讲师、语言导师和学生对学生写作校对伦理的看法

IF 1.9 1区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION Written Communication Pub Date : 2023-01-30 DOI:10.1177/07410883221146776
Nigel Harwood
{"title":"讲师、语言导师和学生对学生写作校对伦理的看法","authors":"Nigel Harwood","doi":"10.1177/07410883221146776","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Various forms of proofreading of student writing take place in university contexts. Sometimes writers pay freelance proofreaders to edit their texts before submission for assessment; sometimes more informal arrangements take place, where friends, family, or coursemates proofread. Such arrangements raise ethical questions for universities formulating proofreading policies: in the interests of fairness, should proofreading be debarred entirely or should it be permitted in some form? Using questionnaires and semistructured interviews, this article investigates where three university stakeholder groups stand on the ethics of proofreading. Content lecturers, English language tutors, and students shared their views on the ethics of various lighter-touch and heavier-touch proofreader interventions. All three parties broadly approved of more minor interventions, such as correcting punctuation, amending word grammar, and improving sentence structure. However, students were found to be more relaxed than lecturers and language tutors about the ethics of more substantial interventions at the level of content. There were outliers within each of the three groups whose views on proofreading were wide apart, underscoring the difficulty of formulating proofreading policies that would attract consensus across the academy. The article concludes by discussing the formulation and dissemination of appropriate, research-led proofreading guidelines and issues for further exploration.","PeriodicalId":47351,"journal":{"name":"Written Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lecturer, Language Tutor, and Student Perspectives on the Ethics of the Proofreading of Student Writing\",\"authors\":\"Nigel Harwood\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/07410883221146776\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Various forms of proofreading of student writing take place in university contexts. Sometimes writers pay freelance proofreaders to edit their texts before submission for assessment; sometimes more informal arrangements take place, where friends, family, or coursemates proofread. Such arrangements raise ethical questions for universities formulating proofreading policies: in the interests of fairness, should proofreading be debarred entirely or should it be permitted in some form? Using questionnaires and semistructured interviews, this article investigates where three university stakeholder groups stand on the ethics of proofreading. Content lecturers, English language tutors, and students shared their views on the ethics of various lighter-touch and heavier-touch proofreader interventions. All three parties broadly approved of more minor interventions, such as correcting punctuation, amending word grammar, and improving sentence structure. However, students were found to be more relaxed than lecturers and language tutors about the ethics of more substantial interventions at the level of content. There were outliers within each of the three groups whose views on proofreading were wide apart, underscoring the difficulty of formulating proofreading policies that would attract consensus across the academy. The article concludes by discussing the formulation and dissemination of appropriate, research-led proofreading guidelines and issues for further exploration.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Written Communication\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Written Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883221146776\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Written Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883221146776","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在大学环境中,学生写作的校对形式多种多样。有时,作家会付钱给自由校对者,让他们在提交评估之前编辑文本;有时会有更非正式的安排,由朋友、家人或同学校对。这样的安排给制定校对政策的大学提出了伦理问题:为了公平起见,是应该完全禁止校对,还是应该以某种形式允许校对?本文采用问卷调查和半结构化访谈的方法,调查了三个大学利益相关者群体对校对伦理的立场。内容讲师、英语导师和学生分享了他们对各种轻接触和重接触校对干预的道德观。三方普遍赞成更轻微的干预措施,如纠正标点符号、修改单词语法和改善句子结构。然而,在内容层面进行更实质性干预的道德问题上,学生们被发现比讲师和语言导师更放松。三个小组中的每一个小组都有局外人,他们对校对的看法大相径庭,这突显了制定能够吸引整个学院共识的校对政策的困难。文章最后讨论了以研究为导向的适当校对指南和问题的制定和传播,以供进一步探索。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Lecturer, Language Tutor, and Student Perspectives on the Ethics of the Proofreading of Student Writing
Various forms of proofreading of student writing take place in university contexts. Sometimes writers pay freelance proofreaders to edit their texts before submission for assessment; sometimes more informal arrangements take place, where friends, family, or coursemates proofread. Such arrangements raise ethical questions for universities formulating proofreading policies: in the interests of fairness, should proofreading be debarred entirely or should it be permitted in some form? Using questionnaires and semistructured interviews, this article investigates where three university stakeholder groups stand on the ethics of proofreading. Content lecturers, English language tutors, and students shared their views on the ethics of various lighter-touch and heavier-touch proofreader interventions. All three parties broadly approved of more minor interventions, such as correcting punctuation, amending word grammar, and improving sentence structure. However, students were found to be more relaxed than lecturers and language tutors about the ethics of more substantial interventions at the level of content. There were outliers within each of the three groups whose views on proofreading were wide apart, underscoring the difficulty of formulating proofreading policies that would attract consensus across the academy. The article concludes by discussing the formulation and dissemination of appropriate, research-led proofreading guidelines and issues for further exploration.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Written Communication
Written Communication COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
15.80%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Written Communication is an international multidisciplinary journal that publishes theory and research in writing from fields including anthropology, English, education, history, journalism, linguistics, psychology, and rhetoric. Among topics of interest are the nature of writing ability; the assessment of writing; the impact of technology on writing (and the impact of writing on technology); the social and political consequences of writing and writing instruction; nonacademic writing; literacy (including workplace and emergent literacy and the effects of classroom processes on literacy development); the social construction of knowledge; the nature of writing in disciplinary and professional domains.
期刊最新文献
What Is a Workplace? Principles for Bounding Case Studies of Genres, Processes, Objects, and Organizations Writing Storybooks as Storytelling: A Case Study of Two Families with Refugee Backgrounds Writing Quality Predictive Modeling: Integrating Register-Related Factors Charting RAD Research as an Orientation to Creativity in Writing Studies The Topoi of Small Business Entrepreneurship
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1