
Galbraith, David
c4914b0d-4fd1-4127-91aa-4e8afee72ff1

Al-Saadi, Zulaikha Talib and Galbraith, David (2021) Does revision process differ across language of writing (L1 vs. FL), FL language proficiency and gender? An empirical study using keystroke logging data. Writing and Pedagogy, 12` (1), 73-109. (doi:10.1558/wap.38067).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Drawing upon cognitive writing process theory and research, this study investigates the influence of language of writing, foreign language (FL) proficiency and gender on the revision processes of 77 undergraduate students studying at an English-medium college in Oman. Their first language (L1) was Arabic and their FL was English. The participants produced two argumentative authentic texts, one in L1 and one in FL. Their proficiency in English was assessed using the Oxford Placement Test (OPT). Participants’ revisions were recorded and analysed, according to the measures amount, location and type, via keystroke logging. The results showed that the vast majority of revisions in both languages were immediate, i.e. at the point of inscription, and focused on language rather than content. In addition, there was consistent evidence that participants made more revisions in the FL than they did in L1. For ‘total amount of revision’ and ‘immediate revisions’, there was a consistent interaction between gender and FL proficiency. The pattern of the interaction indicated two conflicting tendencies: (a) female participants appeared in general to be more motivated to make revisions in both languages than males, and (b) the less proficient they were in FL the more revisions they made. By contrast, the number of revisions made by the male participants did not depend on their FL proficiency. For ‘distant’, i.e. already written text, and ‘end’, i.e. after producing the first draft, revisions the amount of revision depended solely on the language of writing and gender. Furthermore, the results revealed that when writing in the FL, students with greater FL proficiency attended to content revision more than language revision. Findings are discussed in light of process-oriented writing research and implications for writing research and teaching are suggested.

Text
Al_Saadi & Galbraith_2020 - Accepted Manuscript
Restricted to Repository staff only until 17 March 2023.
Request a copy

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 6 March 2020
Published date: 17 March 2021
Additional Information: Publisher Copyright: © 2021, EQUINOX PUBLISHING.
Keywords: FL PROFICIENCY, GENDER DIFFERENCES, KEYSTROKE LOGGING, REVISION PROCESS

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 449706
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/449706
ISSN: 1756-5839
PURE UUID: 372bf4e9-4cb3-4913-97fc-757479cde38d
ORCID for David Galbraith: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-4195-6386

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 11 Jun 2021 16:31
Last modified: 24 Aug 2022 01:44

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Zulaikha Talib Al-Saadi
Author: David Galbraith ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×