A Class Exercise in Proofreading: Helping Students Recognize and Correct Writing Errors, Exercises of Mechanics

Download A Class Exercise in Proofreading: Helping Students Recognize and Correct Writing Errors and more Exercises Mechanics in PDF only on Docsity! * ***************k*A.A;c*****::**************::****************** * * * *********************************************************************** DOCUMENT RESUME ED 350 613 CS 213 559 AUTHOR Conely, James TITLE A Class Exercise in Proofreading: Getting Students To Read What They Write. PUB DATE Mar 92 NOTE 7p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the College English Association (23rd. Pittsburgh, PA, March 27-29, 1992). PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150) Guides Classroom Use Teaching Guides (For Teacher) (052) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Class Activities; Error Correction; Higher Education; *Peer Evaluation; *Proofreading; Writing Improvement; *Writing Instruction; Writing Skills IDENTIFIERS Error Monitoring ABSTRACT Since students enter college with a basic knowledge of the mechanics of writing, including grammar, spelling, and punctuation, most student writing mistakes amount to a failure to see what they have actually written. Thus, instructors must help students to apply knowledge they already have and to see their own errors through careful proofreading. Textbook techniques for teaching proofreading skills are academic and impersonal, and therefore not very useful. Getting students to recognize problems in their writing is an important challenge which is best dealt with in class exercises. Small group work, in which students read and comment on the work of the other group members, is effective. In a directed class exercise, students exchange and read papers that have not been marked. They read individually without discussion with the writers, after which they must answer objective questions about the papers, such as identifying issues, topic sentences, thesis statements, and the overall organization. Then still without discussion the papers are returned to the original writers so that they can see what their readers have determined. The restriction against talking is then lifted and discussion between student and writer is encouraged. This interchange of ideas reveals strengths and weaknesses, but more importantly, students have the immediate feeu)ack that only a class exercise can provide as to how well ideas have been communicated in writing. This kind of work does not address mechanical mistakes, but deals with the more fundamental concerns of proofreading for logic and content. (HB) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement E UCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) Th is document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization oncnnatingit ommwomveshavebeenmadeto.wove rerMAuCtionqualoty Pomts of ment do not necessarily represent rWicoal OERI position or policy In AilP pr.'N NeitoPY In (r (-6 Cl : ;4 2 -PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." A CLASS EXERCISE IN PROOFREADING: GETTING STUDENTS TO READ WHAT THEY WRITE by James Conely Assistant Professor of English, Auburn University at Montgomery I begin with two debatable premises: The first is that in general, students enter college with basic knowledge of the mechanics of writing. Their mistakes of punctuation, spelling, and grammar result from carelessness or indifference moreso than ignorance of what is "correct." This is not to say that they have the knowledge of a grammarian nor that their knowledge is complete or always accurate, only that having qualified for college admission, their experience with the language is extensive enough to have at least a sense of how it works and an awareness of most of the basic mechanics of how to write it. This premise may be a leap of faith, but I believe it to be true nonetheless. The second premise is that writers--in this case our students--should be their own best teachers with ability to evaluate and improve their own writing. In other words, they should be competent proofreaders. This is fundamental because competent proofreading, meaning looking for more than just mechanical mistakes, reveals the success of all the other steps of the writing process. Therefore, the ultimate objective of a college composition course should be to develop this ability in our students. Otherwise, they remain dependent, unable to write successfully on their own. I arrive at these premises because most student misstatements, inconsistencies, and _naccuracies I see do not show inadequate knowledge of BEST COPY AVAILABLE 4 purpose of writing is to communicate completely by the written word rather than spoken. This, then, is an opportunity for students to find out if they have done so. Then I ask students to write brief answers to questions I ask about the papers they are reading (not their own). The questions ask for only objective observations--not judgements of quality nor interpretations of meaning: For example, identify the thesis statement (if it is a thesis assignment); identify the topic sentences of paragraphs; label the overall pattern of organization if it can be determined--if not, say so; cite any place in which the idea of one sentence is not clearly related to the ideas of the sentences before and after; note any conclusion, assumption, or generalization stated without support; note any "support" that doesn't in fact support or that is expressed too poorl, to understand; determine whether the conclusion of the paper concludes what the introduction introduces; and so on. At this point, none of these items asks for suggested corrections, only identification of what the reader finds. Besides providing an objective response for the writers, this has the additional advantage of reinforcing basic writing principles since this kind of reading involves analysis of those principles. Students then return the papers with their written responses to the writers, and still without discussion they see what their readers have determined. If, for example, a reader identifies a thesis different from the one the writer intended, then the writer knows that it is not clear or well stated. It could be, of course, that the problem is with the reader rather than the writer--always a risk with this technique. But even if this occurs, the writer has the real experience of finding out how another person reads what they have written and then considering whether and how to write more 6 5 clearly, accurately, and convincingly. At this point, I remove the restriction from talking and encourage discussion between writer and reader to explain what was found and share suggestions for improvement. The interchange of ideas reveals strengths as well as weaknesses, but more importantly, students have the immediate feedback that only a class exercise can provide about how well they have communicated in writing. Because their readers in this exercise are fellow students, they are more receptive to the reports on their papers than comments from the instructor only, who they may think is just being unreasonable or unnecessarily demanding or whose comments just may not make sense to them. Variations of this exercise are useful throughout the course with the directed questions varying according to the schedule of particular elements or types of writing studied. But timing in the course does need to be considered--not before students understand the writing principles they will review in their fellow students' papers, and not after the last opportunity to demonstrate in another assignment their own ability to proofread their own writing. This approach is only a first step toward independent proofreading. By itself, it clearly does not guarantee that students will have the desire and ability to handle the problems of writing on their own. It specifically does not address mechanical mistakes. I leave that for the moment to others. But this kind of group work does deal with the more fundamental concerns of proofreading for logic and content in a way which makes sense to students and which they accept. Without guarantees, it at least increases the likelihood of sharpening students' awareness of their own potential. No teaching technique can overcome sloppy thinking or careless preparation, but I find 7 6 that this class exercise is an effective way to help students recognize their own problems and the need to resolve them. Works Cited Gefvert, Constance J. The Confident Writer: A Norton Handbook. New York: Norton, 1985. Hunt, Douglas. The Riverside Guide to Writing. Boston' Houghton, 1991. Millward, Celia. Handbook for Writers. Second edition. New York: Holt, 1983.