In a message dated 28/11/05 10:52:17 GMT Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< Curiously, some colleagues seem to accept work that has been
electronically proof-corrected as the student's own, while regarding
that which has had the same job done to it by a support tutor as
'cheating'. Does the medium really make that much difference if the
outcome is the same?
>>
I'm sorry, there is no such thing as 'electronic proof reading':
- there is spellchecking within a wordprocessor which comes down to checking
that a word is in a list - often the word will not be incorect or will be the
wrong word and completely ignored because it is spelled correctly
- and there is screen reading which reads back to the user what is on screen
and requires the listener to recognise an error and correct it themselves
Both require an input from the student
Proof reading by an individual is a very different thing involving
identifying errors and intelligently correcting these and/or substituting alternatives
The outcomes are not always the same.
A more valid comparison might be between those who have a publicly funded
proof reader (at up to £60 per hour) and those that are able to use friends or
family. The second is something I guess the majority of students have done.
The point I'm making is that you can't justify proof reading on the grounds
that spellcheckers and screen readers exist. One needs to judge this against
academic criteria.
Mick Trott
|