A Product- and Process-Oriented Tagset for Revisions in Writing

Abstract

The study of revision has been a topic of interest in writing research over the past decades. Numerous studies have, for instance, shown that learning-to-revise is one of the key competences in writing development. Moreover, several models of revision have been developed, and a variety of taxonomies have been used to measure revision in empirical studies. Current advances in data collection and analysis have made it possible to study revision in increasingly precise detail. The present study aimed to combine previous models and current advances by providing a comprehensive product- and process-oriented tagset of revision. The presented tagset includes properties of external revisions: trigger, orientation, evaluation, action, linguistic domain, spatial location, temporal location, duration, and sequencing. We identified how keystroke logging, screen replays, and eye tracking can be used to extract both manually and automatically extract features related to these properties. As a proof of concept, we demonstrate how this tagset can be used to annotate revisions made by higher education students in various academic tasks. To conclude, we discuss how this tagset forms a scalable basis for studying revision in writing in depth.

An exploratory analysis of revision behavior development of L2 writers on an intensive English for academic purposes program using Bayesian methods

“…Recent work has been undertaken on the construction and validation of automatic extraction of revision tag sets from keystroke logging data (Conijn et al, 2020(Conijn et al, , 2021(Conijn et al, , 2022. The analyses reported above were done before this exciting methodology was available, and this should be viewed as a limitation of this paper.…”

“…The analyses reported above were done before this exciting methodology was available, and this should be viewed as a limitation of this paper. Future work on this dataset will involve re-analyzing the data using the methods of Conijn et al (2020Conijn et al ( , 2021Conijn et al ( , 2022 and reexamining the results compared to those from the Barkaoui (2016) revision taxonomy.…”

Accessible Communication of Corporate Social Responsibility: Development and Preliminary Evaluation of an Online Module

“…Several factors can prompt writers to revise, from a spelling mistake to a mismatch with the requirements of the topic, the genre, the task, or the audience (Lindgren & Sullivan, 2006). Accordingly, revision can involve different types of changes, from surface changes affecting spelling and grammar, to interventions on content, to more pragmatic-oriented edits (e.g., reorganizing the text to meet the needs of the audience; Conijn et al, 2020; Lindgren & Sullivan, 2006). Depending on their characteristics, revisions differ in terms of the cognitive effort that they require.…”

Extraction of transforming sequences and sentence histories from writing process data: a first step towards linguistic modeling of writing

“…Only very recently revision taxonomies considering process information have been developed (e.g., Conijn et al, 2021). Bowen (2019) and Bowen and Van Waes (2020) report on an investigation to combine process and product data.…”