This article has appeared in California English 3.3 (Spring 1998) and in The Kentucky English Bulletin (Winter 1997).

TRUE CONFESSIONS

I readily admit that, as progressive as I imagine myself, I'm sometimes haunted by anxiety that a few of my pedagogical methods are like old sneakers--very comfortable but nonetheless stinky. How familiar is the caution that we tend to teach the way we were taught but that standing the test of time only doesn't necessarily render an idea classic?

Consequently, some apprehension accompanies my tenacity over the years in clinging to an old favorite in dealing with grammar and usage in a writing course: the annotated local revision process. After all, if it was good enough for me as a freshman writer, it must be beneficial to my students, right? Moreover, I have always thought that an adaptation of the method could work quite well with high school, middle school, or even younger writers, but I have never been confident that I could prove its value, nor had I, until recently, found research to support such an approach.

Those reasons never deterred me from trusting this old favorite, however, nor from emerging from the "I-believe-in-treating-standard-usage-in-a-writing-course" closet and sharing it with anyone interested. I can offer no quantitative evidence of its effectiveness; I rely on observation of student improvement and anecdotal student affirmation. But perhaps, given the common frustration with finding a way to teach grammar and usage in the context of writing, some readers may, if only from desperation, wish to give it (or a variation) a try. Others may have experienced a similar process and wish to join discussion of its value.

While I have revised the following version of the process over the years, the idea is by no means original. I owe my introduction to the method to Dr. Glenn Rogers, my long-ago freshman composition professor and long-since colleague and friend, who now teaches at Georgetown College. My guess is that he borrowed it from someone else. Teachers love to steal good ideas, and I think this is one.

PREMISES

Before I describe the process, however, let me make some observations and recommend some readings that support my enthusiasm for treating grammar and usage through writing. Among college English faculty, one can find at least three reactions to the issue: (1) instructors who teach traditional grammar and usage formally, complete with daily workbook exercises (especially in developmental classes); (2) conversely, those who spurn treatment of "surface features" and focus on issues of self-expression, sometimes rejecting the notion of "correctness" as elitist and insulting to diverse dialects; and (3) those of us in the middle who sense the responsibility of preparing students to write for unforgiving professional audiences yet find little time or patience for treating grammar and usage formally. I sense that these perspectives are paralleled among P-12 language arts teachers, except that, in Kentucky, the advent of the Kentucky Education Reform Act and its emphasis on portfolio assessment seem to coincide with split reactions along these lines: (1) teachers who value teaching grammar and usage and resent the amount of time required to generate so much externally prescribed writing because it precludes time to cover basic skills, corroborated by perceptions that students' skills have declined miserably "because of KERA"; (2) those who are happy to give up the struggle to teach grammar and usage (because they hated it all along) and assert that education reform allows us simply to encourage writing regardless of style, freeing us (nay, prohibiting us!) from the responsibility of "marking" student drafts; and (3) those in the middle, who (a) sense the responsibility of addressing basic principles of language arts and preparing students for unforgiving academic audiences but are (b) frustrated with inadequate time to "cover" grammar and usage formally and (c) confused about just how much "help" with revision is appropriate.

In both scenarios, the first groups are sometimes regarded as the old school and the second groups the new. Hence, Pope's advice to those of us in the third groups who seek the Augustan "golden mean."

Research about these tensions abounds. Perhaps the most vocal element in the past decade or two has been a very confident assertion that there is absolutely no correlation between the study of grammar in isolation and the application of that knowledge in writing, so if a teacher's goal is improving student writing, he or she is wasting time on grammar for grammar's sake.

One of the most succinct, cogent, and analytical surveys of that and related research appears in a fairly recent NCTE publication, Grammar and the Teaching of Writing: Limits and Possibilities, by Rei R. Noguchi. While recognizing that teaching all categories of formal grammar in isolation is probably not very useful to writing, Noguchi suggests that the cavalier attitude that students should be left on their own to ferret out and edit their own unconventional grammar and usage during the rewriting process doesn't work either. Nor will such student writing improve by simply practicing more of the same. He argues that "many believe that students will eventually outgrow mechanical errors on the presumption that, as students increase their reading and writing experience, they will correct all the errors on their own" (13). He adds, "The problem here is that, if students do not recognize the unconventional features as unconventional, they cannot edit them out.... The persistence of unconventional writing features well into the college years and beyond suggests that editing without recognition will not work. This recognition and subsequent revision can, of course, be facilitated by at least some instruction in grammar, whether it be formal or informal" (14). The annotated local revision process, described later, may be one way to facilitate that recognition.

Noguchi's goal is to make grammar instruction "more productive" by spending less or no time on elements that don't improve writing and more on those that do, "concentrating on those categories which have the most pedagogical utility" and are "involved in correcting errors of high frequency" (19) or those most distasteful to educated readers. Using a study by Robert J. Connors and Andrea A. Lunsford and a survey by Maxine Hairston, Noguchi identifies the most frequent and/or objectionable "errors" in student writing and proceeds to offer simplified, efficient, and creative ways to address them. In other words, if you really want to learn something about effective ways to teach grammar and usage to improve writing, you should probably be reading Noguchi right now!

One other source, a 1996 article by Abdulmoneim Mohammed, "Informal Pedagogical Grammar," discusses the role of grammar in first- and second-language learning. The author cites earlier research to contrast what he calls "analyzed knowledge" of grammar by which "the learner discovers patterns and stores them under categories together with their underlying rules" so the learner can "describe the rules informally in his own words," as opposed to either "unanalyzed knowledge," or "metalingusitic knowledge," i.e., highly analyzed knowledge enabling the learner to use "grammarian's jargon." I would submit that the annotated local revision process, as described below, promotes analyzed knowledge of grammar and usage by connecting underlying principles of conventional practice to a student's own writing and by challenging a student to internalize the conventions informally in his or her own language.

Abdulmoneim Mohammed suggests that, "Such an informal PG [pedagogical grammar] appears to be in line with the current shift from the traditional teacher-centered to the learner-centered approach to language teaching." He extends on the work of previous researchers to assert that "the learner may not make use of grammar teaching if it is based on complicated metalinguistic explanations. Learners need to learn language not to describe it. Therefore, the coordination of teaching with learning may be achieved if the grammatical explanations are based on the learners' strategies and descriptions rather than the linguists'...." Armed with these encouraging words, I am less reluctant to share a method that places responsibility with students for linking grammar and usage principles in a meaningful way to their own writing but does not leave them on their own to puzzle out the unconventional features of their writing. I firmly believe that is part of my job.

THE PLACE OF GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN THE WRITING PROCESS

My students are asked to take most writing tasks from the stage of invention (freewriting, brainstorming, listing, clustering, responding to a prompt, or whatever works), through the stages of early drafting and revised drafting (if they choose to do so at my recommendation), and toward a "submission draft." Because students should not be constrained in early drafting by anxiety about style, I de-emphasize writing conventions in early drafts, but I do read, mark, and respond to at least one preliminary draft prior to the submission draft. While emphasis is on development and organization of ideas, a sense of purpose, audience, and voice in a preliminary draft, I do mark distracting departures from custom, frequently with marginal symbols or specific handbook section numbers so the writer can refer to those principles in early revision/development.

With at least one preliminary draft returned with feedback, students then move toward a submission draft that they know will be marked more closely and assessed according to a holistic scoring guide. The assumption is that a submission draft is "ready," to the best of the student's judgment and ability at the time, to be shared with readers.

As I read the paper, I do not "correct" unconventional usage. Rather, above the lapses in standard grammar or usage, I mark the submission draft with very specific editorial symbols referring the writer to certain handbook sections, subsections, or page numbers and add more challenging "content" comments or praise for better effort in the margins. My holistic scoring guide is also annotated with references to our handbook. On the scoring guide accompanying each submission draft, I circle bulleted descriptors under each of the criteria that seem to apply to this draft, indicate a level that characterizes the draft, clip the assessment form to the draft, and return it. No grade is assigned to an individual writing assignment, only a holistic description of that draft with specific evidence and reasoning reflected on the draft and on the assessment sheet.*

When students receive a marked and assessed submission draft, they have an opportunity later to push that piece of writing further toward proficiency or distinction if they choose it as a portfolio piece. But first, they are asked to address, through the annotated local revision process, their undetected grammar and usage lapses in a draft that was ostensibly ready for a reading audience. My confidence that this is an important stage of the writing process comes from Noguchi's interpretation of Hairston's work. He cites her attitudinal survey of business and professional readers who indicate that certain grammatical and usage "errors" are deemed as "very serious" or even "status marking" in influencing a reader's assessment of a writer, and he comments, "While we as teachers know (or should know) that nonstandard varieties of English are just as systematic as standard ones, an influential segment of the public does seem to judge certain salient dialectical and stylistic features as serious errors, so serious that these features apparently outweigh other and probably better indicators of writing quality" (29). He quotes Hairston: "I think we cannot afford to let students leave our classrooms thinking that surface features of discourse do not matter. They do" (27).

Therefore, my students receive the following instructions upon receiving a marked and assessed submission draft.

Since we address overall (or global) revision as a separate issue, and since the goal of this process is simply to acquaint you with (or remind you of) standard customs of writing, you will not, for this assignment, revise whole sections or rewrite the entire paper (global revision comes later). Even if you choose to rewrite later, you should nevertheless proceed with the local revision process on the first submission draft after it has been marked and returned.

The annotated local revision process, described below, is a separate assignment worth twenty points.

1. Number a variety of up to but no more than twenty editorial marks on your essay in the order of their occurrence. Make your numbers easily legible (perhaps in pencil or a color that contrasts with the original text and with my editorial marks, which, as you see, are a lovely shade of green).

2. On a separate sheet of paper, number each response according to the corresponding comment or symbol in the text of your paper.

3. Most responses should consist of two parts:

a. A revision of the error. Use the handbook's list of correction symbols and/or the instructor's directions to find the appropriate handbook passage. In order to be as specific as possible, scan the entire section indicated to pinpoint and digest the information you need. In part "a," make the correction as simply as possible. A punctuation correction, for instance, may list the word preceding the error, the appropriate punctuation, and the word after it. It is usually not necessary to rewrite the whole sentence unless the revision is for sentence structure. For spelling errors, just check a dictionary and pratice writing the word correctly a few times.

b. A brief statement, in your own words, of the usage principle that applies. After reviewing the handbook principle, briefly paraphrase (translate into your own words) the principle--just enough to let me know that you really understand the concept. If you don't, schedule a conference.
The only items that will not need a "b" part are spelling errors. However, diction errors ("d" or "ww") and commonly confused words, such as the homophones "to-two-too" or "there-their-they're," should provide a part "b" that defines both the misused word and the revision. If the diction error is not referenced to a page number in the handbook's "glossary of usage," check a dictionary.

4. Respond to localized organization/content comments such as paragraphing (7a-b), development of ideas (7c), or missing details (llc or 12b2) only if you have fewer than twenty surface features marked. Your revision in such cases should be either to clarify or supply missing content or to suggest what you would do in a subsequent draft.

5. Paperclip your revision sheets to the original text (submission draft only--not prewriting) for submission two class meetings after you have received the marked essay.

6. If your revisions are careless or incorrect, they will be returned for further revision, or, if you are not satisfied with your grade on the local revision, you may re-do the circled items and resubmit. Since each annotated local revision is worth a possible twenty points, on papers with fewer than twenty marks, each revision will be pro-rated for its share of twenty points.

7. If you have trouble understanding any particular item or even the process in general, please schedule an appointment to let me help you get it right the first time.

LOGISTICS

As you can see, this process is expedited by the instructor and students having access to the same handbook. Most handbooks include a list of editing symbols at the back, frequently keyed into specific sections, subsections, or page numbers. When I adopt a new handbook, I simply photocopy the indexed symbols and create a laminated one-piece version that I store in my "Papers to be Marked" folder. It doesn't take long before I begin memorizing the current handbook's numbering system so that editorial marks flow easily without much need of reference. For instance, I currently use Jane Aaron's second edition of the Little, Brown Compact Handbook, so if I see an oversight of a comma before a conjunction joining independent clauses, I jot "34a" above the spot. Subject-verb disagreement? "23." Pronoun-antecedent disagreement? " 26." Confusion of there, their, and they're"? "Page 308." And so on.

Checking the local revisions is equally fast and easy. I simply open the original text next to the sheet(s) of revisions, match the numbers, check the correction ("a" part) and then glance to verify that the student has selected the appropriate specific principle and demonstrated comprehension by paraphrasing it ("b" part). If not, I circle the incorrect element and maybe make a note for redirection. Checking twenty items of this nature usually takes no longer than two or three minutes.

Periodically, I schedule a conference with each student to go over several local revision assignments, noticing patterns and doing some individual teaching. In developmental classes, I set aside part of a class meeting every couple of weeks to address with the group common, recurrent glitches which I call "usage principles du jour," and I use some creative, alternative ways to teach common misunderstandings, such as those suggested by Noguchi.

For younger students, the name of this process could be adapted to something like "Spot Checks and Notes." Some teachers reduce the number of papers they handle by asking students to keep their own log of principles or "notes" about usage. I realize that some P-12 classrooms may not have access to a common handbook, but, as Noguchi indicates (chapter 2), the most common grammar and usage errors can be reduced to a surprisingly small number of categories. An enterprising writing teacher who wishes to save a great amount of time marking papers in the long run can invest a little time up front to create a handout or set of classroom charts that number or symbolize and describe their students' most common lapses, along with the principles that apply. It is much more efficient to jot a few symbols between the lines or in the margins than to engage in a lengthy description of problem sentences or wording. That's the advantage for the instructor--speed in marking papers.

For the students, the ideal goal is that, if they find themselves returning to the same handbook sections over again, they may, by repeated reference, begin to teach themselves away from those lapses. Less ideal but perhaps more practical a result is that students seem to proofread submission drafts more closely if for no other reason than to reduce effort on a local revision.

STUDENT RESPONSE

Inevitably, the first time a class turns in an annotated local revision assignment, a few students will miss the boat and need further direction. But by the second paper, most get "with the program," sometimes with the help of classmates, and all eventually find that it doesn't take nearly as long to complete the assignment as they first feared--if they do it well the first time. I hear a little anxiety and grumbling early in the semester, but by the middle of the semester, most have found the rhythm and don't seem to mind the dance. In advanced writing classes, I discontinue the practice after mid-term but accept local revisions for extra credit. In regular classes, I don't assign it for every paper, as I do in developmental classes.

At the end of the semester in an extemporaneously written course evaluation prompt, I ask students to evaluate anonymously, among the other experiences in the class, the annotated local revision. I will share passages from four student responses in a developmental class.

Do students despair at finding their "errors" marked in a paper? One wrote, describing experiences that help, "...especially getting the papers back and seeing all your mistakes written down in front of you. I feel that this course has made me a better writer and the instructor has taught me things that have improved my writing ability and corrected me from things that I had done all my life but no one has bothered to tell me about until I got in college." Another wrote, " In this course I have found it very helpful that...we had to look up the errors in the book and fill out a local revision. I believe that my writing skills have improved a lot. I can tell a big difference in my other classes writing assignments also." Another sees local revision as a smooth part of the writing process: "I really think that the more you write and get a chance to correct your mistakes, the better your writing habits become. This course has helped me because the writing pieces went through a step-by-step process. The students get a chance to get their ideas on paper, proofread them to the best of their abilities, then turn them in. After your piece is returned, you are able to push your paper even further." Another observes, "Local revisions have helped me a lot because I can see what I did wrong and how to correct that mistake. I think this writing course has had a lot of impact on my writing style and my writing skills. I know how to use correct grammar and I almost know were [sic] to put comma's [sic], but I'll have trouble with comma's until I'm old and gray."

All right, I've never claimed that the ALR will eliminate every departure from custom, and besides, commas turn many of us gray, not to mention apostrophes! But had the student been given an opportunity to take this extemporaneous writing through local revision, he or she would have been directed to 37b in Aaron's handbook ("Misuses of the Apostrophe") as well as the glossary of commonly confused words and would at least have had incentive to review principles that might be remembered the next time (or maybe the next!).

These kinds of comments, along with my own observation of student improvement, are the only evidence I can offer that annotated local revision may be helpful. If I begin to accumulate evidence to the contrary, I'll reluctantly give it up. However, I may be nearly last to lay this old favorite aside.

* Of course, I must submit mid-term and final grades, so at mid-term, students turn in a portfolio including global revisions of two "processed" pieces (further revisions of two earlier submission drafts of their choice, usually selected from four different submission drafts completed at that point) and one extemporaneous piece. At final grading time, their portfolios include the three mid-term drafts plus two new global revisions of processed pieces written after mid-term and one new extemporaneous piece. The entire portfolio is assessed holistically, and each category is then aligned with a letter grade. Other numerical supplemental grades (quizzes, annotated local revisions, etc.) are averaged, and a very low or very high percentage may influence the overall grade if the portfolio grade is between "A" and "D," but supplemental grades do not pass a student with a failing portfolio.

Aaron, Jane. The Little, Brown Compact Handbook, 2nd ed. Harper Collins, 1995.

Connors, Robert J. and Andrea A. Lunsford. "Frequency of Formal Errors in Current College Writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle Do Research." College Composition and Communication 39 (1988): 395-309.

Hairston, Maxine. "Not All Errors Are Created Equal: Nonacademic Readers in the Professions Respond to Lapses in Usage." College English 43 (1981): 774-806.

Mohammed, Abdulmoneim. "Informal Pedagogical Grammar." International Review of Applied Linguistics 34.4 (Nov. 1996): 283. EBSCO. Online. FirstSearch. 4 Sept. 1997.

Noguchi, Rei R. Grammar and the Teaching of Writing: Limits and Possibilities. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1991.