名古屋高等教育研究

第 24 号 （2024）

Research Note

Writing Support in Higher Education:
How to Use Native Checkers
to Improve the Quality of Research Writing
LEGE R. Paul*DAVANZO Christopher**Received: 27 July 2023 / Accepted: 6 December 2023

＜Abstract＞
The purpose of this paper is to address three claims made by the
Kabara and Lai (2015) article for this journal regarding the use of“native checkers” in Japan who are hired to improve the quality of
research papers. Their position was that universities should seek analternative to hiring “native checkers” because such people lack theability to improve an argument, and therefore, cannot improve thequality of research writing. Our paper views this as too drastic a
recommendation considering these hasty generalizations. We briefly
examine the problems with the Kabara and Lai (2015) proposition
and then offer a way in which such checkers can and do contributeto the improvement of the quality of research writing. Because
Kabara and Lai (2015) sought “alternative options,” our paper
provides an example and descriptive data showing how the Graduate
School of Law at Nagoya University has effectively employed suchindividuals to help improve the quality of theses and dissertation
submissions in the department.

*Designated Associate Professor, Asian Satellite Campuses Institute, Nagoya
University**Lecturer, Foreign Language Education Center, Nanzan University271

1．Introduction
Japanese universities continue to hire “native checkers” to proofread
papers written by graduate students. While such a practice can apply toboth Japanese and English text, the focus here is on “native checkers” hired
to proofread/copyedit work done by ESL (English as a Second Language)
learners. In 2015, Kabara and Lai suggested in this journal that analternative to “native checking” was needed because individuals hired inthis role lack the ability to improve an argument and therefore cannot
improve the quality of research writing (Kabara and Lai 2015: 335). Theirline of reasoning is that: 1) research papers are argumentative (Kabara andLai 2015: 325); 2) “native checkers” lack the ability to improve an argument(Kabara and Lai 2015: 335); and 3) therefore, “native checkers” cannot
improve the quality of research writing (Kabara and Lai 2015: 335). From
this, they suggested that Japanese universities should seek alternatives tohiring “native checkers” (Kabara and Lai 2015: 335). However, Kabara andLai(2015)

also

agreedthat“nativecheckers,”

who

act

as

proofreaders/copyeditors, could improve language issues in such papers,
which suggested that they do have a role in improving the quality of
research papers overall.
Our paper posits that “native checkers” can and do contribute toimproving the quality of arguments and research papers, but much depends
on what is meant by “native checkers” and what their role in the processof checking such research papers should be in the context of higher
education. To clarify some of the confusion, we will briefly examine Kabara
and Lai’s reasoning, clarify the role that such people play in checking
papers, and discuss some alternatives. In addition, because they called foran “alternative options,” we will describe the approach taken in the
Graduate School of Law that includes the training and employment of“native checkers” to assist in improving the quality of research writing in
the department.

272

Writing Support in Higher Education

2．Examining the Kabara and Lai Premises
The first premise in the Kabara and Lai (2015) reasoning assumes that
all research papers are argumentative, which is faulty (Beaufort 2007, Rose2016). In many fields, not just law, research papers may include suggestions,recommendations, and hypotheses, or merely be expository (that is, withno thesis statement or hypothesis at all). In such instances, “native checkers”
who take on the role of proofreader/copyeditor may improve the qualityof research papers that are non-argumentative. We can infer this because
Kabara and Lai (2015) agreed that such people assisted in improving
language-related issues, and there have been thousands of successful
publications that included the efforts of “native checkers” in this role forsuch papers. Therefore, we assert that “native checkers” can and docontribute to improving the quality of some research papers.
Concerning only argumentative research papers, Kabara and Lai (2015)
have two main problems with the second assertion that “native checkers
lack the ability to improve an argument.” The first problem is definitional.
Kabara and Lai never clarified what constituted a “native checker.” Such aperson could be anyone who happens to be a native speaker of English, butsuch a term could potentially include those with advanced degrees, or even,those certified as an experienced editor. Secondly, Kabara and Lai (2015)
provided no empirical evidence that “native checkers,” in part or as a whole,“lack the ability to improve an argument.” As a result, their second premiseis faulty and does not justify the conclusion that “native checkers” do not
help improve the quality of an argument or research papers as a whole.

3．Qualifying the Role of “Native Checkers”
We acknowledge that there is a laissez-faire nature to the checking
industry and that there are problems with this form of service (Harwood

et al. 2009). However, this service remains indispensable to higher education(Conrad 2019). If the universities (or clients) are just hiring people off thestreet, then the overall quality of a check could probably suffer. In suchcases, we can only say consumer beware. However, many “native checkers”

273

with advanced degrees do participate in this service industry and arecontributing to the improvement of such papers. Regardless, the Kabara
and Lai (2015) proposition provided no insight into the abilities of suchpeople to improve the quality of an argument, whether they are people
just off the street or those who have an advanced degree.
Moreover, since Kabara and Lai explained that Japanese universities hiresuch individuals to “proofread or copy-edit,” we must assume that thesesame institutions follow some form of criteria in hiring those who undertakesuch a job. Indeed, many departments do require that such “native checkers”
have at least a Master’s degree. Thus, the scope of what or who is a “native
checker” in this context is limited to those with Master’s degrees. And, as
noted above, given the large number of published material by ESL graduate
students, the assumption should be that such checkers have contributed tothe improvement of the quality of research papers as a whole. If not, thenhow do we explain the persistence of the checking industry and the successof so many published articles, theses, and dissertations over the last few
decades?
The focus of the issue then turns towards whether or not those withadvanced degrees have the ability to improve an argument in a research
paper. In addition, we have to clarify what is the role of a proofreader in
improving the quality of argumentation, which involves two things:
language and reasoning. While it may be the case that some individuals
with Master’s degrees lack the ability to improve an argument, we must
assume that such people in general can formulate, construct, and identify
arguments in a research paper. That is, individuals with such advanced
degrees should understand the bridge between the rules of language andthe rules of reasoning. If not, this would represent a failure of higher
education as a whole. Why?
The institutions of higher learning (colleges and universities) areresponsible for exposing or “guiding” such Master’s candidates with therules of language and reasoning, which are important not just to developing
an argument but constructing a sound hypothesis and other forms of thesis
statements. If individuals with Master’s degrees cannot bridge theunderstanding between the rules of language and reasoning, then they most274

Writing Support in Higher Education

likely cannot formulate, identify, and construct such statements. This inturn would suggest (but prove) that they lack the ability to improve an
argument in someone else’s paper.

However, this cannot be the case,given that colleges publish many theses and such individuals also publish
articles in peer review journals.
Western colleges do teach such candidates the complexities of both setsof rules. With the rules of language, learners should have a strong grasp of
the logic form of sentence structuring. For example, formulating and using
conditional sentences illustrates ways to express suggestion, prediction,
and argumentation. Throughout this learning experience, instructors
introduce students to the fundamentals of inferences, reasoning, fallacies aswell as cause and effect. For rules of reasoning, writing instructors andwriting centers teach them to identify fallacies. When learning about ways
to organize arguments, writing lessons will guide them through theClassical, Rogerian, and Toulmin forms of argumentation. In essence, theylearn and practice how the two rules are bridged during their college
experience.
In addition, since the 1990s, educational pedagogy has encouraged theteaching of peer review in college writing classes for both native and nonnative speakers. With such instruction, they learn both the importance andprocess of peer review, which is not simply restricted to grammar
correction but learning how to locate an argument (Timmerman andStrickland 2009). In fact, plenty of research existed before 2015 that showed
the benefits of peer review on ESL learning and writing (Yu and Lee 2016).
For example, Inoue (2005) opined that learners who successfully undergo
this pedagogical strategy “evolve as writers, assessors, and theorizers oflanguage.”
If Inoue (2005) was correct, this would suggest that many ESL students
have also acquired the skill to navigate over the bridge between the two
sets of rules. Assuming that ESL students who have undergone suchguidance can become “assessors” and “theorizers of language,” then there
should be no reason that “native checkers” who have undergone this samelearning experience cannot as well. To conclude otherwise, would be tonegate the entire pedagogical importance of peer review as an evaluative275

tool in college writing classes (Norton 2009).
Given that Japanese universities are hiring people with Master’s degrees
to perform the role of a proofreader, and that higher education trains suchindividuals to understand the two sets of rules, this would suggest thatthey should have the ability to improve an argument in a research paper.
We contend that such individuals are qualified to understand how the rulesof language and reasoning operate in the construction of research papers(whether argumentative or not). The reason for this is that the universities
have “guided” such individuals through such understanding, and many suchindividuals have publications under their belt.
Professionally speaking, a Master’s degree is sufficient for such work
(Shulenberger 2022). While a professionally certified proofreader mightenhance such checking, it has not been a hiring requirement for Japanese
universities simply because the number of such individuals is quite low andthe costs would be higher. The point is that without empirical evidence,
we cannot conclude that proofreaders (whether professional or not) lackthe ability to improve an argument in a research paper. Thus, until provenotherwise, we feel that such people are qualified to undertake such a rolein proofreading/copy editing.
However, we should clarify this role so as to not misrepresent what suchindividuals should or should not be doing when it comes to assessing theclarity or value of an argument in a research paper. The role ofproofreaders is to focus on language-related issues (Einsohn et al. 2019). We
should not diminish or devalue such a role even if all that a proofreader
has done is to add a transitional marker to an argument. As Pinker noted,
linguistic style is just as important in such papers because it helps get themessage across, builds trust with the reader, and “adds beauty to the world”(Pinker 2014: 6-7). And, we have already established that such “native
checkers” can improve the quality of research papers that are nonargumentative.
When it comes only to arguments, there is an inflection point that occurs
as to who is responsible for fully improving such a statement in a paper.
Following the logic of the peer review process, it is the role of thesubstantive editor (in this case, the supervisor of the graduate student) to276

Writing Support in Higher Education

first validate the existence and strength of an argument. Succinctly, it is
the job of the substantive editor to ensure that an argument is soundly
present, not the “native checker.” Technically speaking, then, it is not thejob of a proofreader to improve the reasoning of an argument, but rather
only to improve the language deficiencies in an argument (if necessary).
Thus, the client might call upon the “native checker” to mitigate andcorrect any language issues related to the argument. In fact, as Rebuck(2004) noted much of such past checking has mainly been on suchprescriptive elements.
Unfortunately, the Kabara and Lai (2015) proposition assumed that therole of a proofreader or “native checker” was to “guide” the writer fully
through the development of an argument. But, this is not the case andmany Japanese professors and supervisors assume such checking primarily
involves prescriptive correction (Suzuki 2016). However, because such a
separation in roles is not rigid, a proofreader (native checker) might
mitigate the problems of language in an argument (and other aspects ofa paper), while the editor (student’s supervisor) might guide the reasoningof an argument. Therefore, since such “native checkers” (in this context)
are qualified to improve language-related issues, and they appear to makesuch corrections, they can and do contribute to the improvement of bothan argument and research paper as a whole.
However, none of this is an indicator of the ability of individual
proofreaders (native checkers) to actually understand the rules of language
and reasoning that are essential to developing an argument. Absent
empirical evidence, we cannot assume that “native checkers” as a whole,or especially those with advanced degrees, lack this understanding. Whileit might be the case that some “native checkers” with Master’s degrees
might not be able to “bridge the gap” between these two sets of rules,
technically speaking, their role as a proofreader only requires them to focus
on the rules of language. Therefore, if a supervisor asks a “native checker”
to help improve the language of an argument, then we would posit thatthey are engaging in their role as a proofreader and are assisting in
improving the quality of such a statement.
As a matter of recommended practice, all three parties (student,

277supervisor, and checker) should be communicating with each other toensure such improvements occur in the text. The student, supervisor, or
university (acting as client) should not expect or assume that it is the sole
responsibility of the proofreader (native checker) to take on both roles.
Meanwhile, the “native checker” should be careful about taking on suchexpectations, and they should work with the client to prevent suchmisunderstandings. Assuming, however, that our understanding of “native
checkers” is incorrect: what would be the alternative?

4．Alternative Options
Kabara and Lai (2015: 335) suggested that Japanese universities should
consider alternatives to using “native checkers” as proofreaders forgraduate theses and dissertations. At least three options are available. One,
universities could hire only certified professional editors. Two, they could
rely on corrective software available through the Internet. Three, they
could hire and train “native checkers” to better fit the needs of eachdepartment.
Hiring certified professional editors sounds ideal but has several
limitations. First, the number of actually certified professional editors issmall. If all colleges and universities made this a requirement it would
result in rising costs. Second, such a demand would impact the turn-aroundtime for checking papers (Saller 2009). In general, clients seek out “native
checkers” because they are cheaper and can return a text more quickly
as this is usually part-time work. Third, following the Kabara and Lai(2015) logic, colleges would have to seek out only those professionals who
could match as an expert in each specific field because no editor is anexpert in all fields. This would narrow the pool of available checkers. In
sum, this alternative seems untenable due to the costs, an increase indemand that would affect the completion of such checking, and the
difficulty of finding enough editors to match each of the specific fields.
While corrective software has improved since 2015, the Conference on
College Composition and Communication has advised teachers andinstructors not to rely on digital technologies to assess student papers

278

Writing Support in Higher Education

because “writing and reading reflected a human activity” (CCCC 2004, 2023).
While improvements and reliance on such technology have increased,
human reasoning continues to play an important role in checking papers.
For example, Vojak et al. (2011) critically compared these two forms ofservices, and while both had their strengths and weaknesses, the nonautomated services were better at providing valuable assessment because
they included the human element. In 2022, Mohsen conducted a metaanalysis of 14 studies and found that both automated and non-automatedapproaches improved the fluency and accuracy of the writing skills of ESL
students, but the latter was more effective as they included humanreasoning.
The only viable option is for each department to hire and train qualified“native checkers” to check theses and dissertations according to their
specific needs. First, each department should establish guidelines as towhat they expect from students in writing a thesis or dissertation, including
what type of discourse is acceptable and the form the thesis statement or
hypothesis should take in the text. Second, the department would ensurethat the “native checkers” are familiar with their role as a proofreader andthat they follow the guidelines in making a check. Third, if called upon,such checkers (acting as “external readers”) could help to locate and refinea thesis statement or hypothesis while validating this element of the text
rest with the supervisor. The final section of this paper will describe how
this approach to using “native checkers” was implemented in the Graduate
School of Law starting in 2012.

279

5．Employing “Native Checkers” in the GSL
5.1

The GSL Context

In terms of context, the situation in the GSL matches that described by
Kabara and Lai (2015) in that our department recruits international
students (mostly from Southeast Asia) who are not fluent in English andhave little experience in writing in English (much less a research paper).
Such students need a lot of support and assistance, especially when it comesto writing such a high-stakes document such as a thesis. To help improve
the quality of such papers, the GSL often hired “native checkers” tomitigate and correct language deficiencies in such graduate work.
Originally, the department hired freelance proofreaders without any
guidelines or clear expectations, and the focus of such checking was only
on basic prescriptive elements.
Before 2012, the discourse in many GSL student theses and dissertations
was largely indecipherable. For example, out of 25 theses checked in 2011,
the “native checkers” found that the discourse was clear in only 2 of the
final works (one was exploratory and one was persuasive), while theremainder appeared as some type of secondary report (Lege 2022). There
were numerous reasons for the disarray: 1) no real guidelines; 2) nocoordination between the writing courses; 3) no faculty consensus as towhat a thesis should be; 4) weak student research skills, little if any writing
experience, and language issues as well as; 5) inconsistency in the checkingof the final work.
After 2012, the GSL program endeavored to seek out freelance
proofreaders that would conform to the ethical standards (such as avoiding
paid ghostwriting) and faculty expectations regarding a quality graduate
thesis, which included help in clarifying the discourse; that is, assisting withthe language elements in the thesis statement or hypothesis (as needed).
From this position, a departmental academic writing team was formed todevelop comprehensive guidelines and then hired and trained these people
to help with mitigating student work. This section explains the reasons anddescribes the results of employing “native checkers” in this way while also
providing a voice from such an individual.

280

Writing Support in Higher Education

Since the field of law has numerous approaches to writing (legal versus
academic) as well as in conducting research (doctrinal, comparative, andnon-doctrinal) the need for comprehensive guidelines is crucial as bothfaculty and students have confused the genres. In addition, scholarship
constraints, student language proficiency, and limited exposure to writing
instruction had restricted what students could produce. Thus, in 2012, theGSL established an academic writing team that wrote comprehensive
guidelines, constructed a writing instructional path for students, and hired
and trained sufficiently qualified “native checkers” (i.e. those with Master’s
degrees) to assist with final mitigation.
The faculty-approved guidelines, made available to the students on the
GSL website, included the main elements of style, organization, andelaboration that the department expected of such work for the completionof such advanced research (See the Graduate School of Law, Writing
Guidelines available at the following site (https://www.law.na goyau.ac.jp/̲userdata/writing-guide.pdf.)). The point is that these guidelines
reflect a mutual point of understanding between the expectations of thefaculty, the needs of the students, and the requisite tool to help “checkers”
complete their job. Without such guidelines students were at a loss as to
how to design and write such work, faculty was frustrated, and much of
the editing was reduced to prescriptive correction and guesswork. To
repeat, the guidelines cover the essential elements of the rules of language,
the structuring and organization of a thesis, and do not focus on the rulesof reasoning.
The academic writing team also designed a four-step instructional paththat revolved around these guidelines (Lege and Green 2018). First,
students enter a diagnostic stage upon matriculating in the program.
Second, students proceed through three integrated writing courses (forcredit) that occur over a year and a half, which include a lab section todevelop research and writing skills. These courses guide students on therules of language and reasoning, peer review, and how to write a thesis
statement or hypothesis While the academic team encourages students toinclude a thesis statement or hypothesis (depending on their discourse), thishas not always been feasible due to the numerous constraints mentioned281

above as well as the discretion of the supervisor. Third, as students
complete their first draft, we assign them a “writing mentor” who works
with them over one month to assist in clarifying their discourse. For thosewith additional needs, the program offers a specialized writing class taught
by one of the “checkers.” The fourth step involves the role of the “external
readers” in the mitigation and evaluation of the final work.
To facilitate this final step, the academic writing team works withseveral different “native checkers” (up to five per year) to assist with the
mitigation of student work. The search for such individuals includes therequirement that they have a Master’s degree in a related field in theliberal arts, have written a thesis or journal article, and have at least ten
years of experience either teaching writing or in the freelance area ofchecking graduate work, or are accredited from one of the respectedediting associations. In addition, they must be willing to align their skills
with the requirements of the guidelines. To clarify, such individuals werequalified because they had earned a Master’s thesis (not necessarily in law)and had some experience in teaching writing. Essentially, then, these“native checkers” should have had some experience in working with rulesof language and reasoning. The next step was to fit their skills to our needs.
While such “checkers” are trained primarily to mitigate according to theguidelines, they are not restricted to this role. As “readers,” in general, theacademic team expects educated and experienced individuals to be able tocritically assess the direction and logic of such work. Though they cannot
make substantive corrections, they can evaluate, question, and recommend
changes that might assist not just with language fluency in a paper but thelanguage of the “thesis statement.” Upon completion of their “check,” thereader will return the thesis to the academic team leader along with arubric that scores and evaluates the student’s work, which includes
statements about the clarity of the discourse. As an example, Mr. Davanzo
can shed some perspective on his role in this program.

282

Writing Support in Higher Education

5.2

The Voice of a “Native Checker”

As emphasized previously, the qualifications, training, and experience ofa copyeditor are vital in improving the quality of research writing. One ofour more experienced checkers is Mr. Chris Davanzo. He was raised in the
Washington DC area and studied Sociology at the University of Maryland,
obtained a teaching license, and became a high school social studies teacher.
In 2001, he came to Japan, earned a Master’s degree in English Language
Teaching, and began instructing in the area of academic writing at several
universities. As such, he should have received sufficient “guidance” in both
the rules of language and reasoning. With such knowledge and experience,
there was no reason to assume that such a “checker” would lack the basic
skills of critical thinking to proofread a paper for language deficiencies
while also uncovering weaknesses in the discourse.
In 2014, Mr. Davanzo joined our program at the Nagoya University
Graduate School of Law and began teaching a special academic writing
course for students who needed the most help improving their writing
skills. At the same time, he served as a copyeditor of students’ theses anddissertations after receiving training and instruction in the Graduate Schoolof Law Guidelines. Over the years, Mr. Davanzo and Dr. Lege havecollaborated in designing the content of the special academic writing courseand developed the efficacy of the copyediting process. The following section
will describe Mr. Davanzo’s role in the external reading process of thesis
papers, and how such mitigation by copyeditors improves the quality ofstudents’ research writing.

As a proofreader/copyeditor, I focus on improving students’ thesis
papers on a variety of levels in accordance with the Graduate School of
Law Guidelines written by Dr. Lege and with support from the main
faculty. One could think of the copyediting process as simultaneously
taking place at the micro and macro levels. At the micro level, thiswould include individual words, phrases, and sentences, while at themacro level, I may address matters of clarity, logical progression,accurate articulation, readability, and sentence structure. Examples at
the micro level that contribute to a lack of clarity in the discourse are283

poor or incorrect word choice, awkward syntax, a lack of hedging(overstating one’s position), unclear references, confusing sentence
structure, and a host of other issues. A large part of my role at the
micro level is suggesting new words and phrases, and making otherrecommendations, to remedy these various problems in the discourse.
At the macro level, I address individual paragraphs, multi-paragraphsections, whole chapters, and even the entire thesis paper. The external
assists writers by providing feedback on a wide range of important
issues and concerns. Here, I play an important role in providing
feedback and guideposts so that authors can edit their papers and put
forth a much more coherent, comprehensible, and quality thesis paper.
In addition, as an “external reader,” I will correct format errors anddirect students to refer to the Guidelines for detailed explanations andexamples. Format errors encompass correct layout, use of quotations,punctuation specifics, citation particulars, the correct numbering ofheadings and subheadings, and a wide range of other instances.
In general, I try to take a holistic overview of what the paper is
attempting to put forth, evaluating how the writer is organizing andarticulating their ideas and research, and offer useful suggestions on
issues of lack of clarity, coherence, logic, readability and other suchproblems as well as improving the degree of coherency in the discourse.
As a result of such training, I feel that in my role I contribute to theoverall improvement of research writing and the final product of a
graduate thesis.
Once a “check” is completed, all the “readers” return the theses anddissertations to Dr. Lege accompanied by an evaluative matrix thatprovides comments on these two levels of writing along with statements
regarding whether or not the direction of the work is clear. While I may
assume that a thesis statement should be present, it is the job of thefaculty supervisor (acting as substantive editor) to ensure it is. My roleis not to alter, but to advise on, or strengthen the substance of theauthor’s thesis statement (if present). As a trained and qualified“external reader,” however, I feel that I can make the author’s discourse
clearer, more organized, and more coherent.

284

Writing Support in Higher Education

If there is a problem, I can provide the writer with clarificationquestions and other feedback so the writer can regroup and reorganize
their ideas, ideally with the help of their supervisor. From this, thestudent would be expected to edit the thesis statement into something
more coherent so that the final faculty committee can deem it to be
worthy of the degree expectations. The approach that I would take canbe illustrated from the extrapolated example provided in the Kabara
and Lai (2015) paper, which was from the abstract of a student thesis:“Nearly 80% of the informal workers are voluntarily engaged in
informal employment; only 22.74% are forced to enter informal labormarket, and informal labor market is not a low-end market without
entry barriers” (Kabara and Lai 2015: 328).

While Kabara and Lai (2015) assumed that this was an argument orthesis statement, there is no indication that the author intended forthis to be the case. The student may simply have written this as afactual statement. Kabara and Lai presumed this was the potential
argument and simply applied a few transitions to guess at the writer’s
intent, which is only one way to actually attack the problem (Norton
2009: 92-107). Also, while they did not ascertain the intent of the writer,
they did show that with this limited form of “guidance,” a thesis
statement might be emerging from within the meaning of the text,
which is helpful to some extent.
If this had been a GSL thesis, and I was simply engaged in the
mitigation approach, then I might have written a statement to thestudent that no thesis statement was apparent within the abstract(and I might have mentioned other language issues related to thissentence such as a question with the percentage, the passive voice,and the repetitive word usage). If I had decided to take on more of arole of intervention, I might have posed a few suggestive questions to
the writer: Do you intend for this sentence to be your thesis
statement? If so, could you possibly add the phrase “This thesis argues
that…” and could you clarify the percentages, reduce the repetitive285

language, and establish the relationship between your main variables?

While I might use such questions as part of an intervention to help
the writer with an emerging thesis statement, it is incumbent on thestudent to “fix” and confirm it with the supervisor.
Essentially, then, Mr. Davanzo has been trained to intervene or mitigate
based on his skills to assess such work. Even if Mr. Davanzo had restricted
his role to mitigation, then this would not have diminished his role in
improving other areas of the paper. He has contributed to improving theoverall quality of the text. If the issue of concern is restricted to the“argument,” then this mainly rests with the faculty supervisor (acting as
main editor) to ensure that some semblance of a statement is within the
text. If present, then Mr. Davanzo could help improve the quality of anargument as needed. Thus, if properly trained and working within theconfines of what is expected of a paper, the role of such individuals can
assist in improving the quality of research papers while providing valuable
insight into the evaluation of the discourse.
5.3

Data from the Graduate School of Law

Before 2012, the discourse or direction of many theses or dissertationsin the GSL was unclear, though a few appeared as some form of an
expository report. After instituting a new approach to writing, we asked
external readers to evaluate and comment on how they understood thediscourse in student work. As Table 1 below shows, in 2012, out of 22
submitted theses and dissertations, the discourse was unclear in 73% of thework and the remainder was just secondary reports. The readers in thatyear found only 1 exploratory thesis of a more sophisticated type expected
at the graduate level. Few if any had a clear thesis statement much lessan argument.
Many reasons contributed to this problem in 2012, including a
misunderstanding of the nature of writing a thesis in law, institutional
demands, faulty expectations among faculty, and student recruitment. In
general, in the field of law, there is disagreement as to what is acceptablein terms of what constitutes a thesis or dissertation (Morris 2011). In

286

Writing Support in Higher Education

addition, scholarship demands place enormous pressure on both faculty andstudents to complete their work within two years, which defines the statusof their visa as well. Many faculty held on to a misconception that because
students may speak English, they can write at the graduate level. In reality,
based on our internal surveys, students enter the program having written
little or nothing of an advanced research paper (in English or theirlanguage).
Table 1

Evaluation of Theses and Dissertations in GSL, 2012-2023

Year/(No. of theses) Unsure

ReportExploratory Referential Persuade

2012 (n=22)

16 (73%)5 (23%)

1 (4%)

00

2013 (n=18)

9 (50%)

5 (28%)

3 (17%)0

1 (6%)

2014 (n=33)

12 (37%)9 (28%)

7 (23%)

1 (3%)

3 (9%)

2015 (n=25)

7 (28%)

9 (36%)

6 (24%)

2 (8%)

1 (4%)

2016 (n=25)

3 (12%)

10 (40%)9 (36%)

1 (4%)

2 (8%)

2017 (n=27)

3 (12%)

12 (45%)

11 (41%)

1 (4%)

02018 (n=19)

3 (16%)

7 (37%)

6 (32%)

2 (11%)

1 (5%)

2019 (n=18)

2 (11%)

8 (44%)

4 (22%)

2 (11%)

3 (16%)

2020 (n=20)0

9 (45%)

4 (20%)

2 (10%)

5 (25%)

2021 (n=18)

1 (5%)

6 (33%)

5 (28%)

1 (5%)

5 (28%)

2022 (n=21)

1 (4.7%)6 (29%)

6 (29%)

2 (8%)

6 (29%)

2023 (n=15)

1 (6.6%)5 (33%)

3 (20%)

2 (13%)

4 (27%)

287

Our approach to academic writing has endeavored to offset some of thesedisadvantages that restrict the performance of student work, while also
seeking to raise the standards for such research expression.

The use of“native checkers” as readers has been crucial to helping the GSL toevaluate the effects of the program while improving the overall quality ofstudent theses. As Table 1 clearly shows, over the last decade, thepercentage of theses that the readers rated as unclear dropped from 74%
in 2012 to less than 7% in 2023. Furthermore, these readers found that thequality of such work improved as students shifted away from expository
writing to more sophisticated levels of academic discourse. In 2012, thereaders could only find one out of twenty-two papers (4%) expressing suchdiscourse whereas by 2023 fourteen out of fifteen submissions (93%) were
found to have attempted higher levels of such expression that included any
form of thesis statement or hypothesis. While the external readers were
not solely responsible for such improvements, their comments, feedback,and evaluations assisted in contributing to the overall quality of suchresearch writing and in many cases helped to locate and mitigate on athesis statement when necessary.

6．Conclusion
In general, our position is the opposite of Kabara and Lai (2015) because
we accept the open and necessary aspect of social interaction that occurs
between people when engaging in the improvement of a written text.
Since nearly all academic writing textbooks recommend writers to ask“others” (family, friends, peers, or teacher) to read and advise on ways toimprove a text (Beuningen et al. 2011), we see no reason that “native
checkers” cannot undertake such a role as well. In general, all such advice
is welcome and could potentially help to improve the quality of a text.
However, we also understand that Japanese universities want to ensure
a higher quality of check for such a high-stakes endeavor as a graduate
thesis or dissertation. This partially explains why such institutions hire (orshould be hiring) those “native checkers” with Master’s degrees to assistin mitigating language-related issues for those ESL students writing such

288

Writing Support in Higher Educationa text in English. Since such individuals still play a vital role in such achecking service. While there may be problems with the checking service
industry, “native checkers,” in this context, can still play a role in helping
to improve the quality of research papers in Japan.
In this regard, our paper addresses the suggestion Kabara and Lai (2015)
made in their article that Japanese universities needed an alternative to“native checkers” because such people supposedly lacked the ability to
improve an argument, and therefore, could not improve the quality of
research papers. We found this line of reasoning spurious and theconclusion too drastic given the lack of evidence. We briefly examined theirpremises, discussed and explained the role of “native checkers” in thecontext of Japanese hiring practices, and described the way suchindividuals can and do contribute to improving the quality of an argument
and research papers as a whole.
As an “alternative,” the Graduate School of Law at Nagoya University
has strengthened the relationship between guidance and intervention by
developing a program that recognizes the positive interactive relationshipbetween writing and editing and the role that “native checkers” can playin improving the quality of research papers. Since editing is a process thatinvolves several stages of prescriptive and substantive checking, eachdepartment should establish its own guidelines as to what should be
expected of student writing and how such work is to be checked. If theroles are clear and they follow the departmental guidelines, then qualified,experienced, and trained “native checkers” can play an important role in
improving the quality of graduate theses or research papers. While suchroles may restrict substantive intervention by a “native checker,” this in
no way implies that such people lack the ability to either locate or improve
an argument in a paper.

289

References
Beaufort, A., 2007, College Writing and beyond: A New Framework for
University Writing Instruction, Utah State University Press.
Beuningen, C. G., Van De Jong, N. H., and Folkert K., 2011, “Evidence on
the Effectiveness of Comprehensive Error Correction in Ssecond
Language Writing”, Language Learning: A Journal of Research in
Language Studies, 62(1): 40-1. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.0067]
Conference on College Composition and Communication, “CCCC Position
Statement on Teaching, Learning, and Assessing Writing in Digital
Environments”, CCCC Position Statement, February 2004. (https://dtext.org/f14/505/readings/ncte-CCCC-digitalenvironments.pdf, 2023.12.5)
Conference on College Composition & Communication (CCCC), 2023, “MLACCCC Joint Task Force on Writing and AI Working Paper: Overview of
the Issues, Statement of Principles, and Recommen-dations”, MLA-CCCC
Joint Task Force on Writing and AI. (https://hcommons.org/app/uploads/sites/1003160/2023/07/MLA-CCCC-Joint-Task-Force-on-Writing-andAI-Working-Paper-1.pdf, 2023.12.5)
Conrad, N., 2019, “Revisiting Proofreading in Higher Education: Toward an
Institutional Response to Editors Canada’s Guidelines for Ethical Editingof Student Texts”, TESL Canada Journal, 36(1): 172-83. (https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1230899, 2023.12.5)
Einsohn, A., Schwartz, M., and Buky, E., 2019, The Copyeditor’s Handbook
and Workbook: The Complete Set, 1st ed., University of California Press.
Graduate School of Law, 2020, Writing Guidelines, Version 6, (https://www.
law.nagoya-u.ac.jp/̲userdata/writing-guide.pdf., 2023.12.5)
Harwood, N., Austin, L., and Macaulay, R., 2009, “Proofreading in a UK
University: Proofreaders’ Beliefs, Practices, and Experiences”, Journal of
Second Language Writing, 18(3): 166-90. (https://www.sci-hub.st/10.
1016/j.jslw.2009.05.002, 2023.12.5)
Inoue, A. B., 2005, “Community-based Assessment Pedagogy”, Assessing
Writing, 9: 208-38. [DOI: 10.1016/j.asw.2004.12.001]
Kabara, T. and Lai, W. L., 2015, “Writing Support in Higher Education: Why
Native Checking Services Do Not Help Improve the Quality of Research
Writing”, Nagoya Journal for Higher Education, 15: 323-36.
Lege, R. P. and Green, D., 2018, “Academic Writing in the Graduate Schoolof Law, Nagoya University”, NuIdeas, 7: 1-12. (http://nuideas.ilas.nago yau.ac.jp/Volume7/7̲contents.html, 2023.12.5)

290

Writing Support in Higher Education

Lege, R. P., 2022, “Online and Remote Learning in the Graduate School ofLaw, Nagoya University: The Importance of Design, Accessibility,
Reliability, and Need (DARN)”, Journal of the International Education &Exchange Center, 9: 35-47.
Mohsen, M. A., 2022, “Computer-Mediated Corrective Feedback to Improve
L2 Writing Skills: A Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 60(5): 1253-76. [DOI: 10.1177/07356331211064066]
Morris, J. R., 2011, The ‘New Contribution to Knowledge’: A Guide for
Research Postgraduate Students of Law, Hong Kong: University of HongKong. (https://hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/134610/2/content.pdf?acce
pt=, 2023.12.5)
Nicol, D., 2014, “Guiding Principles for Peer Review: Unlocking Learners’
Evaluative Skills”, C. Kreber, C. Anderson, J. McArthur, and N. Entwistle,eds., Advances and Innovations in University Assessment and Feedback,197-224, Edinburgh University Press.
Norton, S., 2009, Developmental Editing: A Handbook for Freelancers,
Authors, and Publishers, University of Chicago Press.
Pinker, S., 2014, The Sense of Style, Penguin Books.
Rebuck, M., 2004, “Feedback on Feedback: An Analysis of L2 writers’
Evaluations of Proofreaders”, NUIdeas, 3: 1-22. (http://nuideas.ilas.nagoyau.ac.jp/Volume3/31̲Rebuck̲Abstract.html, 2023.12.5)
Rose, D., 2016, “Genre, Knowledge, and Pedagogy in the Sydney School”, N.
Artemeva and A. Freedman, eds., Genre Studies around the Globe:
Beyond the Three Traditions, Inkshed.
Saller, C. F., 2009, The Subversive Copy Editor: Advice from Chicago Or,

How to Negotiate Good Relationships with Your Writers, Your
Colleagues, and Yourself, University of Chicago Press.
Shulenberger, D., 2022, “Editing in Japan: Three Perspectives”, Society for
Writers, Editors, and Translators (SWET). (https://swet.jp/articles/
article/editing̲in̲japan̲three̲perspectives/̲C27, 2023.12.5)
Suzuki, S. T., 2016, “Formal Academic Writing Instruction to Advanced
English Learner Groups in Science and Engineering”, OnCue Journal, 8(2):189-97.
Timmerman, B. and Strickland, D., 2009, “Faculty should Consider Peer
Review as a Means of Improving Students’ Scientific Reasoning skills”,
Journal of the South Carolina Academy of Science, 7(1): 1-7. (https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context=jscas,
2023.12.5)

291

Vojak, C., Kline S., Cope B., McCarthey, S., and Kalantzis, M., 2011, “NewSpaces and Old Places: An Analysis of Writing Assessment Software”,
Computers and Composition, 28(2): 97-111. [DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.
2011.04.004]
Yu, S. and Icy L., 2016, “Peer Feedback in Second Language Writing (20052014)”, Language Teaching, 49(4): 461-93. [DOI: 10.1017/S0261444816
000161]

Authorsʼ Contribution
Lege, R. Paul: conceptualization, investigation, formal analysis, writing
Davanzo, C.: formal analysis, writing292名古屋高等教育研究

第 24 号 （2024）

高等教育におけるライティングサポート−ネイティブチェッカーの役割−
ポール R.・レジェ*クリストファー・ダヴァンゾ**＜要旨＞

本稿の目的は、研究論文の質を向上させるために ネイティブチェッ
カー をいかに活用できるかについて、事例をもとに検討することである。Kabara and Lai（2015）は、ネイティブチェッカーは論文の議論を改善する能力を欠いており、ネイティブチェッカーを向上させることができないので、大学はネイティブチェッカーに取って代わるものを求めるべきであるとした。本稿筆者はこの結論を性急な一般化によるあまりに思い切った勧告であると考える。そこで本稿では、Kabara andLai（2015）の提案の問題点を簡単に検討し、そのようなチェッカーが研究論文の質の向上に貢献できる方法を提示する。これは、Kabara andLai（2015）が残る課題とした「代替オプション」に相当する。具体的には、名古屋大学大学院法学研究科が、こうした人材をどのようにして効果的に採用し、学位論文の質を向上させているかを示す例と担当者の口述記録を提供する。

*名古屋大学アジアサテライトキャンパス学院・特任准教授**南山大学外国語教育センター・講師

293