 |
 |
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