Opportunities for Error
Feat. Ann Raimes, CUNY Hunter College
Much of student editing is about correcting errors. Although grammatical correctness was once of paramount importance for writing education, teachers today often allow students to write more freely in the classroom. They engage in freewriting activities, compose journals, and have the opportunity to submit multiple paper drafts. All of this is conducive to making writing more comfortable and approachable for students, but to what extent should we condone grammar errors for second language writers?
Despite the progressive emphasis on clarity over correctness as an immediate concern in second language writing classrooms, errors should not be taken for granted. Errors can reveal a lot about the mind. Further, if one makes a pattern of repeating a mistake, then it’s only a matter of time before an instructor or reviewer notes it. However, there are many ways to approach errors in ways that are helpful but not alienating to students. Rather than marking up and correcting all the grammatical mistakes on a draft, the instructor can underline one instance of a particular error and choose to note the grammar rule or let the student research it independently. In addition, the instructors should be clear from the beginning about what specific editing annotations mean.
Burt and Kiparsky (1972) have noted two types of errors: “global errors,” which are large-scale structural errors that impede our understanding of a text, and “local errors,” which are minor errors such as pluralization and subject-verb agreement mistakes. The global errors are the most pertinent, but can we ignore the local errors? Instructors can approach these errors in a variety of ways, depending on the amount of time allowed. Many end up referring students to writing centers, as Jessica Williams states. I would add to her proposal that ENGL 101 instructors could take note of some of the writing tutors’ methods, time permitting. For example, during a student TA session, instructors could set up fill-in-the-blank sentences focusing on a particular grammar issue for students to complete as practice.
Instructors should also stress to their second language students is that errors are not the adversary. Learning a language is a complex, ongoing process. Correcting errors does not necessarily have to be about constricting student expression. Instructors should not only mark errors on student drafts, but also strengths of the paper. With this type of fluctuating positive and negative feedback, students can feel more assured about their writing capabilities. They may also, as Roz Ivanic notes, be better able to cultivate their writer's voices.
Barbara Kroll aptly addresses fact that second language students, like many students, often make the most common errors in their rhetoric and syntax. Although some students in a second language writing course may make more of one or both types of common errors, it is unlikely that universities will have the funding or organization to allow for multiple types of second language classrooms. Thus, students from one end of the rhetoric/syntax spectrum to the other will be in a class. Using some of the strategies mentioned here, instructors and writing center tutors can address errors in a variety of ways, on the collective and individual level.
Despite the progressive emphasis on clarity over correctness as an immediate concern in second language writing classrooms, errors should not be taken for granted. Errors can reveal a lot about the mind. Further, if one makes a pattern of repeating a mistake, then it’s only a matter of time before an instructor or reviewer notes it. However, there are many ways to approach errors in ways that are helpful but not alienating to students. Rather than marking up and correcting all the grammatical mistakes on a draft, the instructor can underline one instance of a particular error and choose to note the grammar rule or let the student research it independently. In addition, the instructors should be clear from the beginning about what specific editing annotations mean.
Burt and Kiparsky (1972) have noted two types of errors: “global errors,” which are large-scale structural errors that impede our understanding of a text, and “local errors,” which are minor errors such as pluralization and subject-verb agreement mistakes. The global errors are the most pertinent, but can we ignore the local errors? Instructors can approach these errors in a variety of ways, depending on the amount of time allowed. Many end up referring students to writing centers, as Jessica Williams states. I would add to her proposal that ENGL 101 instructors could take note of some of the writing tutors’ methods, time permitting. For example, during a student TA session, instructors could set up fill-in-the-blank sentences focusing on a particular grammar issue for students to complete as practice.
Instructors should also stress to their second language students is that errors are not the adversary. Learning a language is a complex, ongoing process. Correcting errors does not necessarily have to be about constricting student expression. Instructors should not only mark errors on student drafts, but also strengths of the paper. With this type of fluctuating positive and negative feedback, students can feel more assured about their writing capabilities. They may also, as Roz Ivanic notes, be better able to cultivate their writer's voices.
Barbara Kroll aptly addresses fact that second language students, like many students, often make the most common errors in their rhetoric and syntax. Although some students in a second language writing course may make more of one or both types of common errors, it is unlikely that universities will have the funding or organization to allow for multiple types of second language classrooms. Thus, students from one end of the rhetoric/syntax spectrum to the other will be in a class. Using some of the strategies mentioned here, instructors and writing center tutors can address errors in a variety of ways, on the collective and individual level.