Many students are concerned about the sentence-level correctness of their writing, in part because they’ve been taught that correctness is the primary measure of fluency, particularly in writing. Our writing instructors discuss presentation and correctness in the context of meaning, rather than as a discrete set of skills or intrinsic knowledge (subject-verb agreement, article use). Of course, because correctness does affect a reader’s judgment of writing, we note these sorts of errors, but—again—we do so as part of a larger project of responding to the work students have done.

While responding to student writing in the drafting stage, you have a number of options for addressing presentation in the context of your response to the essay. Multilingual students usually have difficulties with English that do not follow patterns based on the way their first language works. You can find a table of language groups and their typical difficulties and examples of documents such as error logs in the FYW office (and in the “Resources” section of this Workbook).

You’ll discover conflicting research about whether direct error feedback (marking and correcting the error) or indirect error feedback (marking only, directing students to figure out the problem and correct) improves multilingual student writing. In fact, there’s debate on whether any sort of sentence-level feedback improves writing. Many who argue against sentence-level editing suggest that students should spend their time reading and writing more, where they will encounter (and produce) a wider range of words and “lexical phrases.” Offering no sentence-level feedback makes some students very nervous, however. Our most important advice, then, is to try out some methods with the student and find a method that works for individuals. Not everyone learns the same way. The following are some typical strategies for addressing linguistic errors; this isn’t a comprehensive list of what you must do with each student’s essay at each stage. Keep in mind there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that the efficacy of sentence-level (grammar, syntax, lexicon) feedback is questionable at best.

• Ask the student which two types of errors they’d like to work on during the term. Hold the student accountable for attending to just those types of errors.
• Note difficulties with word order, syntax, lexicon, and morphology with examples of solutions/corrections in a single paragraph. Suggest the student use the example you provide in that one paragraph as a model for editing their own work.
• Show students how to use an error log. These are tables of three columns: one for the error, one for naming the error (and perhaps citing the chapter and verse of the resource consulted), and one for the edited and rewritten attempt. You can demonstrate how to make and use one in your first conference with a student by asking them to write down the error (usually a whole sentence), look it up in something like the Pocket Style Manual (any handbook will do), note the page and some details about how one might make the correction (for future reference), and generate a corrected version. Then ask the student to submit one with the final draft if you are so inclined.
• Direct the student toward working more often with you and with the Writing Center.
• Let go of errors in articles. Mark them if you must, but don’t linger. Incorporating English articles into prose is one of the most frequent fault lines in second-language writing and affects most non-European language users. The error is very difficult to erase, and even advanced scholars ask colleagues to read and note missing articles in their prose.

In any case, on a final draft, don’t spend all your time marking errors; simply note in an end comment what you see as the patterns and direct the student to update their error log. Keep in mind, too, that errors are meaningful in themselves. Errors can point toward a loss of agency, but they may also suggest an alternate reading of a text, make visible a well-masked assumption everyone else missed, or provide an unwittingly unique presentation of an idea. It’s in these gaps that great conversations about language, meaning, conventions, and the new can emerge in class. Therefore, instructors should learn to read the errors as meaningful signifiers.