I feel fairly sure that what we need is a highly developed, subtle and
complex differentiation of meaning between the words 'proof-reading'
and 'sub-editing' though the brethren of the print media (I 'gender'
that with due care) may scoff at our abuses. I'm pretty
sure we could all agree definitions that would mark out
'proof-read' as 'Hmm, okay' and subbing as 'Oooh, very
bad'. I'll kick off. Interestingly, the definition of proof-read in the
concise OED looks more like what Janet wants:
"proof-read v.tr. (past and past part. -read)
read (printer's proofs) and mark any errors."
Iain
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 13:35:24 +0100 "Boyce, Mark" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> The point of helping dyslexic students develop their grammar skills is to
> ensure that they are more able to present their ideas in a written format.
> For most, if not all of the dyslexic students that I see, the most
> frustrating thing that they have to deal with is expressing their ideas in
> writing. Quite often it is attempting this and failing that causes most
> students to withdraw from their course.
>
> Whereas alternative forms of assessment will help elevate this problem in
> the short-term, most students I see would actually like to improve their
> writing skills to an extent where they are receiving parity with other
> students and not being marked differently "because they are dyslexic".
>
> I had a student come to me today to tell me their final degree grade. He
> received a 2:2, which I thought he would be disappointed with. However, he
> was actually over the moon, because he had got a first for his dissertation,
> something he never in his whole life thought he could achieve.
>
> The motivational factor of overcoming something that has proven to be a
> major obstacle for most of their life seems, to me and most students I work
> with, to far outweigh the extra time they spend accessing support.
>
> Mark Boyce
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Hill [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 09 June 2003 13:16
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Sympathetic marking
>
>
> Hi
>
> I'm sometimes amazed at how eager people are to impose a remedial
> support model on adults affected by dyslexia. Dyslexia IS a disability.
> There is no evidence that I'm aware of that demonstrates that adult
> dyslexia is remediable. Dyslexia is not a temporary 'glitch'. It's not
> a consequence of sloppy work and is (probably) not a result of inaquate
> teaching at school which can somehow be adressed at HE level.
>
> Students with dyslexia attend university to study the course of their
> choice, not to improve their literacy skills. I know that such
> students' literacy skills probably will improve during the 3 or 4 years
> at uni, but how many of them can afford to spend hours every week
> engaged in 'naughty corner' grammar and spelling correction excercises?
>
> How many of those with severe literacy difficulties would benefit - even
> slightly - from such activity. None, I suspect. Most would simply drop
> out.
>
> Having to focus so determinedly on the mechanics of transcription can
> intefere significantly with the content of the material as it is
> composed. Even if work is proofread thoroughly, students work is
> unlikely to reflect their full ability. So, just how does proofreading
> give them an unfair advantage? How do you approach the work of student
> who has written a 3000 word essay and who has a 10% (or even a 20%)
> error rate?
>
> The sort of strategies advocated by the 'remediators' seem simply to
> deny the existence of the student's dyslexia.
>
> Deaf and VI students face communication barriers. Support at uni aims
> to support those students in finding ways around those barriers. Why
> should support for dyslexic students be regarded differently?
>
> Regards
>
> Peter Hill
>
>
>
> Skinner J.P. wrote:
> > Keith
> >
> > I feel very strongly that dyslexia tutors should not proof read
> > students' work or alter students' work in any way at all. It is fine
> > to provide editing skills that will enable students to correct their
> > own work, but not to correct it for them. That would be giving the
> > students an unfair advantage, in my opinion. On an individual basis
> > we do talk through coursework with students and point out any errors
> > of grammar and sentence structure, and explain why it is wrong - we
> > do not offer alternatives. Perhaps that is the same thing and it is
> > the term 'proof reading' which is being interpreted differently! I
> > perhaps read more into the term than you do - proof reading could be
> > seen as just pointing out mistakes and not correcting them.
> >
> > Janet ---------------------- Janet Skinner Co-ordinator of Dyslexia
> > Services University of Southampton 9 University Crescent
> > [log in to unmask] 023 80595 562 (internal 25562) Dyslexia Services
> > Reception 023 8059 2759 (internal 22759) [log in to unmask]
> >
>
> --
> 01905 753439
> [log in to unmask]
> www.study-pro.com
>
> Dyslexia Consultancy and Resources
----------------------
Iain Hood
Senior Student Adviser, Learning Support
[log in to unmask]
Student Support Services
Anglia Polytechnic University
East Road
Cambridge
CB1 1PT
01223 363271 ex 2316
|