I am sure that there are those who feel that proofreading is not part of the job of those who work within a library and information environment. This may be due to the time it takes to accurately proofread work, the size of the institution and the numbers of students who potentially could access such a service. Recently, I have been reading Alex Osmond’s book ‘Academic Writing and Grammar for Students’, which I thoroughly recommend. In this, Osmond (2013) actively encourages students to do their own proofreading, for the following reasons:
· Most universities don’t offer proofreading services (therefore students have to do it themselves)
· Staff don’t have the time
But the most important reason he gives is:
· Proofreading is an important skill to learn – if a student doesn’t learn how to proofread their work they will never fully develop their writing (Osmond, 2013, p. 198).
Another reason, which I particularly like, is that it is an employability skill. Within a job, you may need to write a report or produce formal writing, and therefore you need to be able to effectively proofread your own work (Osmond, 2013, p. 198). Why therefore, based on the above reasons, do I think that it’s a good idea to provide a proofreading service?
It is really appreciated by HE students who genuinely want to improve their grades. When proofreading, I never actually correct their work, but will highlight areas that I suggest they look at rephrasing or offer them suggestions of what to focus on to improve. I always try and send any work back with a detailed email that outlines certain areas that I think the student needs to improve on. I will never just correct work and write it for them. The service is designed to provide a ‘fresh’ pair of eyes to help spot mistakes.
With regards to the issue of staff time, yes, it is time-consuming to be proofreading, however one way to address this that I have found is to schedule time within my day specifically for proofreading. Another issue is one of deadlines. We’ve all been there when we’ve left something until the last minute, however by setting out some service standards it is more manageable to get work back to students in a timely fashion, and also ensures that the students know that if they send me work half an hour before their deadline I’m not going to be able to read it for them! These standards that I have come up with include the following:
· Work will be proofread within 3 days of receiving the assignment
· The subject matter, and any factual information, will not be commented on. Students are advised to consult their lecturer if they have any queries regarding the subject content.
· If students have been advised to format or reference certain things in a particular way, they are advised to follow the advice of their lecturer as they are the ones who mark the assignments.
The issue of proofreading being an important employability skill is a slightly trickier one. I am sure that there are some students who perhaps do not even read their work once all the way through before they send it, however, if by sending it to me to be proofread it ensures that they revisit their work, then I feel it is worthwhile; the service is designed to encourage students to look again at their work. When I reply, if necessary, I will attach any writing guides or include any links that I feel the students might find useful. One such link that I find myself telling students about is the University of Manchester’s Academic Phrasebank (http://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk/). This resource was invaluable to me when I was studying, and I’m sure it helped me to improve my writing. I hope that by highlighting areas of their writing that they need to improve, they take on board my comments and work harder to improve their grades.
Although the service has only been running for about six weeks, some students have already used the service on more than one occasion – so I’m taking this as a good sign that students are happy with the advice! As for the info-skills sessions, I have developed a questionnaire using Survey Monkey and will shortly start to analyse the results to gauge how the service is working and what it is achieving. Once I have looked at these results, I’ll reflect on them and see whether it is a service that is worth continuing and how it can be improved.
References:
Osmond, A. (2013) Academic writing and grammar for students. London: Sage.
The University of Manchester (2015) Academic phrasebank. Available at: http://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk/ (Accessed: 13 March 2015).
The University of Nottingham (no date) The Xerte project. Available at: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/xerte/index.aspx (Accessed: 13 March 2015).