Good Practice Guideline on
Proof-Reading
Introduction
This good practice guideline was prepared by the plagiarism working group in
2007, and approved by UTLC in May 2007. It will be subject to period review.
Background
Learning from mistakes is one of the key ways in which student learning takes
place. That principle applies to skills in expressing oneself in writing as much as it
does to any other area. It also applies to the use of correct citation technique, a
skill many disciplines place great emphasis upon. If submitted work has been
substantially revised by a proof reader and/or the proof reader has made
corrections to ensure correct citation, this does not help students improve their
own skills and make them more employable, as it simply hides their
shortcomings, rather than remedying them. The growth of professional proof
reading services advertised to students is therefore a major concern.
It is unrealistic to take the line that all proof reading is unacceptable. For instance
spell checking is a form of proof reading that we advise our students to use.
Furthermore checking for spelling and grammatical errors only would not be
seen by many academics as a serious problem; modern computer software offers
this service. Many students may ask friends to read through their essays and
make comments, exactly what academics do with a draft paper intended for
publication and read by colleagues, in order to seek general feedback or to have
particular errors pointed out. It follows that unless the learning outcomes and
assessment criteria for a particular module or degree explicitly preclude any proof
reading beyond use of a spell check, proof reading that is limited to identifying
errors in spelling, grammar and citation is in principle acceptable. After all this is
what spell and grammar checking software does. However, in all cases, where
proof reading starts to shade over into the proof reader actually undertaking the
writing or re-writing of the whole or a part of the work, this is clearly unacceptable.
The key principle relates to the role the proof reader plays, rather than to whether
the proof reader is a professional or is paid for his/her services. If the proof
reader has impact upon the content, structure or expression of ideas in what
is written, that is unacceptable. There is thus a clear difference between proof
reading which only identifies deficiencies and does not raise serious questions
about whether the work is the student’s own, and proof reading which involves
major rewriting and correction of the assignment. It has been suggested that
students should be required to sign a declaration that the work submitted is their
own and it would clearly be dishonest to sign this where a proof reader had done
more than correct spelling and grammatical errors. If a proof reader has re-written
the work, then it is not the student’s own work.
However, knowing where to draw the line in practice is not easy. We might view
proof reading as being on a continuum, at one of end of which are proof reading
practices which all would accept as legitimate. At the other end are practices
which all would agree are unacceptable. However, there is a considerable
amount of disputed territory in the middle.
No form of words can ever provide us with a watertight rule which can easily be
enforced in any case. We cannot get away from the fact that in this area there will
be difficult judgements to be made and that there will be practical problems in
enforcement. However, there is still value in having a clear principle which is
made known to staff and students alike.
Guidance
This matter needs to be decided on a case by case basis.
The use of proof reading solely to highlight deficiencies such as spelling and
grammatical errors, but with no impact on the content of the work, would normally
be acceptable, as the work is still demonstrably the student’s. However, where
proof reading goes beyond this to make corrections, improve the clarity of the
argument, to alter content or to correct poor citation this is not acceptable, as the
intellectual ownership of the work ceases to be the student’s. It is clearly
unacceptable for such work to be submitted as the student’s own work and is
demonstrably unfair.
The above paragraph sets out a general principle. Academic staff may
sometimes want to make explicit variations to this in relation to particular pieces
of assessed work e.g. saying that no proof-reading at all is acceptable because
the skill of writing is the key matter being assessed; allowing more substantial
proof-reading support on an early formative piece of work on a programme with a
large number of international students. Such exceptions must be made clearly
and explicitly to students.
It is important that students are advised in degree programme handbooks and
other appropriate places about what in principle is and is not generally
acceptable. Students should be encouraged to seek advice from their lecturer or
seminar leader if they are in any doubt as to what is permissible.
Disabled/Dyslexic Students
Background
Disability Support does not offer a proof reading service as such. However
the Service does offer students 1:1 specialist support which is tailored to
individual weaknesses and learning styles. This tuition develops
academic skills and also general skills (such as time management and
organisation). Within this specialist support an element of proof reading
does occur. Students with dyslexia have problems expressing their ideas
clearly in writing and tend to wander from the main point or fail to explain
the point clearly and this is addressed by the tutor asking them to clarify
what they are talking about.
Exception for some disabled/dyslexic students
An exception may need to be made where for example Disability Support
identifies that a dyslexic student requires proof reading as part of a course
of specialist multisensory tuition to develop literacy skills. During tuition
students may be guided at times by the dyslexia tutor in order to clarify
their arguments and explain these points, but only in so much that they
are identifying their own deficiencies and correcting these themselves.