The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
EXPLORING SECOND LANGUAGE WRITERS’ PAUSING AND REVISION BEHAVIORS: A MIXED-METHODS STUDY
Open accessAbstract
This study investigated the cognitive processes underlying pauses at different textual locations (e.g., within/between words) and various levels of revision (e.g., below word/clause). We used stimulated recall, keystroke logging, and eye-tracking methodology in combination to examine pausing and revision behaviors. Thirty advanced Chinese L2 users of English performed a version of the IELTS Academic Writing Task 2. During the writing task, participants’ key strokes were logged, and their eye movements were recorded. Immediately after the writing task, 12 participants also took part in a stimulated recall interview. The results revealed that, when participants paused at larger textual units, they were more likely to look back in the text and engage in higher-order writing processes. In contrast, during pauses at lower textual units, they tended to view areas closer to the inscription point and engage in lower-order writing processes. Prior to making a revision, participants most frequently had viewed the text that they subsequently revised or their eye gazes had been off-screen. Revisions focused more on language- than content-related issues, but there was a smaller difference in the number of language- and content-focused stimulated recall comments when larger textual units were revised.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
THE EFFECTS OF PLANNING ON FLUENCY, COMPLEXITY, AND ACCURACY IN SECOND LANGUAGE NARRATIVE WRITING
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263104261034 · Cited by 453
Keystroke Analysis: Reflections on Procedures and Measures
Baaijen, V. M., Galbraith, D., & de Glopper, K. (2012) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088312451108 · Cited by 124
Cited by
Discourse synthesis: Textual transformations in writing from sources
Nelson, N., & King, J. R. (2023) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-021-10243-5 · Cited by 61
Eye tracking technology for examining cognitive processes in education: a systematic review
Liu, X., & Cui, Y. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105263 · Cited by 59
Computer-Mediated Corrective Feedback to Improve L2 Writing Skills: A Meta-Analysis
Mohsen, M. A. (2022) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331211064066 · Cited by 56
On the role of engagement in automated feedback effectiveness: Insights from keystroke logging
Schiller, R., Fleckenstein, J., Höft, L., Horbach, A., & Meyer, J. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105386 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Révész, A., Michel, M., & Lee, M.
- Venue
- Studies in Second Language Acquisition
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2019-07
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 605-631
- ISSN
- 0272-2631 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-1545
- OpenAlex
- W2910942078
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 132.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: EXPLORING SECOND LANGUAGE WRITERS’ PAUSING AND REVISION BEHAVIORS: A MIXED-METHODS STUDY. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s027226311900024x
- The paper
- Révész, A., Michel, M., & Lee, M. (2019). EXPLORING SECOND LANGUAGE WRITERS’ PAUSING AND REVISION BEHAVIORS: A MIXED-METHODS STUDY. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. https://doi.org/10.1017/s027226311900024x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.