What does past research say about proofreading

What does past research say about proofreading

PSYC 311 PROOFREADING INTRODUCTION OUTLINE 1

An Introduction Section, in Brief:

Begin with a broad description or definition (if needed) of the topic

Continue with a brief discussion of why this topic is important to study (why it matters)

Introduce general background research on the topic (not directly related to your methods,

conditions, IV/DV, etc)

Merge into research more relevant to your specific design and methodology

Spend the most time and detail discussing research that directly relates to yours (i.e. share

methodology, or were the inspiration for your hypotheses)

Conclude with the purpose of your study and hypotheses

 

PROOFREADING OUTLINE

Articles:

1: Healy

2: Riefer 91

3: Riefer 93

4: Smith

5. Wong

You must find and add others where needed!

 

 Proofreading: what it is and why it’s important (4,5)

o Professionalism, grades

 Why it needs to be studied: we are not very good at it (5)

o Not taught

o Reading is hard anyway, adding proofing makes it cognitive overload

o Top down processing (TDP): we don’t notice the details; we make

assumptions about what SHOULD be there instead of seeing what’s actually

there

 Requirements of a proofreader (4)

o Knowledge of language/education

o Attention to detail

o Patience & thoroughness

o Proof reading skills (strategies)

 

About

2/3

page

 

 

PSYC 311 PROOFREADING INTRODUCTION OUTLINE 2

 What does past research say about proofreading?

o Type of error matters?

 Contextual

 Grammatical

 Spelling only (1,2,3)

o Familiarity matters (your own work, reading someone else’s more than

once)

 This is because of TDP

 

 How do we proofread?

o Phonological (Sound) vs. Visual (1)

 Find more misspellings when visually different (a/t vs. o/e)

 Why? TDP (we look at envelope first, then sound it out only if

needed)

 

 Research on strategies to eliminate the TDP effect

o Moving pen/finger

o Using a ruler per line

o Backwards reading (2)

 Eliminates TDP as a factor

 Not effective

 Backwards and slow is best

 Results: only good for spelling, and then only if reading slow

 These finding suggest something that affects all these strategies is:

 # of times paper is reviewed?

 Reading speed?(1,2,3)

o Team vs solo (3)

 Results: team better, but didn’t matter if they worked together or

separate

 Conclusion: two proofreaders are better than one

 

About

¼ to

1/3

page

About 1 ½

pages

About

1/3

page

 

 

PSYC 311 PROOFREADING INTRODUCTION OUTLINE 3

 

o Another type of strategy, might be reading aloud. Why? Well…

 Riefer (3):

 Team: one read aloud, one read silently

 Solo: half of them read aloud, half silently

 Reading out loud (working together) didn’t make a difference

 However, Riefer notes that he didn’t actually test aloud as a variable-

it was confounded with the team/solo

 

 Therefore… the purpose of this current study

o To explore the effectiveness of reading aloud as a strategy

o To adopt Riefer’s materials (explain them!)

 But focus on just aloud/silent as strategy

 Hypothesis!

 

 

 

About 1/3

to ½ page

About 1/3

page

"Is this question part of your assignment? We can help"

ORDER NOW