Proofreading is a life skill – let’s treat it like one
Universities shouldn’t assume their students know what proofreading is and how to do it. Here’s how to create a more inclusive learning environment – by listening to students
Academic integrity is fundamental to institutional reputation and ensuring quality output. Intentional misconduct is something all universities need a robust approach to deal with – and most do.
But dealing with the much wider problem of unintentional misconduct consumes already limited resources, and can be highly distressing – even career-ending – for students. In many cases, students find themselves on the receiving end of misconduct proceedings without a clear sense of what they have done wrong.
An assumption that anyone who has enrolled in university will share an academic’s understanding of proofreading and review – and the difference between the two – fails to account for the diversity of experience and background represented on the average campus. Even worse, institutions can fail to make resources on academic proofreading accessible to students.
A listening exercise
We decided to investigate how institutions across the UK facilitate student understanding about academic proofreading – or don’t. Along with our students, we aimed to explore how to combat intentional and unintentional misconduct – and how to know the difference between the two.
- Improving academic writing skills to boost student confidence and resilience
- Focused freewriting is the cure for students’ writer’s block
- Pausing playback: training students to read and take notes in online classes
Our study, which involves investigators from seven universities, their respective students’ unions and student participants from 10 institutions, was student union-led rather than being led by academics, the conventional gatekeepers of what is and isn’t intentional misconduct. By taking academics a step away from the focus of the research – students – the study exposed the limitations of current approaches, and shed light on how even the definition of proofreading can mean different things to different people.
Certain groups, international and first-generation home students in particular, didn’t always understand a narrow, academic definition of proofreading. Many simply understood the term to mean a spelling, grammar and sense check. Few had read or even accessed their own institutional policies or guidance on proofreading – if those resources were even available (more on that later) or, when permitted by their institution, sought help with proofreading their work.
It became clear that students were falling into traps unintentionally set by their institutions.
Giving students a voice
Unintentional misconduct is not a new problem. But previous attempts to understand its scale, and to tackle it, have tended to be academic-led, as are so many examinations of university policy and procedure.
But a new way of thinking is emerging, built around the phrase “nothing for us, without us”, originally coined by disability activists. By giving students a voice and agency in shaping the academic environment on campus, universities can improve the student experience and the quality of their output in one fell swoop.
However, many consultative initiatives that include students and their unions struggle to effect real change, because the very presence of academics in focus groups or behind on- or offline surveys skews the data. Simply put, the academic in the room, no matter how kind and empathic, can put students, particularly those in higher-risk groups, on their guard.
Our experience with efforts to improve accessibility and equity in proofreading has shown that distancing academics from the conversation and putting students front and centre generated much more honest, frank and insightful feedback.
This allowed us and the other project leads to condense our findings not only into a report, but into a set of guidance materials, for students and by students, on what academic proofreading is, how to proofread yourself and how to tailor your approach to your own strengths and weaknesses.
Widening access boosts success
Within higher education itself, there is a wide range of institutional policies regarding proofreading. Some institutions permit third-party proofreading services and others ban them outright. Most aggravating for the investigators were the institutions whose proofreading policies and guidance lay behind firewalls, making them inaccessible to students. Conceivably, a student could have their degree rescinded and be expelled from an institution for inadvertently violating a proofreading policy their home institution had actively prevented them, or their third-party adviser, from accessing.
Even in the cases where proofreading policies were available, they were often lengthy, dense and archaic. Academia has its own long-established habits that are alienating to new arrivals, whether it’s the fondness for using Roman numerals, sprinkling Latin or Greek terms in English-language publications, or simply using highly specialised language to talk about topics, such as plagiarism, which need to be clearly articulated.
Proofreading is a life skill. No matter if it is a dissertation or a covering letter for a job application, students need to emerge from universities equipped to proofread and critique their own work, and optimise it to its audience. Ensuring that students have the best opportunities possible to produce high-quality, thoroughly proofread work maximises their potential and enriches academic and graduate prospects.
Allowing students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to flounder, simply because “they should know better”, benefits nobody.
An easy fix
A kinder, more effective approach to proofreading is not particularly difficult to implement.
Standardise a proofreading policy and make it freely available to students. Facilitate understanding of what constitutes best practice and tailor that approach to institutional policy. Make guidance truly accessible and user-focused, dispensing with or clearly explaining technical terms within policy as written and explained.
These ideas sound like common sense, yet our initiative shows that many UK institutions are failing to get them right.
The QAA Project has created a website with available resources for institutions seeking to make improvements in this area, including downloadable resources such as a tips and tricks poster, a simple slide deck to guide students on developing their individual approach to proofreading and a podcast that also explores how institutions can respond to the emerging challenge of generative AI in a way that protects academic integrity without penalising students for using assistive technology effectively.
By listening to students, institutions can improve the quality of their academic output, the employability of their graduates, focus resources on actually intentional misconduct, and improve the student experience.
Our future reputations may depend on it.
Sandie Dann is professor of materials chemistry and Kit Messinger is head of LSU Advice, both at Loughborough University.
If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.