Why can't you do both?
In responding to papers over 36 years of teaching every level from 6th to
12th grade, I developed a simple system that did both.
On the left margin of a paper I put a shorthand indication of an error on
the line where it occurred (p, dang, T, R, etc).  Students could find and
correct those errors for an improved grade.  (The original grade might be
87 (for content and style) -7 (for seven errors), which could be brought up
to 90.5 with corrections.  If it counts, students learn it.)
On the right margin I put questions or suggestions or compliments about
content (dialogue about the argument) and sentence structure (perhaps
suggesting a more concise way of putting something, subordinating rather
than coordinating, moving elements, etc.)  In the end comments I could note
patterns in the writing that a student might work with on future papers.
Separating the two threads of concern helped me to help them.  Caring about
the first issue did not diminish my caring about the second.

Jane



On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

>  Scott,****
>
>     I think there is pretty good evidence that putting students in classes
> that mainly focus on “remediation” is not effective.  You might want to
> check out the ALP (Accelerated Learning Program) for some description of an
> alternative to that at the college level. Alp-deved.org. They have a
> delightful annual conference scheduled for June.****
>
>    I would also check out the Exeter research program (mostly Debra
> Myhill) at http://education.exeter.ac.uk./projects.php?id=419. They look
> directly at ways in which a focus on language improves writing and have
> definitely demonstrated that it does. ****
>
>     I would also deeply recommend *Language Education throughout the
> School Years: A Functional Perspective* by Francis Christie for a
> description of the programming going on down in Australia. (2012,
> Wiley-Blackwell. Mary Schleppegrell, from the University of Michigan,  is
> the series editor and has a forward.) ****
>
>     My own rule of thumb is that you can’t teach writing by remediating
> deficiencies. You do it by constructing competence, and that includes
> competence in the use of the resources of language for the production of
> effective text. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Craig****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Scott Woods
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2013 2:00 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Writing well v. reducing errors****
>
> ** **
>
> Dear List,
>
> What research is available to support an approach to teaching grammar and
> writing that focuses on helping students write well, rather than focusing
> on reducing errors? Is there any evidence that error reduction efforts
> improve writing or even reduce errors?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott Woods ****
>
> ** **
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> leave the list" ****
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/****
>  To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
> "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/