Ros,
The same problem came up in the Woolf report on LSE and Saif Gaddafi's PhD thesis and featured in the OIA's annual report for 2011 (p 5 in bold). The OIA recommended that institutions develop a policy on "permissible assistance for postgraduate study". We have not yet done this at Coventry, but it has been raised on several occasions recently and we are starting to look into it. It will not be easy to develop a policy, but it is really important that we all try to clarify at all levels of study what is acceptable practice.
Irene Glendinning
Academic Manager for Student Experience
Faculty of Engineering and Computing
Coventry University
Coventry
CV1 5FB
[log in to unmask]
+44 (0) 2476 888332
-----Original Message-----
From: Plagiarism [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hampton, Ros
Sent: 05 August 2013 08:24
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Translators and Proof Readers
Diane
Thank you for this - this question is definitely forming part of our internal debate
Ros
-----Original Message-----
From: Plagiarism [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Schmitt, Diane
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 5:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Translators and Proof Readers
Hi Ros
Well the question seems to me to be to what degree is written knowledge of English considered a graduate attribute at your university.
In my work providing in-sessional support to international students and at talks I have given on the topic of plagiarism, English language proficiency and international students, I frequently come across lecturers who state that they ignore the English and focus on the content. This makes a mockery of the work EAP staff who actively try to work with students to improve their English. If we tell students that the quality of English matters, but lecturers overlook it or it is not included in marking criteria, then to my mind, it seems difficult to argue that who writes or proofreads or translates the words on the page really matters - content is king. If content and the ability to communicate that content via English language communication skills are more equally valued then proscribing the use of proofreaders and translators may make sense.
Regards
Diane Schmitt
Diane Schmitt
Senior Lecturer
Nottingham Language Centre
Nottingham Trent University
Burton Street
Nottingham NG1 4BU
UK
0115 848 6156 (NLC reception)
0115 848 8986 (direct line)
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Plagiarism [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Hampton, Ros [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 4:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Translators and Proof Readers
Thank you Peter,
My apologies, I did not make clear that these are students who have had the opportunity to discuss their work with staff and where concerns remained after these conversations.
There is no suggestion that students are not capable of making significant improvement during their course and indeed with International students this is something we frequently see as their English skills improve during their time with us. I am only referring to very exceptional cases here.
My query really relates to what advice and guidance institutions provide for students and staff about what we mean by "proof reading" and how it should be used and also the attitudes towards the use of translators to render the students work into English.
Thanks again
Ros
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Levin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 3:44 PM
To: Plagiarism; Hampton, Ros
Subject: Re: Translators and Proof Readers
What a shame that 'a dramatic improvement in ... written work' should be met with suspicion and scepticism!
In my experience (supporting international students at LSE and more recently elsewhere) proofreading can indeed raise the level of a student's work. For example, a proofreader who does no more than ask the student 'What do you mean by that?' can stimulate a more thoughtful exposition. And a proofreader who knows what is expected in an academic dissertation may not be able - or indeed wish - to prevent the student from benefitting from this knowledge. It may be that the proofreader is simply providing the supervision that a student should have received, but did not, from his or her supervisor - given that it is a widespread failing of higher education in the UK that students are tested on their ability to do things, such as write assignments, that they have not actually been taught how to do.
I would suggest, therefore, that the institution should first of all inquire into how the 'dramatic improvement' has been brought about: in particular those doing the inquiring should look out for lessons that could usefully be incorporated into the University's practice of teaching.
I would not, of course, condone a student's submitting as their own work an assignment written by someone else, but an oral examination should reveal whether or not this is the case.
Peter Levin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hampton, Ros wrote, On 02/08/2013 13:14:
>
> Dear all
>
> I am currently looking at the advice (or lack of it) that my
> institution provides with regard to the use of translators and proof
> readers by students in preparing assessments. This has arisen during
> academic misconduct cases where there is a suspicion that a student
> has commissioned work.
>
> We have had some (only a small number) of International students who
> have claimed that they have either:
>
> *written their assignments in their first language and then had it
> translated in to English
>
> or
>
> *claimed that a proof reader has "tidied up" their writing.
>
> Either way it has resulted in a dramatic improvement in their written
> work.
>
> At the moment we do not have a clear policy with regard to either of
> these activities, we allow the use of proof readers but do not provide
> a clear definition of what this means.
>
> I'd be really interested to hear from anyone who has a view on this,
> particularly if your institution has a policy or guidance to staff and
> students on this matter. Has anyone else experienced this situation?
>
> Internally there are a range of views on this so I am interested in
> getting some wider perspectives.
>
> Many thanks
>
> Ros Hampton
>
> Head of Conduct and Appeals
>
> University of Wolverhampton
>
> 21 and Proud <http://www.wlv.ac.uk/21proud>
>
>
>
> *
> Celebrating 21 years of university status* /
> /Web: www.wlv.ac.uk/21andproud <http://www.wlv.ac.uk/21andproud>/
> /
> Twitter: #wlv21 <https://twitter.com/search/realtime?q=%23wlv21>
>
> This email, together with any attachment, is for the exclusive and
> confidential use of the addressee(s) and may contain legally
> privileged information. Any use, disclosure or reproduction without
> the sender's explicit consent is unauthorised and may be unlawful.
>
> Any e-mail including its content and any attachments may be monitored
> and used by The University of Wolverhampton for reasons of security
> and for monitoring internal compliance with the University's policy on
> internet use. E-mail blocking software may also be used. The
> University cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is
> virus free or has not been intercepted and amended.
>
> If you believe you have received this message in error please notify
> the sender by email, telephone or fax and destroy the message and any
> copies.
>
>
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6545 - Release Date:
> 08/02/13
>
> **********************************************************************
> *** You are subscribed to the JISC Plagiarism mailing list. To
> Unsubscribe, change your subscription options, or access list
> archives, visit http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/PLAGIARISM.html
> **********************************************************************
> ***
--
Scanned by iCritical.
*************************************************************************
You are subscribed to the JISC Plagiarism mailing list. To Unsubscribe, change your subscription options, or access list archives, visit http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/PLAGIARISM.html
*************************************************************************
DISCLAIMER: This email is intended solely for the addressee. It may contain private and confidential information. If you are not the intended addressee, please take no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone. In this case, please reply to this email to highlight the error. Opinions and information in this email that do not relate to the official business of Nottingham Trent University shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the University. Nottingham Trent University has taken steps to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus-free, but we do advise that the recipient should check that the email and its attachments are actually virus free. This is in keeping with good computing practice.
*************************************************************************
You are subscribed to the JISC Plagiarism mailing list. To Unsubscribe, change your subscription options, or access list archives, visit http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/PLAGIARISM.html
*************************************************************************
--
Scanned by iCritical.
*************************************************************************
You are subscribed to the JISC Plagiarism mailing list. To Unsubscribe, change your subscription options, or access list archives, visit http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/PLAGIARISM.html
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
You are subscribed to the JISC Plagiarism mailing list. To Unsubscribe, change
your subscription options, or access list archives, visit
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/PLAGIARISM.html
*************************************************************************
|
