Losing sight of errors: the effects of typographical conditions on error salience in L2 proof-reading

Porte, Graeme

doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(00)00050-6

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most notable is the shift between reading for meaning, or 'scanning', and reading for spelling -that is, examining text for surface error such as typographical errors, punctuation and spelling mistakes. Porte [17] concludes that 'simple reading is not an effective proof-reading strategy', suggesting that proof-reading involves additional mechanisms and partial counteraction of the methods used to scan a text for meaning. Hence, it is reasonable to expect effective proof-reading to take longer than simple scanning, although it is unlikely to take as long as copying a text manually.…”

Section: User Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Semi automated metadata extraction for preprints archives

Tonkin

Muller

2008

Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we present a system called paperBase that aids users in entering metadata for preprints. PaperBase extracts metadata from the preprint. Using a Dublin-Core based REST API, third-party repository software populates a web form that the user can then proofread and complete. PaperBase also predicts likely keywords for the preprints, based on a controlled vocabulary of keywords that the archive uses and a Bayesian classifier.We have tested the system on 12 individuals, and measured the time that it took them to enter data, and the accuracy of the entered metadata. We find that our system appears to be faster than manual entry, but a larger sample needs to be tested before it can be deemed statistically significant. All but two participants perceived it to be faster. Some metadata, in particular the title of preprints, contains significantly fewer mistakes when entered automatically; even though the automatic system is not perfect, people tend to correct mistakes that paperBase makes, but would leave their own mistakes in place.

show abstract

Section: User Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. JCDL'08, June [16][17][18][19][20]2008, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. Copyright 2008 ACM 978-1-59593-998-2/08/06 ...$5.00.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semi automated metadata extraction for preprints archives

Tonkin

Muller

2008

Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The research reviewed represents the full spectrum of research approaches found in applied linguistics but the majority of studies adopt either a qualitative approach or one which combines quantitative and qualitative approaches. While there are examples of surveys, eg Hedgcock & Lefkowitz (1994); Jacobs et al (1998); Pennington, Brock & Yue (1996), and of experimental and quasi-experimental studies eg Hedgcock & Lefkowitz (1992); Kepner (1991); Porte (2001), it is much more common to find a combination of research techniques drawn from quantitative and qualitative approaches. A common combination is that of "think aloud" with interview and/or questionnaire, recently updated and improved with the aid of keystroke-logging software, removing the time-consuming task of transcribing and analysing data from the researcher.…”

Section: Research Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Writing in a foreign language: teaching and learning

O'Brien

2004

Lang. Teach.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article is organised in five parts. The introduction defines the area covered and gives the rationale for a focus on FL writing research particularly in classroom contexts. The second section gives an overview of cognitive and social theoretical frameworks, noting that these have mainly been developed for L1 writing, and drawing attention to recent attempts to build models for FL writing. The third part covers research on process-based instruction, on teacher and peer feedback and on grammar correction. Part four deals with the growing use of computers in the teaching and learning of FL writing, looking particularly at work on word processing, software for teaching and research, at the relationships between network-based language teaching and process-oriented pedagogy and between writing and the development of oral communicative competence. The final part comments on research approaches, on FL writing and second language acquisition, and on post-process theory, concluding with a set of pedagogically-oriented research questions for the future.

show abstract

The Effectiveness of Feedback for L1‐english and L2‐writing Development: A Meta‐analysis

Biber

Nekrasova

Horn

2011

ETS Research Report Series

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research project undertook a review and synthesis of previous research on the effectiveness of feedback for individual writing development. The work plan was divided into two main phases. First, we surveyed all available studies that have investigated the effectiveness of writing feedback, including both quantitative and qualitative research, for students who have learned English as a first language (L1‐English), students who have learned English as a second language (L2‐English), and students who have learned second languages other than English. The results of this survey are described in a narrative overview of previous research pertaining to the role of feedback in the development of writing proficiency. The survey also identified the major theoretical constructs used in this research domain, providing the basis for subsequent statistical analysis. Second, we built on this survey to carry out a meta‐analysis of empirical studies in this research area. The goal of the meta‐analysis was to provide a quantitative investigation of the extent and ways in which feedback has been effective, summarizing the findings of previous quantitative studies that have employed suitable statistical measures. Several analytical steps were required for the meta‐analysis: developing a coding rubric; analyzing the research design and adequacy of reporting in studies to determine if they were suitable for inclusion; coding each study for all relevant research design factors; computing effect sizes for each study; and analyzing and interpreting the general patterns that hold across this set of studies. The meta‐analysis compared the gains in writing development with respect to several different kinds of feedback. Overall, feedback was found to result in gains in writing development. Beyond that, there were several predictable findings (e.g., that written feedback is more effective than oral feedback for writing development) and several other more noteworthy trends (e.g., that peer feedback is more effective than teacher feedback for L2‐English students; commenting is more effective than error location; and in general, focus on form and content seems to be more effective than an exclusive focus on form).

show abstract

Losing sight of errors: the effects of typographical conditions on error salience in L2 proof-reading

Cited by 3 publications

References 15 publications

Semi automated metadata extraction for preprints archives

Semi automated metadata extraction for preprints archives

Writing in a foreign language: teaching and learning

The Effectiveness of Feedback for L1‐english and L2‐writing Development: A Meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About