Luuk Van Waes

Keystroke Logging in Writing Research Using Inputlog to Analyze and Visualize Writing Processes

Keystroke logging has become instrumental in identifying writing strategies and understanding cognitive processes. Recent technological advances have refined logging efficiency and analytical outputs. While keystroke logging allows for ecological data collection, it is often difficult to connect the fine grain of logging data to the underlying cognitive processes. Multiple methodologies are useful to offset these difficulties. In this article we explore the complementarity of the keystroke logging program Inputlog with other observational techniques: thinking aloud protocols and eyetracking data. In addition, we illustrate new graphic and statistical data analysis techniques, mainly adapted from network analysis and data mining. Data extracts are drawn from a study of writing from multiple sources. In conclusion, we consider future developments for keystroke logging, in particular letter- to word-level aggregation and logging standardization.

Writing profiles: the effect of the writing mode on pausing and revision patterns of experienced writers

We investigated how writing processes are affected by physical aspects of the task environment, specifically the use of a word processor, with respect to patterns of pausing and revision. Consistent with the tradition of cognitive writing research, the writing processes of experienced writers were examined (60 involving the use of a word processor, 20 involving pen&paper). In comparison with writers using pen&paper, those using a word processor (i) spent more time on a first draft and less on finalizing a text, (ii) pursued a more fragmentary writing process, (iii) tended to revise more extensively at the beginning of the writing process, (iv) attended more to lower linguistic levels (letter, word) and formal properties of the text, and (v) did not normally undertake any systematic revision of their work before finishing. By clustering the various processes with respect to twelve relevant parameters, we developed a new typology of writing processes which distinguishes five writing profiles: the initial planner, the fragmentary Stage I writer, the Stage II writer, the non-stop writer, and the average writer. Our quantitative approach to describing the cognitive behavior of the different writers revealed that the profiles they adopt depend greatly on the constraints of the writing environment.

Constructing press releases, constructing quotations: A case study

This paper reports on empirical research into how press releases are being constructed. It starts from previous discourse-analytic work which has pointed to the ‘preformulated’ nature of press releases: in particular, it has been shown that through a number of metapragmatic features press releases can easily be copied by journalists in their own news reporting. In this paper we set out to subject one of these features, viz. pseudo-quotations (or so-called constructed direct speech), to a further empirical study, in which we scrutinize the process of constructing the press releases. We propose a detailed analysis of this process by combining ethnographic fieldwork with some of the methodology of cognitive psychology, including think-aloud protocols and on-line registration of the writing process. On the basis of this case study it is concluded that the design and functions of quotations in press releases are more complex than has been assumed so far. In addition, our preliminary results indicate that the combination of methods that we propose in this paper provides a sound starting point for both quantitative and qualitative analysis, allowing for a detailed analysis and interpretation of how press releases are being constructed.

Writing with speech recognition: The adaptation process of professional writers with and without dictating experience

This paper describes the adaptation and writing process of writers who have started using speech recognition systems for writing business texts. The writers differ in their previous writing experience. They either have previous classical dictating experience or they are used to writing their texts with a word processor. To gather the process data for this study we chose complementary research methods. First the participants were asked to fill in a questionnaire and given instruction about the speech recognition system. Then they were observed five times using the speech recognition system during their day-to-day work. Finally, they also filled in a logging questionnaire after each task. The quantitative analysis of the use of the writing mode shows that those participants who had no previous dictating experience, tend to use the voice input more extensively, both for formulating and reviewing. This result is confirmed in the more detailed case analysis. The other analyses in the case study-i.e. repair, revision, and pause analysis-refine the differences in the organization of the writing process between the writers, and show that the speech recognition mode seems to create a writing environment that is open for different writing profiles.

Error correction strategies of professional speech recognition users: Three profiles

One of the challenges in writing research in general is to explain the structural variation in writing processes within and between subjects. More or less recursivity has been attributed to writing experience, proficiency, task characteristics and the writing mode or medium. This study focuses on professional writers (n=10) who use a modern writing instrument - speech recognition - as their primary tool for text production and revision. More specifically we are interested in the way this new technology affects the cognitive processes that underlie text production. In our study we have focused on error correction. We provide a description of the errors that professional speech recognition users need to deal with, how they deal with them and why they opt for various error correction strategies. Different converging research methods were used: (1) product, (2) process, and (3) protocol analysis. The results are described on two levels: the overall level and the subgroup level (three writer groups). The results show that the contrast between immediate and delayed error correction is quite decisive for the way in which writers structure their writing process. Next to this, the distinction between technical problems and revisions also plays an important role. Most writers prefer solving technical problems immediately. The same does not necessarily hold for other revisions. However, the revision behavior is not random: overall results show three distinct patterns or profiles of error correction. First, there are writers who prefer writing a first time final draft and solve technical problems immediately as well as revising the text produced so far immediately (handle profile). Second, writers who solve more than half of the deficiencies in the text produced so far immediately, but who also delay or postpone various technical problems and revisions (postpone revisions profile). Finally, writers who prefer delaying error correction and who delay technical problems to a second draft (postpone technical problems profile).

Selecting a translation revision procedure: do common sense and statistics agree?

Translators employ a wide variety of revision procedures in their day-to-day working practice. This paper empirically investigates the impact of these revision procedures on both the revision product and the revision process. Sixteen professional revisers revised four comparable translations, each time using a different procedure: (1) monolingual, (2) bilingual, (3) bilingual followed by monolingual, and (4) monolingual followed by bilingual. To analyse the data, a product-based revision analysis was combined with process-based analyses, i.e. using keystroke logs and think aloud protocols. Although common sense and research-based results seem to coincide at first sight with respect to the selection of a suitable revision procedure, some results deviated from the expected outcomes. To conclude, the paper formulates some practical advice on selecting revision procedures, taking quality and time into account.

A Multilanguage Online Writing Center for Professional Communication: Development and Testing

An online writing center developed at the University of Antwerp, Belgium, called Calliope, provides a modular platform aimed at enhancing learners’ professional writing skills in five different languages: Dutch, English, French, German, and Spanish. It supports courses in business and technical communication. The current version includes modules on press releases in English, business letters in French, and minute taking in Dutch. Unlike many online writing centers, it is genre-specific and context-specific, it is highly interactive rather than linear, it uses a process approach to cater to different learning styles, it accommodates different writer profiles, and it is an instructional tool not connected to a physical writing center.

Coordinating the cognitive processes of writing : the role of the monitor

Moment to moment, a writer faces a host of potential problems. How does the writer’s mind coordinate this problem solving? In the original Hayes and Flower model, the authors posited a distinct process to manage this coordinating—that is, the “monitor.” The monitor became responsible for executive function in writing. In two experiments, the current authors investigated monitor function by examining the coordination of two common writing tasks—editing (i.e., correcting an error) and sentence composing—in the presence or absence of an error and with a low or high memory load for the writer. In the first experiment, participants could approach the editing and composing task in either order. On most trials (88%), they finished the sentence first, and less frequently (12%), they corrected the error first. The error-first approach occurred significantly more often under the low-load condition than the high-load condition. For the second experiment, participants were asked to adopt the less-used, error-first approach. Success in completing the assigned task order was affected by both memory load and error type. These results suggest that the monitor depends on the relative availability of working memory resources and coordinates subtasks to mitigate direct competition over those resources.

Correcting text production errors: Isolating the effects of writing mode from error span, input mode, and lexicality.

Error analysis involves detecting, diagnosing, and correcting discrepancies between the text produced so far (TPSF) and the writers mental representation of what the text should be. The use of different writing modes, like keyboard-based word processing and speech recognition, causes different type of errors during text production. While many factors determine the choice of error-correction strategy, cognitive effort is a major contributor to this choice. This research shows how cognitive effort during error analysis affects strategy choice and success as measured by a series of online text production measures. Text production is shown to be influenced most by error span, that is, whether the error spans more or less than two characters. Next, it is influenced by input mode, that is, whether the error has been generated by speech recognition or keyboard, and finally by lexicality, that is, whether the error comprises an existing word. Correction of larger error spans is more successful than that of smaller errors. Writers impose a wise speed accuracy trade-off during large error spans since correction is better, but preparation times (time to first action) and production times take longer, and interference reaction times are slower. During large error spans, there is a tendency to opt for error correction first, especially when errors occurred in the condition in which the TPSF is not preceded by an auditory prompt. In general, the addition of speech frees the cognitive demands of writing. Writers also opt more often to continue text production when the TPSF is presented auditorially first.

Evaluating on-line and off-line searching behavior using thinking-aloud protocols to detect navigation barriers

1. ABSTRACT To describe and analyse the searching behavior of people looking for information on-line or off-line we set up two small-scale experiments. The experiments showed that the subjects were able to find information off-fine more quickly than on the Web sites, but that on the other hand the answers given in the on-line mode were more accurate The search strategies in the on-line mode were also more divergent. Hyperlinks are often scanned separately from their context and subjects often seem to have very vague predictions of the contents behind the link (kind of information, amount of information).