Hi
Following up from Mike and Julian's
responses.
Mike said,
"The real question is what is being assessed and how is
learning supported. If ability to write graduate level English is vital, a
proof reader is not acceptable, and Learning Support units needs to be
resourced properly to provide this service free for all, if the lecturer
cannot; if admissions have accepted a student's level of English is
sufficient, then the institution has to support that student. If the ability
to construct an assignment individually is critical, most support is
inappropriate. If in depth knowledge of the discipline is required, is an
essay the best form of assessment?"
First, it is important that everyone understands that
the English language levels set by most universities are market-led rather
than based on research and experience of the level of English students need to
get the maximum benefit out of English-medium HE. Most UK universities
require an IELTS score of 6.5 (some allow students to enter with IELTS 6.0)
which is an average of four skill scores for reading, writing, speaking and
listening. This is the minimum entry requirement for coping
with university study and in my experience most students arrive having just
met this minimum rather than exceeding it. A student
with an IELTS writing score of 6.5 should be able to coherently express ideas
about general subjects based on personal opinions, but is unlikely to be adept
at idiomatic use of English, or sophisticated (university-level) expression of
ideas. Not all students will have IELTS 6.0 or 6.5 in writing
unless university entry requirements specifically stipulate minimum scores for
each of the four skills assessed on the test. Second, it is important to
recognize that once students arrive in university, most stop studying English
to focus on studying their chosen subject. English study is normally
seen as a means to an end – the end being getting the IELTS score needed to be
accepted into university. Few students and universities recognise that
students need to continue to actively and explicitly focus on English language
if they are achieve a level of proficiency that will enable them to get a
graduate level job which requires regular use of English upon receipt of their
degree.
Most students would claim to be time poor and
international students are even more so, so when English language or writing
support is given we have to focus on talking about and working with the
assignments students are writing for their modules or they just won’t
come. This is “at the point of need” teaching and it is essential for
many students’ success. However, if universities are assessing “the
ability to construct an assignment individually” then clearly even university
sanctioned support services are crossing over this line. For me that’s a
problem, because we let them in, but have set the goal posts beyond
reach.
Now as to Julian’s point that " Traditional essay-type
assessments assume (in my view correctly) that if you can't express yourself
clearly then you haven't properly understood what you are trying to talk
about.", this is problematic when we think about international students.
Very often these students do fully understand key concepts in their
discipline, but do not have the necessary repertoire of English to convey that
understanding despite having met the MINIMUM entry requirement of the
university. If they are able to work with a tutor, friend, or family
member who can help them with the expression of their ideas then they can
demonstrate content learning and can even do so in a sophisticated way that
matches their level of education. It is important that those responsible
for setting policies that prescribe or proscribe the level of support
students can access take account of the cognitive challenge of writing
about challenging subject matter in a second language, especially when the
subject matter is new. Content and language are vying for the same
limited cognitive capacity and the scaffolding provided by support from a
critical friend, be that tutor, friend or family member may be just the
support a student needs to bring a so-so assignment up to the level
which is not just coherent but also sophisticated.
International students want to produce work that is more
than just “good enough” to pass and we in the university should also want them
to be able to express themselves at levels that meet the communication goals
for graduates of British universities. Given the starting English
language level of most students, this won’t happen by magic. It requires
teaching, practice and interventions that go far beyond proofreading.
The learning curve for international students is steep and the
traditional UK system of having few high stakes writing assignments bunched up
at the end of semesters or years doesn’t provide the practice students
need. In my view, students shouldn’t be penalised for seeking out
the support they need to achieve the marks they deserve.
Regards
Diane
Diane Schmitt
Chair of BALEAP
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]
-----Original Message-----
From:
Plagiarism [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Wells, Julian
Sent: 05 August 2013 08:52
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject:
Re: Translators and Proof Readers
Dear all,
I think two rather different issues are being conflated
here:
(1) coherent expression of ideas
(2) idiomatic use of English
I have read a good few pieces of work that were
perfectly understandable and displayed a level of understanding that was good
or better, but could by no means be mistaken for the work of a native speaker
of English.
In other words, they achieved (1), but not
(2).
On the other hand list members will have read all too
many pieces of work by native English speakers which clearly failed (1), and
arguably failed
(2) also.
The problem is the degree to which writing and thinking
are part of the same process, namely understanding and explaining ideas, and
developing new ones.
Traditional essay-type assessments assume (in my view
correctly) that if you can't express yourself clearly then you haven't
properly understood what you are trying to talk about.
This is a quite different matter to idiomatic use of
language, which at one level is a matter of technical skill (though I'm very
open to the claim that it also involves understanding also).
In relation to the question posed I suggest that the
answer depends on the level of study. For UG (and probably taught masters)
"proof-reading" ought not to be allowed; for work that is supposed to be of
publishable quality (PhDs, and possibly masters dissertations), then
proof-reading -- but what is really meant is copy-editing -- might be
acceptable. For PhDs this might be at the post-viva stage, and possibly even
be a required correction?
Best wishes,
Julian Wells
Dr Julian Wells
Director of Studies
Department of Economics
School of Economics, History and Politics Faculty of
Arts and Social Sciences Kingston University Penrhyn Road Kingston upon
Thames
KT1 2EE
On 05/08/2013 08:24, "Hampton, Ros" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>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
>***********************************************************************
>**
>
>This email has been scanned for all viruses by the
MessageLabs Email
>Security System.
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the
MessageLabs Email Security System.
*************************************************************************
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
*************************************************************************