No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Proofreading, Its Value, and Its Place in the Writing Center
Abstract
For the purposes of this paper, proofreading will be defined as the final step of revising a paper. The paper describes what one writing lab, the Writing Center at the University of Connecticut, does to provide students with one-to-one help with their writing. It explains that services in the center include individual tutorials, a grammar hotline, campus workshops, a resource library, and support for writing groups. It points out, however, that writing centers steer clear of anything that verges on plagiarism, and so staff members shy away when it comes to proofreading. The paper notes that since the goal of the writing center is to improve the writer and not the writing, editing and proofreading are deemed inappropriate. It then discusses why proofreading needs to be incorporated in a tutoring session once global issues have been resolved and how it can be made an integral part of the writing center. It states that proofreading is a necessary skill for anyone who writes, and a writing center would be that much more beneficial to students if it could help them to develop this skill. (Contains 15 references.) (NKA)
... Writing Support Services: The prevalent philosophy behind writing centers today is to produce better writers, not better writing, (Rossini, 2002). Tutors are expected to serve as interpreters and guides by focusing on writing as process and refraining from helping with editing or proofreading (Beaupre, 2000;Chromik, 2002). In reality, students seeking help from tutors want a better product and writing centers must find ways to meet students' expectations while staying true to their more idealistic philosophy. ...
... In his 1984 work, The Idea of a Writing Center, North embraces the tenets of process theory (Rossini, 2002), exemplified by rejection of the writing center as a fix-it shop in favor of a place where students can get help for writing academic discourse while tutors serve as interpreters and guides to foster an atmosphere of validation and collaboration (Beaupre, 2000). In practice focusing on writing as a process rather than a product frequently bans editing and proofreading from tutoring sessions, although this is partly why many students choose to visit the writing center (Chromik, 2002). Ten years after publishing his seminal work, North retracted his idealistic view of writing tutors as "unobtrusive" coaches in realization that students seeking help from tutors wanted a better product. ...
... Comments from some students suggested that they were planning on using the writing center for editing purposes, which conflicted with the center's holistic mission of providing feedback foremost on the ideas and structure of a paper. The literature also indicates that most students approach tutors for help with editing and proofreading, although this conflicts with the process over product approach (Chromik, 2002). Instead of using the writing center as a fix-it shop, there was an expectation in English composition that students find other resources, such as friends or family members to help them proofread, especially if they had difficulties finding errors on their own. ...
... Writing centers provide a list of proofreaders for those who want only fix-it services for their writings and explain the rationale of the no proofreading policy. Many tutors recognize the needs and the benefits for the sentence-level proofreading practice for the novice writers as well (Chromik, 2002;Corbett, 2013;Hawthorne, 1999;Nordlof, 2014). However, the tension between the tutor and the tutee over proofreading and the dilemmas that the tutors experience, especially with the first time visiting tutees and L2 writers are still ongoing issues for the work of the writing center (Harwood, 2018;Harwood, et al., 2010Harwood, et al., , 2012Kim, 2018aKim, , 2018b. ...
As the focus of the writing instruction in the writing center moved from product to process, the practice of the writing instruction has changed from the traditional error-correction to the collaborative social process. No proofreading is the major policy of the writing instruction in the university writing center. However, oftentimes, the tutees who bring the concerns of mechanical issues in their writings to the writing center are confused about the no proofreading policy as a rejection to the assistance they look for. In this regard, this study examines how the no proofreading policy is enacted during tutorials, i.e., how the proofreading practices are enacted during the actual tutorials in the writing center. How do the proofreading practices look when they do not violate the center’s policy? How do they look when they do violate the center’s policy? In order for the proofreading practice to be an acceptable to the center’s policy, the tutee’s interactive engagement is required for the work of problem solving in their talk in interactions during tutorials. By examining the structural details of the talk and interactions for the work of proofreading practices during tutorials, this study aims to understand the pedagogy of writing instruction that the contemporary writing center pursues.
... In academic language and learning (ALL), proof reading is regarded as altering a students" text or at least directing them where the alteration is needed (McNally & Kooyman, 2017). In McNally and Kooyman"s (2017), they mentioned that there is a national-wide consensus of universities stating "no proof reading" services for their students, yet academic advisors are still asked for such service and some will succumb to such request due to various reasons and this deemed as inappropriate (Chromik, 2002). Due to inconsistencies with the mere definition could cause confusion not only among academics but the proof readers themselves. ...
It is a well-known idea that Non-Native English Speakers (NNES) often try to find ways to assist writing. Perhaps, the most common assistance would be feedback from their supervisors or support from their peers. However, certain students with means, would go the extra mile of employing proofreaders to help improve their writing. This study is part of a longitudinal narrative study involving five international postgraduate students in a UK university where the theme of proofreader and/or proofreading had become an academic dilemma on whether it should be permitted at all. The findings showed both positive and negative assumptions from the participants. A participant who scored well with the help of proofreaders learnt the university’s writing conventions from her ‘mistakes’. Another participant who was academically weaker however, expected her writing to be ‘translated’ into the university’s writing conventions along with grade improvements. Other participants deemed such gesture as immoral and blamed the university for not banning such services, putting less financially able students at a ‘disadvantage’.
... In academic language and learning (ALL), proof reading is regarded as altering a students" text or at least directing them where the alteration is needed (McNally & Kooyman, 2017). In McNally and Kooyman"s (2017), they mentioned that there is a national-wide consensus of universities stating "no proof reading" services for their students, yet academic advisors are still asked for such service and some will succumb to such request due to various reasons and this deemed as inappropriate (Chromik, 2002). Due to inconsistencies with the mere definition could cause confusion not only among academics but the proof readers themselves. ...
It is a well-known idea that Non-Native English Speakers (NNES) often try to find ways to assist writing. Perhaps, the most common assistance would be feedback from their supervisors or support from their peers. However, certain students with means, would go the extra mile of employing proofreaders to help improve their writing. This study is part of a longitudinal narrative study involving five international postgraduate students in a UK university where the theme of proofreader and/or proofreading had become an academic dilemma on whether it should be permitted at all. The findings showed both positive and negative assumptions from the participants. A participant who scored well with the help of proofreaders learnt the university"s writing conventions from her "mistakes". Another participant who was academically weaker however, expected her writing to be "translated" into the university"s writing conventions along with grade improvements. Other participants deemed such gesture as immoral and blamed the university for not banning such services, putting less financially able students at a "disadvantage".
... Proofreading (i.e., the ability to detect and correct errors in texts) is one of the consequential components of learning to write (Chromik, 2002). It is a highly crucial topic in writing research both in L1 and L2 writing. ...
This study examined the role of error-type and working memory (WM) in the effectiveness of direct-metalinguistic and indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) on self error-correction in first-language writing. Fifty-one French first-year psychology students volunteered to participate in the experiment. They carried out a first-language error-correction task after receiving WCF on typographical, orthographic, grammatical, and semantic errors. Results indicated that error-type affected the efficacy of WCF. In both groups, typographical error-correction was performed better than the others; orthographic and grammatical error-correction were not different, but both were corrected more frequently than semantic errors. Between-group comparisons showed no difference between the two groups in correcting typographical, orthographic, and grammatical errors, while semantic error-correction was performed significantly better for the direct group. Results revealed that WM was not involved in correcting typographical, orthographic, and grammatical errors in both groups. It did, however, predict semantic error-correction only in response to direct-metalinguistic WCF. In addition, the processing component of WM was predictive of semantic error-correction in the direct WCF group. These findings suggest that error-type mediates the effectiveness of WCF on written error-correction at the monitoring stage of writing, while WM does not associate with all WCF types efficacy at this stage.
... One way to raise tutees' awareness, according to Kim, is through collaborative negotiations to achieve mutual understanding about 'what' and 'how' tutors work with writing centre tutees. Collaborative and joint discussions could promote mutual understanding because proofreading practices in writing centres are deemed inappropriate (Chromik, 2002). It is therefore not surprising that the proofreading trap was found repeatedly in the interview data of the two tutors. ...
Academic discourse is highly complex and requires writers to follow specific writing conventions. Many Saudi university students have underdeveloped writing skills (Al-Khairy, 2013). One way to assist second language (L2) learners and develop their academic writing skills is through academic language support offered by writing centres. The challenge for writing centre tutors lies in the predominant belief among many L2 students that tutors’ only role is to fix students’ mistakes. Although there has been significant growth in writing centres in Saudi universities, the perceptions of writing tutors concerning tutoring non-native students are still under-researched. This study uses thematic analysis to explore the role of writing tutorials as perceived by writing centre tutors in Saudi settings. Data were obtained using an interpretive inquiry through individual interviews of two tutors. The main findings of the interviews were that tutors perceived proofreading requests, low writing proficiency of tutees and tutees’ understanding of tutors’ role as influencing their tutorial practices. The implementation of this study may help regulate the role of tutors in writing centres in Saudi universities by highlighting new avenues that can improve writing tutorials, especially in Saudi Arabia.
... Being skilled in detecting errors in texts is important in everyday life, as it constitutes a critical component in learning to read and write (Chromik, 2002). Proofreading, another term for effectuating such an ability, is a complex cognitive activity involving both language-specific processes and high-level cognitive processes relating to attention and problem-solving (Brunyé, Mahoney, Rapp, Ditman, & Taylor, 2012;Hacker, Plumb, Butterfield, Quathamer, & Heineken, 1994). ...
The present research studied the role of the non-executive and executive components of working memory in the detection of phonological, orthographical, and grammatical spelling errors. Before performing error detection tasks, undergraduate participants completed a battery of tasks to evaluate their non-executive (verbal and visuospatial storage) and executive (coordination of verbal and visuospatial storage, and processing; strategic retrieval from long-term memory; effortful shifting) functions supporting working memory. The analyses found that phonological errors were better detected than grammatical errors, followed by orthographical errors. Visuospatial storage and coordination of verbal storage and processing were significant predictors of the detection of phonological and orthographical errors. Effortful shifting was a significant predictor only of the detection of orthographical errors, while strategic retrieval from long-term memory was the only predictor of the detection of grammatical errors. Generally, in the verbal domain, the executive component of working memory appeared to be more involved than the non-executive component, whereas in the visuospatial domain, the non-executive component appeared to be more involved than the executive component.
... An examination of writing center literature shows that North's idea about the library resource center having a place in the writing center has also become a historical constant (see Olson,1984;Simpson, 1985;Harris, 1992;Chromik, 2002, Childers, 2006Baker, 2018). In the same year of North's article, for example, Olson (1984) similarly wrote, "stock[ing] the center . . . ...
This paper presents the results of a genre analysis of reviewers’ reports on research manuscripts submitted for publication consideration in refereed journals. Following the methodology developed in Swales (1981) and Bhatia (1993), 64 reviewers’ reports were examined in terms of their schematic structure. The component moves were identified and their linguistic signals were highlighted. We concluded that the nature of reviewers’ reports, being personal and evaluative in nature, necessitates the use of the first- person writer pronoun (“I”), qualitative adjectives and premodifying adverbs. The results also show that the ‘evaluation’ move is lengthier, in terms of the number of words used, than the other moves in the reports since it represents the main communicative purpose of the report. Evaluation is couched in three different ways: explicit, implicit and flagged. A strong relationship is established between the reviewers’ cooperation with the manuscript writer and the final decision provided in the ‘position’ move. That is, the more questions a reviewer raises, the less favourable the decision is going to be, and the more suggestions for improvements are given, the more positive the ‘position’ move is going to be.Points and/or issues that reviewers look for are singled out and the linguistic features pertinent to the moves and the steps used for their realization are identified. The study concludes with some guidelines for cooperative and successful reviewing.
Points and/or issues that reviewers look for are singled out and the linguistic features pertinent to the moves and the steps used for their realization are identified. The study concludes with some guidelines for cooperative and successful reviewing.
Key words: genre analysis, review-reports, schematic structure,
... More recent display curvature studies have also used a variety of tasks including proofreading (Park et al., 2016a;Choi et al., 2018), reading (Häkkinen et al., 2008;Mustonen et al., 2015;Na et al., 2015), visual searching (Lin et al., 2009;Park et al., 2017;Wang et al., 2012), visual discrimination (Wang et al., 2007), computer tasks (Czerwinski et al., 2003;Ling et al., 2016;Robertson et al., 2005), and video or image watching (Mun et al., 2015;Ohtsuka et al., 2016;Park et al., 2016b;Yi et al., 2015). Of these, proofreading -a combination of reading and writing (Chromik, 2002;Enos, 2010) -is a fundamental ability for VDT tasks (Stevens, 2005;Alshare et al., 2011) and belongs to the analysis sub-category within the six major daily office task categories (Kalvelage and Dorneich, 2016). Proofreading has been frequently used as an ecologically valid task when investigating the effects of visual display properties (e.g. ...
This study examined the effects of display curvature and task duration on proofreading performance, visual discomfort, visual fatigue, mental workload, and user satisfaction. Five 27″ rear-screen mock-ups with distinct curvature radii (600R, 1140R, 2000R, 4000R, and flat) were used. Ten individuals per display curvature completed a series of four 15 min comparison-proofreading trials at a 600 mm viewing distance. Only proofreading speed benefited from display curvature, with 600R providing the highest mean proofreading speed. Proofreading speed increased and accuracy decreased for all display curvatures over the 1 h proofreading period. Visual discomfort, visual fatigue, and mental workload increased during the first 15 min of proofreading. A decrease in critical fusion frequency during that period indicated increases in visual fatigue and mental workload. A short break between 15 min proofreading tasks could be considered to prevent further degradation of task performance and ocular health.
... More recent display curvature studies have also used a variety of tasks including proofreading (Park et al., 2016a;Choi et al., 2018), reading (Häkkinen et al., 2008;Mustonen et al., 2015;Na et al., 2015), visual searching (Lin et al., 2009;Park et al., 2017;Wang et al., 2012), visual discrimination (Wang et al., 2007), computer tasks (Czerwinski et al., 2003;Ling et al., 2016;Robertson et al., 2005), and video or image watching (Mun et al., 2015;Ohtsuka et al., 2016;Park et al., 2016b;Yi et al., 2015). Of these, proofreading -a combination of reading and writing (Chromik, 2002;Enos, 2010) -is a fundamental ability for VDT tasks (Stevens, 2005;Alshare et al., 2011) and belongs to the analysis sub-category within the six major daily office task categories (Kalvelage and Dorneich, 2016). Proofreading has been frequently used as an ecologically valid task when investigating the effects of visual display properties (e.g. ...
This study examined the effects of display curvature (400, 600, 1200 mm, and flat), display zone (5 zones), and task duration (15 and 30 min) on legibility and visual fatigue. Each participant completed two 15-min visual search task sets at each curvature setting. The 600-mm and 1200-mm settings yielded better results than the flat setting in terms of legibility and perceived visual fatigue. Relative to the corresponding centre zone, the outermost zones of the 1200-mm and flat settings showed a decrease of 8%e37% in legibility, whereas those of the flat setting showed an increase of 26%e45% in perceived visual fatigue. Across curvatures, legibility decreased by 2%e8%, whereas perceived visual fatigue increased by 22% during the second task set. The two task sets induced an increase of 102% in the eye complaint score and a decrease of 0.3 Hz in the critical fusion frequency, both of which indicated an increase in visual fatigue. In summary, a curvature of around 600 mm, central display zones, and frequent breaks are recommended to improve legibility and reduce visual fatigue.
... The aging world population has bolstered research into how age affects common cognitive abilities. Proofreading is an important everyday skill which is a crucial component of reading and writing instruction (e.g., [1,2]) and a required ability in the modern workplace (e.g., [3,4]); understanding how age affects proofreading ability has implications for how we support workers and learners throughout the adult lifespan. ...
Proofreading text relies on stored knowledge, language processing, and attentional resources. Age differentially affects these constituent abilities: while older adults maintain word knowledge and most aspects of language comprehension, language production and attention capacity are impaired with age. Research with young adults demonstrates that proofreading is more attentionally-demanding for contextual errors which require integration across multiple words compared to noncontextual errors which occur within a single word. Proofreading is also more attentionally-demanding for text which is more difficult to comprehend compared to easier text. Older adults may therefore be impaired at aspects of proofreading which require production, contextual errors, or more difficult text. The current study tested these possibilities using a naturalistic proofreading task. Twenty-four young and 24 older adults proofread noncontextual (spelling) and contextual (grammar or meaning) errors in passages that were easier or more difficult to comprehend. Older adults were preserved at proofreading spelling errors, but were impaired relative to young adults when proofreading grammar or meaning errors, especially for difficult passages. Additionally, older adults were relatively spared at detecting errors compared to correcting spelling errors, in keeping with previous research. Age differences were not attributable to individual differences in vocabulary knowledge or self-reported spelling ability.
... For most people, proofreading is associated with "making sentence-level revisions" that include "check- ing for errors of grammar, punctuation, spelling, cita- tions, word choice and...also finding typographical errors" (Chromik, 2002, p. 1). The underlying assump- tion is that if the product requires work, it involves pri- marily fixing mechanical and usage errors. ...
This article describes a process for proofreading with podcasting for elementary and middle school bloggers. The podcasting and blogging technologies engage two senses, hearing and seeing. In addition, the audio and text are merged through the voice of a reader, rather than that of the student. Proofreading in this way is used not as a final step to check primarily for errors but rather as a more complex literacy that includes writing, higher order thinking, and learning to identify with the audience members and their needs as readers. We called this process “proof‐revising” to distinguish how it evolved from basic proofreading to a complex literacy.
تصف هذه المقالة عملية مراجعة القراءة في مجال بث ملفات سماعية أو بصرية عبر الشبكة العالمية (بود كاست) لمدوني طلاب الابتدائية والإعدادية. تشغل تقينة البود كاست والتدوين حاستي السمع والنظر وبالإضافة إلى ذلك يتم جمع الصوت والنص في صوت قارئ بدلاً من الطالب وبهذه الطريقة لا تُستخدَم مراجعة القراءة أساساً كالخطوة الأخيرة من أجل تفتيش عن الأخطاء إنما تُستخدَم كنوع معقد من المعرفة تشتمل فيها على الكتابة والتفكير العالي المستوى وربط الإحساس بإحساس الجمهور وحاجاتهم كقراء. وقد سمينا هذه العملية ((مراجعة منقحة)) كي نميز تطورها من مراجعة القراءة العادية إلى عملية معقدة من التعلم.
本文描述有关中、小学生博客利用播客发布音频文件的校对过程。播客与博客科技是需要使用听觉和视觉两这种感觉官能。音频与文本的融合，是通过读者的声音，而不是通过学生的声音，文件的校对因此就不是为了核对错误的最后程序，而却成为一个更复杂的读写学习过程，其中包含了写作、高层次思维、学习与读者产生共鸣和认同作为读者的需要。我们把该读写学习过程称为「校对修订」，以识别出这方法是如何由基本的校对过程演化成为复杂的读写学习过程。
Cet article décrit un processus de correction d'épreuves lors de téléchargements par des bloggeurs élèves de l'élémentaire et de collège. Les technologies de téléchargement et de blog engagent deux sens, l'audition et la vision. De plus, l'audio et le texte passent par la voix d'un lecteur, plutôt que par celle de l'élève. La correction d'épreuves par ce moyen est utilisée non pas comme une étape finale pour vérifier principalement des erreurs mais plutôt comme une littératie plus complexe qui inclut écriture, pensée de haut niveau, et apprentissage à s'identifier avec le public et ses besoins en tant que lecteurs. Nous avons appelé « correction d'épreuves » ce processus pour mettre en évidence son évolution de la correction d'épreuves de base à une littératie complexe.
В статье описано, как учащиеся начальной и средней школы, которые имеют Интернет‐блоги, содержащие письменные (живой журнал) и звуковые (подкастинг) тексты, могут корректировать свои посты. Подкастинг и письменные блоги требуют работы как зрения, так и слуха. Кроме того, восприятие аудиотекстов и написанных текстов требует интерпретации текста читателем, а не автором. Поэтому корректура подобных текстов – это не просто проверка ошибок. Здесь задействованы более сложные навыки грамотности, такие как письмо, мышление высокого порядка и умение соотнести себя с аудиторией и понять потребности читателей. Мы назвали этот процесс “корректурой‐редактированием”, чтобы подчеркнуть его отличия от обычной проверки и исправления ошибок.
Este artículo describe un proceso que les permite a bloggers en escuelas primarias e intermedias corregir pruebas usando podcasting. Las tecnologías de podcasting y blogging emplean dos sentidos: el oído y la vista. Además, el sonido y el texto se combinan en la voz del lector en vez de la del estudiante. Esta manera de corregir pruebas no se usa como el último paso para revisar errores sino más como una competencia más compleja que incluye la escritura, el pensamiento a nivel alto, y el aprender a identificar con el público y lo que necesitan como lectores. Llamamos este proceso ‘proof‐revising’ para diferenciar su evolución de corrección de pruebas a una competencia compleja.
... What might or should be acceptable interventions by LAs in student work is a contentious issue, however (e.g. McLaine, 1997, p. 456;Chromik, 2002), and will not form a focus of this paper. Rather, we will take it as given that many LAs or their equivalents around Australia and further afield do work with students on texts that are still to be assessed, and so will focus mainly on the second and third questions raised above. ...
This study examined the role of error-type and working memory (WM) in the effectiveness of direct-metalinguistic and indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) on self error-correction in first-language writing. Fifty-one French first-year psychology students volunteered to participate in the experiment. They carried out a first-language error-correction task after receiving WCF on typographical, orthographic, grammatical, and semantic errors. Results indicated that error-type affected the efficacy of WCF. In both groups, typographical error-correction was performed better than the others; orthographic and grammatical error-correction were not different, but both were corrected more frequently than semantic errors. Between-group comparisons showed no difference between the two groups in correcting typographical, orthographic, and grammatical errors, while semantic error-correction was performed significantly better for the direct group. Results revealed that WM was not involved in correcting typographical, orthographic, and grammatical errors in both groups. It did, however, predict semantic error-correction only in response to direct-metalinguistic WCF. In addition, the processing component of WM was predictive of semantic error-correction in the direct WCF group. These findings suggest that error-type mediates the effectiveness of WCF on written error-correction at the monitoring stage of writing, while WM does not associate with all WCF types efficacy at this stage.
Asian ESP Journal
This paper presents the results of a genre analysis of reviewers’ reports on research manuscripts submitted for publication consideration in refereed journals. Following the methodology developed in Swales (1981) and Bhatia (1993), 64 reviewers’ reports were examined in terms of their schematic structure. The component moves were identified and their linguistic signals were highlighted. We concluded that the nature of reviewers’ reports, being personal and evaluative in nature, necessitates the use of the first- person writer pronoun (“I”), qualitative adjectives and premodifying adverbs. The results also show that the ‘evaluation’ move is lengthier, in terms of the number of words used, than the other moves in the reports since it represents the main communicative purpose of the report. Evaluation is couched in three different ways: explicit, implicit and flagged. A strong relationship is established between the reviewers’ cooperation with the manuscript writer and the final decision provided in the ‘position’ move. That is, the more questions a reviewer raises, the less favourable the decision is going to be, and the more suggestions for improvements are given, the more positive the ‘position’ move is going to be.
Points and/or issues that reviewers look for are singled out and the linguistic features pertinent to the moves and the steps used for their realization are identified. The study concludes with some guidelines for cooperative and successful reviewing.
This article attempts to describe the most frequent types of errors French-speaking university students commit when they
produce and revise a text, as well as the types of strategies leading to their errors. Twenty-four first-year university students
were asked to produce metagraphic comments, i.e., to verbalise their thought processes, during revision and production. More
errors are left in the text to revise than in the text to produce. The most frequent error in both tasks is syntax; to those
mistakes are added sequence of tenses and vocabulary problems in revision, grammatical agreement, and spelling in production
of text. Errors are often left without arousing a problem solving strategy, especially in revision. The most common strategy
that leads to errors is the use of a metalinguistic procedure that shows incorrect or insufficient knowledge. Students' strategies
vary according to the type of problem at stake. Their linguistic competence predicts the number of errors remaining in the
text produced but not in the revised text; it predicts poorly the type of strategies that are chosen. Those results suggest
that students’ linguistic problems seem to be mainly due to a lack of knowledge rather than to problems in accessing that
knowledge. The study therefore emphasises the importance of structured work on language till the university level.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.