The goal of this study was to record the reactions of 14 business people after having read a text with purposefully placed errors. More accurately, the goal was to derive the severity of reactions to certain types of errors of writing in a post-academic setting. An emphasis was placed on the impact on the ethos of the author.
The reasoning behind doing the study was that students will eventually finish their academic career, at which time what is expected of them, as far as writing, is changed - because the audience is changed. The stated change of audience is from professors and teachers to bosses and colleagues. Also, as the article states, the purpose of being taught how to write in college is to be effectively understood through writing when finished with college.
The errors placed within the text consisted of: fragments, mis-spellings (one lesser mis-spelling and three very apparent mis-spellings), fused sentences, and quotation mark errors.
To record the responses, there was a written survey followed by an interview done personally by the researcher (Beason).
The study found, or at least suggested, that "the extent to which errors harm the writer's image is more serious and far reaching than many students and teachers might realize."
My response to this? Of course it effects the writer's image negatively. I don't see how this effect is underestimated. If I read something pot-marked with errors, both apparent and hard to notice, I'd question the intelligence of the author - at least their literary intelligence. Especially in today's world of word processors and spell check, mistakes are hard to make. As I write this, my browser, Mozilla Firefox, informs me of my errors. Just earlier I spelled "realize" as "realise". That is how easy it is to correct yourself. Automated correcting programs aside, I can still see how a constant barrage of mistakes in a writing can negatively effect the audience's view of the author. It's almost the same effect that a Professor at Oxford would get when talking to a family of backwoods hillbillies.
Of course, with that analogy in place, feel free to call me Dewayne Leroy Jenkins.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Alright, Dewayne. Do you think the subjects of the study would have been as 'bothered' by the errors if they had not been pointed out for them?
Yep. They would have most definitely been annoyed by the blatant typo-like mis-spellings. Actually, even the fragments would have annoyed them. Basically, anything that slaps one in the face as wrong probably annoyed them. ;p
Dear Dewayne Leroy,
I believe it is "pockmarked" (as in a face scarred by small pox), not "pot marked."
Spellchecker
Leeerooy Jeeenkiiins! Please tell me that was a WoW reference, or I just made myself look even more like an idiot.
Steve,
I agree. I was wrong. But it would be much more hardcore to have big pot-holes in your face than small pock scars.
I don't know if spell checker will notice mis-used phrases. At least not if I put a space between pot and marked.
Rachel,
I don't know if the WoW reference was intended, but I'm sure the name wouldn't come off the top of anyone's head without having seen that video.
Post a Comment