Lunsford and Lunsford

This is just as fun to read as Connors and Lunsford’s 1988 “Ma and Pa Kettle Do Research.” It keeps the same lighthearted treatment of the study of student error and teacher response to error while staying dedicated to the process and respectful toward all participants. The back story—the significantly more difficult and time-consuming IRB approval processes between 1986 and 2006, the training and organizing of volunteers, the research glitches and recoveries—help make dry grammar research into an entertaining read.

The findings are remarkable: Despite student papers changing dramatically in length and type, the error rate has remained consistent. These changes and the simultaneous static nature of rate of student error from 2.11 in 1917 to 2.45 (or 2.299 excluding spelling errors) in 2006 raise some questions for me: Given the influx of mainstreamed ESL learners in university writing classes, how does the 2006 figure remain so similar to prior study years? Have changes in writing instruction, peer reviewer training, and the expansion of writing centers had a positive impact on the rate of student error? I’m curious to know what any of you think about this.