Using eye-tracking and interview methods, this study investigates how business communication students and editing students attend to and evaluate writing. Participants reviewed blog posts embedded with errors and judged publication readiness. While both groups visually fixated longer on errors than non-errors, business communication students were more likely to approve error-containing texts for publication. Qualitative data revealed that business communication students prioritized content while editing students prioritized surface-level issues. These findings suggest that disciplinary background informs evaluative standards, even when error-detection behavior is similar. The results carry implications for instruction in business writing and editing, especially concerning collaborative, cross-disciplinary workplace writing.
AnsonC. M.SchweglerR. A. (2012). Tracking the mind’s eye: A new technology for researching twenty-first-century writing and reading processes. College Composition & Communication, 64(Special Issue: Research Methodologies), 151–171. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc201220864
3.
AnsonC. M.SchweglerR. A.HornS. R. (2009). The promise of eye-tracking methodology for research on writing and reading. Open Words: Access and English Studies, 3(1), 5–28. https://wacclearinghouse.org/docs/openwords/v3/anson.pdf
4.
AtkinsonD.RamanathanV. (1995). Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison of L1 and L2 university writing/language programs. TESOL Quarterly, 29(3), 539–568. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588074
BeasonL. (2001). Ethos and error: How business people react to errors. College Composition and Communication, 53(1), 33–64. https://doi.org/10.2307/359061
BoettgerR. K.MooreE. L. (2018). Analyzing error perception and recognition among professional communication practitioners and academics. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 81(4), 462–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490618803740
9.
BrandenbergL. (2014). Testing the recognition and perception of errors in context. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 78(1), 74–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490614563570
10.
BremnerS. (2010). Collaborative writing: Bridging the gap between the textbook and the workplace. English for Specific Purposes, 29(2), 121–132. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ875813
11.
BrownJ. D. (1991). Do English and ESL faculties rate writing samples differently?TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 587–603. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587078
12.
ColenK.PetelinR. (2004). Challenges in collaborative writing in the contemporary corporation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 9(2), 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280410534339
13.
ConklinK.Pellicer-SanchezA. (2016). Using eye-tracking in applied linguistics and second language research. Second Language Research, 32(3), 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316637401
14.
ConnorsR. J.LundsfordA. A. (1988). Frequency of formal errors in college writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle do research. College Composition and Communication, 39(4), 395–409. https://www.jstor.org/stable/357695
15.
CostinoK. A.HyonS. (2011). Sidestepping our “scare words”: Genre as a possible bridge between L1 and L2 compositionists. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(1), 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.12.001
16.
CummingA.KantorR.PowersD. (2001). Scoring TOEFL essays and TOEFL 2000 prototype writing tasks: An investigation into raters’ decision making and development of a preliminary analytic framework (TOEFL Monograph Series N 22). Educational Testing Service. https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RM-01-04.pdf
DixonL.ThomasL. (2025). Management communication 320: Strategic insights and practical skills for modern business communication leaders. https://open.byu.edu/mcom320
19.
DoanS. (2019). Contradictory comments: Feedback in professional communication service courses. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 62(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2019.2900899
EcksteinG.CasperR.ChanJ.BlackwellL. (2018). Assessment of L2 student writing: Does teacher disciplinary background matter?Journal of Writing Research, 10(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2018.10.01.01
22.
EcksteinG.MinerS.WatkinsK.JamesJ.SimsM.BakerA.GrahlL. (2020). Reading academic citations: How professors and graduate students read for different purposes. Reading Matrix, 20(1), 1–19. https://www.readingmatrix.com/files/22-7a275130.pdf
23.
EcksteinG.SchrammW.MatthewsK. (2023). The effects of teacher background on how teachers assess native-like and nonnative-like grammar errors: An eye-tracking study. International Journal of Language Studies, 17(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7513362
EinsohnA.SchwartzM. (2019). The copyeditor’s handbook. University of California Press.
26.
ElderC.GolombekP.WeigleS. C.BoldtH.ValsecchiM. I. (2003). Effects of task and rater background on the evaluation of ESL student writing: A pilot study. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 345–354. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588510
FlowerL.HayesJ. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition & Communication, 32(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
29.
FlowerL.HayesJ. R.CareyL.SchriverK.StratmanJ. (1986). Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision. College Composition & Communication, 37(1), 16–55. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc198611246
30.
GimenezJ. (2016). Discipline-specific writing for business students: Research, practice and pedagogy. In FlowerdewJ.CostleyT. (Eds.), Discipline-specific writing (pp. 140–157). Routledge.
31.
GodfroidA.SpinoL. (2015). Reconceptualizing reactivity of think-alouds and eye tracking: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Language Learning, 65(4), 896–928. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12136
32.
GoochJ. C. (2005). The dynamics and challenges of interdisciplinary collaboration: A case study of “cortical depth of bench” in group proposal writing. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(2), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2005.849646
GubalaC.LarsonK.MelonçonL. (2020). Do writing errors bother professionals? An analysis of the most bothersome errors and how the writer’s ethos is affected. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 34(3), 250–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651920910205
35.
HairstonM. (1981). Not all errors are created equal: Nonacademic readers in the professions respond to lapses in usage. College English, 43(8), 794–806. https://www.jstor.org/stable/376679
JustM. A.CarpenterP. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329
38.
LawM. A.KrugerH. (2018). How editors read: An eye-tracking study of the effects of professional editorial experience and task instruction on reading behavior. In LacruzI.JääskeläinenR. (Eds.), Innovation and expansion in translation process research (pp. 241–266). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
39.
LeeC. H.TaftM. (2009). Are onsets and codas important in processing letter position? A comparison of TL effects in English and Korean. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(4), 530–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.002
40.
LentzP. (2013). MBA students’ workplace writing: Implications for business writing pedagogy and workplace practice. Business Communication Quarterly, 76(4), 474–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569913507479
41.
LeonardD. J.GilsdorfJ. W. (1990). Language in change: Academics’ and executives’ perceptions of usage errors. The Journal of Business Communication, 27(2), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369002700202
42.
LindseyP.CrusanD. (2011). How faculty attitudes and expectations toward student nationality affect writing assessment. Cross the Disciplines, 8(4), 1–41. http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lindsey-crusan.cfm
43.
LukeS. G. (2017). Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R. Behavior Research Methods, 49(5), 1494–1502. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0809-y
44.
LunsfordA. A.LunsfordK. J. (2008). “Mistakes are a fact of life”: A national comparative study. College Composition and Communication, 59(4), 781–806. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20457033
45.
MoshiriF.CardonP. W. (2020). An updated and expanded nationwide study of business communication courses. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 83(4), 469–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490620934043
46.
PaulsonE. J.AlexanderJ.ArmstrongS. (2007). Peer review re-viewed: Investigating the juxtaposition of composition students’ eye movements and peer-review processes. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(3), 304–335. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte20076015
47.
RaynerK. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
RaynerK.WhiteS. J.JohnsonR. L.LiversedgeS. P. (2006). Raeding wrods with jubmled lettres: There is a cost. Psychological Science, 17(3), 192–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01684.x
50.
ReichleE. D.PollatsekA.RaynerK. (2006). E-Z Reader: A cognitive-control, serial-attention model of eye-movement behavior during reading. Cognitive Systems Research, 7(1), 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2005.07.002
51.
RichK. C.EcksteinG.LynnE. (2022). Reading rate gain in a second language: The effect of unassisted repeated reading and intensity on word-level reading measures. Language Teaching Research, 22(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221012345
RobertsS. J.JonesP. (2001). Examination of how business executives use proofreading by co-workers when preparing documents. Delta Pi Epsilon National Conference: Book of Readings, pp. 103–108. Delta Pi Epsilon Society. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED458406.pdf
54.
RoundyN.ThrallsC. (1983). Modeling the communication context: A procedure for revision and evaluation in business writing. The Journal of Business Communication, 20(3), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194368302000303
55.
RubinD. L.Williams-JamesM. (1997). The impact of writer nationality on mainstream teachers’ judgments of composition quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 139–154. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90031-X
SilvaT.LekiI. (2004). Family matters: The influence of applied linguistics and composition studies on second language writing studies—past, present, and future. The Modern Language Journal, 88(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.00215.x
58.
SmithJ.BakerM. J.WildeL.McMillanS. (in press). TrackEDT: A tool for conducting editing research. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.
59.
SøbyK. F.IshkhanyanB.KristensenL. B. (2023). Not all grammar errors are equally noticed: Error detection of naturally occurring errors and implications for eye-tracking models of everyday texts. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1124227. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1124227
60.
StaubA.RaynerK. (2007). Eye movements and online comprehension processes. In GaskellM. G. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 327–342). Oxford University Press.
61.
University of Chicago. (2024). The Chicago manual of style (18th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
