 |
 |
Hi everyone, I've read these postings with great interest as our unit here at Bradford is trying to sift through the mixed messages students often get from different learning experiences, tutors and institutions about proof-reading. We offer extensive 121 and e-advice (where we do look at entire works in progress, rather than little snapshots of 400-500 words) and have clear guidelines for students on what constitutes proof-reading, why we don't do it and what we offer instead. Like others, we also have a resource giving proof-reader contacts if the student still feels they really need to have their work professionally proof-read. We also run workshops, on how to effectively edit and proof-read your own work, to try to empower students so that they feel confident proof-reading for themselves. What I was wanting to know is whether or not anyone has any 'proof-reading buddy' style schemes? How do people see it working if students are teamed up with other students to check one another's work? It's something we've thought about trying here but haven't yet taken it forward. Russell Russell Delderfield Academic Skills Adviser & Emotional Intelligence Specialist Learner Development Unit University of Bradford BD7 1DP Tel: 00 44 1274 236794 Email: [log in to unmask] Web: www.brad.ac.uk/developme _____ From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alec Gill Sent: 07 February 2008 11:49 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Proof reading policy Dear All, Following upon the email below from my colleague (Peter Wilson at the SAS in Hull), I would simply direct readers to our web study guide on the topic of Proof-Reading at: http://www.hull.ac.uk/studyadvice/resources/acadw/01pdfs/proofread.pdf This is one of many study guides to be found via our 'Big Table' at: http://www.hull.ac.uk/studyadvice/serv_info/reso_bigtable.htm Good Luck with your endeavours. From: Alec Gill Study Advice Service Tutor / Web Designer at The University of Hull www.hull.ac.uk/studyadvice [log in to unmask] 01482.466149 MyWeb www.hull.ac.uk/php/cesag From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter M Wilson Sent: 06 February 2008 18:23 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Proof reading policy Hi. Of course students want proof-reading! So do I, sometimes... positively no prizes for spotting typos in this mail. The easy way out is always a temptation, and anyone under stress will be tempted. Including those fragile beings called students. We don't do proof-reading here at Hull - we frequently say so (and frequently have to say so) to students. Except, of course, that we do. Our basic work is based on half-hour appointments with students: usually we look at a draft, or an essay returned with negative feedback and disappointing mark, with the student. The brief I give myself is 'teaching the student how to write better'. I do this by working from the evidence in front of me, and asking the student why this error is here, 'did you know that this was slang?' or 'what does this mean?', etc, etc. It's best to guide the student to spotting error, which can often be done by asking her or him to read a given sentence aloud. (The resulting giggles can be quite rewarding.) This is, in a strict definition, a form of proof-reading. But it is also teaching, which is what I think I do. I don't think teaching can proceed without an element of amending a student's efforts [By 'teaching', I hasten to add, I mean essentially helping learners to learn.] In our case, the 'proof-reading' is limited by the half hour. Students who are basically fine can have most of an assignment read in this time; some non-native speakers get much more teaching, and very much less proof-reading (= error-spotting), in that I can spend the whole time on one page of the draft or less - including disquisitions on principles such as the uses of the article, or the importance of pronouncing the endS of wordS, or the difference between the plural of nounS and of verbs, or fine semantic distinctions. In that time, as in all [good] teacher/learner encounters, the human interaction takes over, and I trust leads to each learner making some progress in learning. I do not think I materially add to the mark of the piece under discussion; I DO hope that I improve the marks for assignments written throughout the rest of the course. (I have some feedback from departments that this actually happens.) It is this human interaction - and the essentially personal nature of writing (and learning)that leads me to believe that the work is best done one to one. Although this is undeniably more expensive than teaching classes, my own belief is that is vastly more cost-effective. I note that it is opposite to Sarah Williams' point: "We have also established a policy of doing no 1:1 work, only seeing learners in groups within courses or in workshop situations for specific study skills lessons: we certainly find this cuts down the problem of being 'approached'.", and I wonder about UWIC's funding of student support. Their use of on-line seems to me to be quite like our face-to-face in one way - that it must mean a very elastic time allocation to each student, and will involve a personal interaction. We also offer some on-line help, but I always advise students that half an hour face-to-face is much better value for them than the hour that the Study Advice Service gives me to work with an on-line query (not least because I am a slow and careless typist, and much of the time is swallowed up by my proof-reading my own work (usually in slapdash style).) Can you tell that I have not had many appointments this evening? I have certainly started thinking about this issue again. I suppose that in the end I am happy to rely on my own sense of professionalism and of ethics to stop me doing improper thingsa for satudents. That might not be enough for any rexternal assessor, of course. Incidentally, does anyone else use the "Track Changes" option in the Reviewing Tolbar in Microsoft Word for on-line work? I find it very helpful and easy - and a good sop to my conscience, in that I occasionally throw in a question into a Comment in order to make the student think (and to avoid actually making a correction). I always SAVE such a text as AMENDED [filename - date], and edit the Properties to include [edited PMW] in the author field. I started doing this when I was doing quite a lot of poof-reading [nice typo] as a private job, and wanted to keep some record that I was being an ethical teacher and not an unethical writer. I have never actually been challenged. Peter Peter Wilson Adviser in Academic Writing and Study Skills Study Advice Service University of Hull _____ From: learning development in higher education network on behalf of Hazel C. Nicholson Sent: Wed 06/02/2008 15:22 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Proof reading policy Dear all, Hello! I'm new in post and am trying to establish a clear policy around the issue of proof-reading essays. Although I am clear that this is not a service I am going to offer, some students seem to expect that I will do so. Does anyone have a clear policy that works in managing student expectations around this issue, while still encouraging them to seek support for problems with spelling, punctuation and grammar? I had wondered about offering to look at around 500 words of text, but not whole essays. Also, I am unclear about whether it is appropriate to offer a more comprehensive service for students with English as an additional language - does anyone have any advice on this? Many thanks, Hazel Hazel Nicholson Learning Adviser Bishop Grosseteste University College Lincoln LN1 3DY Tel: 01522 583663 (Direct line) Email: [log in to unmask] Email <http://www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems> has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service Bishop Grosseteste University College values people and promotes equal opportunity. The information contained in this E-mail is confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Access to this E-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, copy, distribute or disclose the E-mail or any part of its contents or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the Postmaster at [log in to unmask] or telephone the IT Services Department on 01522 583664. As Bishop Grosseteste University College cannot accept responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of this E-mail or attachments, we recommend that you subject these to your virus checking procedures prior to use.