hkr.sePublications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Publications (10 of 39) Show all publications
Johansson, V., Johansson, R. & Wengelin, Å. (2015). Handwriting and typing: a comparison between written product and writing processes. In: : . Paper presented at IAIMTE konferens i Odense 3–5 juni 2015.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Handwriting and typing: a comparison between written product and writing processes
2015 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-14691 (URN)
Conference
IAIMTE konferens i Odense 3–5 juni 2015
Available from: 2015-09-23 Created: 2015-09-23 Last updated: 2018-01-11Bibliographically approved
Grenner, E., Braaksma, M., Johansson, V., Åkerlund, V., Asker-Àrnason, L., van de Weijer, J. & Sahlén, B. (2015). Improving narrative skills through observational learning. In: : . Paper presented at Conference on writing research (CoWR), Amsterdam, 27-29 Aug 2014.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Improving narrative skills through observational learning
Show others...
2015 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation only (Refereed)
National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-14699 (URN)
Conference
Conference on writing research (CoWR), Amsterdam, 27-29 Aug 2014
Available from: 2015-09-23 Created: 2015-09-23 Last updated: 2018-01-11Bibliographically approved
Johansson, V., Johansson, R., Frid, J. & Wengelin, Å. (2015). Looking on and away from the word currently being typed in expository text writing. In: : . Paper presented at Conference on writing research (CoWR), Amsterdam, 27-29 Aug 2014.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Looking on and away from the word currently being typed in expository text writing
2015 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Visual feedback from the writer’s own emerging text is generally assumed to be an important component in the process of writing. For instance, in Hayes’ (1996) model it is considered to be critically involved in the subprocesses of monitoring and revision. Despite this, few empirical investigations have actually addressed this issue and in contrast to general expectations contemporary research by Oxborough and Torrance (2012) suggests that visual feedback from the text may in fact not be essential for the production of coherent texts. However, research (e.g. Johansson et al 2010) shows that writers indeed monitor their texts during writing, and that there is a relation between editing behavior and the amount of time spent looking at the text. One question is which role the visual input has for the writer, since it is does not seem to be necessary for text production, in other words: what do the writer do when she look at the text during writing. Visual feedback from an emerging text can roughly be divided into two categories of gaze behavior: fixations concurrent with keyboard typing and fixations during pauses (when no keys are struck). The current study focuses on the former and used a combination of eye-tracking and keystroke logging to collect data for 14 relatively automatized touch typists when they wrote an expository text for 30 minutes. Collapsed over all participants, this rendered 26 349 instances where a keystroke occurred concurrent with a fixation on the emerging text. Of those keystrokes 18 450 belonged to text production and 4188 to text deletions (e.g. backspaces). On average, 87 % of the text production keystrokes were performed with fixations on the word currently being typed and with a mean location of 6 characters to the left of the inscription point. For the deletion keystrokes, corresponding measures were 68 % and 6 characters to the left of the inscription point. This means that the remaining keystrokes (13 % during text production and 32 % during deletions) occurred together with more distant fixations on previous text segments. While it has been argued that fixations on the word currently being typed are related to monitoring and error correction (Torrance & Wengelin, 2010) very little is known about the role of fixations away from the word currently being typed, and even less whether the visual feedback they provide are useful at all. Qualitative explorations of those instances in the present dataset suggest that they are indeed useful and frequently appear to be associated with referential cuing and content generation.

National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-14700 (URN)
Conference
Conference on writing research (CoWR), Amsterdam, 27-29 Aug 2014
Available from: 2015-09-23 Created: 2015-09-23 Last updated: 2018-01-11Bibliographically approved
Grenner, E., Johansson, V., van de Weijer, J., Asker-Árnason, L., Åkerlund, V. & Sahlén, B. (2015). Observational learning and narrative writing: improving text quality for children with and without hearing impairment. In: : . Paper presented at IAIMTE konferens i Odense 3–5 juni 2015.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Observational learning and narrative writing: improving text quality for children with and without hearing impairment
Show others...
2015 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Emily Grenner & Joost van de Weijer & Lena Asker-Árnason & Victoria Johansson & Viktoria Åkerlund & Birgitta S.M. Sahlén The aim of this intervention study is to investigate if observational learning can improve narrative writing skills in 11-year-olds with and without hearing impairment. Observational learning occurs when people learn new skills from observing others, who act as models (Bandura 1997). Observing peers’ reading and writing is especially important since these processes often are invisible, and children therefore lack models for their own processes. This study was theoretically and methodologically inspired by Rijlaarsdam et al. 2008.  Participants consisted of Swedish 5th-graders from two schools (School A, n=33; and School B, n= 26) with normal hearing children (NH), and from 3rd to 8:th-grade children with hearing-impairment (HI), from “hearing classes” (n=18). Prior to the intervention, background data e.g., on working memory and linguistic background was collected. In the research design the two schools with NH children (School A and B) functioned as each other's controls. The HI-school followed the School A order. All participants first wrote a personal narrative on the computer, using keystroke-logging. Then the intervention followed for School A and HI-school, while School B received ordinary lessons (with no writing instructions). After the first intervention period, all participants wrote a new narrative. Thereafter, the intervention was replicated for School B, while School A and the HI-school had ordinary tutoring. After the second intervention period, all participants wrote new narratives. The intervention consisted of 5 thematically different lessons: Lesson themes were: reader perspective, chronological structure, closing elements, revising of a peer’s text and online revision.  To evaluate the text quality, all texts (n=231) were holistically rated by three independent, trained evaluators. The results showed an improvement in quality between text 1 and text 2 for School A and the HI-School, while School B had an improvement between text 2 and text 3. This shows that narrative text quality can be improved by a short series of carefully designed intervention lessons using observational learning, which contributes to the discussion about educational methods for teaching writing.  Further analyses will address quantitative measures of text length, lexicon, syntactic complexity, pausing and editing, as well as a comparison between the NH and HI group.

National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-14693 (URN)
Conference
IAIMTE konferens i Odense 3–5 juni 2015
Available from: 2015-09-23 Created: 2015-09-23 Last updated: 2018-01-11Bibliographically approved
Johansson, V. & Palviainen, Å. (2015). Pausing during narrative writing: a comparison between L1 and L2 writers. In: : . Paper presented at Conference on writing research (CoWR), Amsterdam, 27-29 Aug 2014.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Pausing during narrative writing: a comparison between L1 and L2 writers
2015 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-14701 (URN)
Conference
Conference on writing research (CoWR), Amsterdam, 27-29 Aug 2014
Available from: 2015-09-23 Created: 2015-09-23 Last updated: 2018-01-11Bibliographically approved
Johansson, V., Gustafsson, P., Johansson, R. & Wengelin, Å. (2015). Reader-awareness in adult writers: an investigation of university students at a creative writing-program. In: : . Paper presented at Conference on writing research (CoWR), Amsterdam, 27-29 Aug 2014.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Reader-awareness in adult writers: an investigation of university students at a creative writing-program
2015 (English)Conference paper, Poster (with or without abstract) (Refereed)
National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-14702 (URN)
Conference
Conference on writing research (CoWR), Amsterdam, 27-29 Aug 2014
Available from: 2015-09-23 Created: 2015-09-23 Last updated: 2018-01-11Bibliographically approved
Torrance, M., Johansson, R., Johansson, V. & Wengelin, Å. (2015). Reading during the composition of multi-sentence texts: an eye-movement study. Psychological Research
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Reading during the composition of multi-sentence texts: an eye-movement study
2015 (English)In: Psychological Research, ISSN 0340-0727, E-ISSN 1430-2772Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Writers composing multi-sentence texts have immediate access to a visual representation of what they have written. Little is known about the detail of writers’ eye movements within this text during production. We describe two experiments in which competent adult writ- ers’ eye movements were tracked while performing short expository writing tasks. These are contrasted with condi- tions in which participants read and evaluated researcher- provided texts. Writers spent a mean of around 13 % of their time looking back into their text. Initiation of these look-back sequences was strongly predicted by linguisti- cally important boundaries in their ongoing production (e.g., writers were much more likely to look back imme- diately prior to starting a new sentence). 36 % of look-back sequences were associated with sustained reading and the remainder with less patterned forward and backward sac- cades between words (‘‘hopping’’). Fixation and gaze durations and the presence of word-length effects sug- gested lexical processing of fixated words in both reading and hopping sequences. Word frequency effects were not present when writers read their own text. Findings demonstrate the technical possibility and potential value of examining writers’ fixations within their just-written text. 

We suggest that these fixations do not serve solely, or even primarily, in monitoring for error, but play an important role in planning ongoing production. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2015
Keywords
Writing, eye tracking, reading during writing, text composition
National Category
Applied Psychology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-14669 (URN)10.1007/s00426-015-0683-8 (DOI)
Projects
Reading during writing, Gaze behaviour during writing
Available from: 2015-09-23 Created: 2015-09-23 Last updated: 2017-12-01Bibliographically approved
Johansson, V., Gustafsson, P. & Wengelin, Å. (2015). Revising and pausing in relation to syntactic development. In: : . Paper presented at EARLI 2015: Towards a reflective society. Synergies between learning, teaching and research. Limassol, 25-40 Augustii 2015.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Revising and pausing in relation to syntactic development
2015 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

The aim of this paper is to explore revision by recording how editing patterns develop with age and experience. The data consist of 135 expository texts, collected in an experimental setting, using key-logging that records the writing, including editing and pausing behaviour. The participants were divided into five age groups: 10-year-olds (n=20), 13-year-olds (n=20), 15-year-olds (n=20), 17-year-olds (n=20) and adult university students (n=55). A subgroup of the adults (n=16) consisted of ‘experts’ who worked with texts professionally. This investigation focusses on the 7 051 pauses which occurred in connection with editing, here defined as the use of delete, arrow keys or mouse. The ‘editing pauses’ were coded for grammatical context, preceding and following the pause. Findings reveal that several editings often occur together, and that this phenomenon increases with age and expertise. For all groups, editings occur to a great extent between sentences. However, writers from 17-year-olds and upwards, are more mobile, i.e. they are not solely concerned with editing the immediately written text, but the changes are being carried out on a more global text level. In the group of ‘expert adults’, sometimes more than 40 % of the total writing time is devoted to editing the previously written text. The findings in this study show clearly that the editing behaviour develops far into adulthood. Educationally, this has implications for teaching methods on writing in general and on text editing in particular

National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-14690 (URN)
Conference
EARLI 2015: Towards a reflective society. Synergies between learning, teaching and research. Limassol, 25-40 Augustii 2015
Available from: 2015-09-23 Created: 2015-09-23 Last updated: 2018-01-11Bibliographically approved
Johansson, V. (2015). The writer and the reader: advanced writers’ cognitive processes during writing. In: : . Paper presented at Skriv! Les! Nordisk Forskerkonferanse om lesing, skriving og literacy, Stavanger, 18–20 maj 2015..
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The writer and the reader: advanced writers’ cognitive processes during writing
2015 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

In their seminal writing model from 1981, Hayes & Flower identify three main components: planning, translation and reviewing. However, it is unclear how aware the writer is about the importance of these processes during writing, and what a writer herself would identify as her most important writing processes. It is also uncertain if different processes are in focus during different stages in the development of writing. Bereiter & Scardamaila’s (1987) model of knowledge tellers and knowledge transformers, in combination with Kellogg’s (2008) addition of knowledge crafters describes a development from a writer who is interested in telling everything from beginning to end, to a writer who modifies and edit her text, to a writer who has focus on the reader’s experience of the text.

In this study in-depth interviews were used to find out how advanced writers think about their own writing processes. We were particularly interested in the writer’s shift from the text (knowledge transformer) to the reader’s experience of the text (knowledge crafter).

We recruited 16 participants from a university program for creative writing. Most, if not all, aim at becoming professional authors. All participants volunteered to take part in a writing experiment in the beginning of their 2-year-program. However, this study focuses on the second part of the study: interviews about their views and definition of writing. More specifically the open questions dealt with their thoughts on editing, planning, reading and how “present” the reader was during their writing processes. Their answers were contrasted to a group of established authors (n=7) who got the same questions. The findings so far indicate that the students to a much less degree than the established authors planned their writing project on a global level. The students were further more concerned about their own exploration of their writing than what a potential reader may think about the text. A difference in the student group found between those few who had previously worked professionally with writing (e.g. journalists), where the awareness of the future reader were equally present as in the group of established authors.

The results give room for different reflection on the students’ views on planning and the reader:

1.The students may take their education in creative writing as an opportunity to explore their own writing processes, and thus putting less emphasize on both the global planning of the text and the potential readers’ reactions. In a different context they may be more concerned about the reader.

2.The students were in the beginning of their education during these interviews. The program put great effort in letting their students meet and receive reader reactions to their texts. Consequently, a follow-up interview by the end of the program may reveal a different awareness of the reader.

This study gives a contribution to the field of life-long learning and development of writ-ing. It will also add important knowledge for the development of teaching methods for adult writers.

National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-14695 (URN)
Conference
Skriv! Les! Nordisk Forskerkonferanse om lesing, skriving og literacy, Stavanger, 18–20 maj 2015.
Available from: 2015-09-23 Created: 2015-09-23 Last updated: 2018-01-11Bibliographically approved
Johansson, V., Wengelin, Å., Johansson, R. & Frid, J. (2014). Comparing the writing processes in writing with and without the triple task. In: : . Paper presented at Writing Across Borders, WRAB, Paris 19–22 Feb 2014.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Comparing the writing processes in writing with and without the triple task
2014 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-14710 (URN)
Conference
Writing Across Borders, WRAB, Paris 19–22 Feb 2014
Available from: 2015-09-23 Created: 2015-09-23 Last updated: 2018-01-11Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/victoria.johansson@ling.lu.se

Search in DiVA

Show all publications