Scott,
    You are asking wonderful questions, but I'm struck by how often
"correction" enters in. "Change student behavior" is also interesting.
I think one reason we are rarely successful (as a collective entity)
is that errors are treated as faulty behavior, not as missing
knowledge. I wonder if the model doesn't get in the way.
   The progressive view can be paraphrased as "as long as they behave
correctly, they don't need to know very much." I believe that is a
failed model, but the alternatives haven't Been fully worked out.
   How about "What knowledge about language is necessary (useful?)before a
conversation about error can be meaningful?"
   Here's a short form of that: "What do students need to know in order to
read a typical handbook?" Or "in order to punctuate?"
   Knowledge about language can have other benefits as well, but even
error can be approached as a knowledge question.
   What I gather from other posts is that you aim at giving students a
very rich understanding of language and it how it works. I would be
very happy if a typical student came to college knowing what you are
teaching. To me, that's so much more important than whether or not you
jump on every "error" you see when they write.
   Students should have plenty of occasion to take pleasure in writing: to
tell stories, advocate positions they care about, pass on neat new
things they are learning from research, and so on.
   We need, of course, a long-term view of it. No one writes in order to
avoid error. Teachers who react to writing mainly by correcting error
may do more harm than good.
   Error is more prevalent when you are stretching out, trying something
new. I sometimes use sports analogies when I'm discussing that with
students. (If you don't dribble with your left hand, you are easy to
guard. If you commit to learning it, you'll go through a period of
awkwardness.)
   If the main thing you are worried about is avoiding error, are you
doing something that bears little resemblance to real writing? I think
so. But a rich understanding of language can help in all aspects of
writing, including an understanding of the conventions.

   Craig
   >


 Is there any research on the effect of different methods of teacher
> correction of errors, specifically, grammar errors? Which methods are
> better?  Are some common methods very ineffective?  If we want to change
> student behavior, how can we best do that?  Which combination of teacher
> actions is most effective and efficient: pre-instruction, correction by
> marking, correction by commenting, correction by showing how it could be
> done, targeted instruction (by this, I mean instruction directed toward a
> specific student for his specific errors, e.g., attaching an instructional
> and practice packet on perfect aspect when a student makes such an error),
> requested correction (by this, I mean correcting what students ask to be
> corrected, e.g., "My paragraph seems lifeless, how can I make it lively?"
> or "I'm concerned about my use of the perfect aspect, especially the past
> perfect.  Please show me what I'm doing right and wrong."), others?
>  
> Scott Woods
> BASIS Scottsdale
>
>
>
>
> 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/