 |
 |
Dear John, > Presumably electronic proof reading in this case means editing the text using > the "track changes" facility in WORD. I use "Track Changes" very often with UG and PG students, and it works very well. Also, we can insert written comments or voice comments in any word document (go to insert--comment), and we can write/say do you mean A or do you mean B? Often, as we highlight that there are different ways of interpreting what the students write, students are very quick to self-correct, and go on to explain that what they really mean is C. > One would hope that the student would then check through hall the changes - > but I'd bet most would simply "accept all changes". I do not agree with you here. Most students will not "accept all changes", as they may be fatigued and want to get on with it, but they have not lost their analytical and critical capacities. Students know very well what they want to say, but they do not always write in a way that is clear for others to understand. > This is very dangerous as we often find it almost impossible to understand > what a serious dysleixc means in some sentences, and that situation demands a > dialogue, preferably face to face! I agree with you that a dialogue needs to take place. As some of our students are on placement away from Bath or doing part of their PhD field work abroad, we arrange to discuss what is not clear by phone- Skype is great. Hope this informs the debate, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Margarida Dolan PhD Phone: 0044(0)1225 383241 Learning Support Tutor and Staff Developer Fax: 0044(0)1225 386709 Learning Support Service University of Bath Claverton Down, Bath BA2 7AY, UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The views and comments expressed in this email are confidential to the recipients and should not be passed on to others without permission. This email message does not necessarily express the views of the University of Bath and should be considered personal unless there is a specific statement to the contrary. Quoting John Conway <[log in to unmask]>: > Presumably electronic proof reading in this case means editing the text using > the "track changes" facility in WORD. > One would hope that the student would then check through hall the changes - > but I'd bet most would simply "accept all changes". > > This is very dangerous as we often find it almost impossible to understand > what a serious dysleixc means in some sentences, and that situation demands a > dialogue, preferably face to face! > > John. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Trott > Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 5:16 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Dyslexia support -Proof reading > > 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 >