That sentence reminded me of my experience of I Am Charlotte Simmons. I couldn’t read past the third chapter in that book because I couldn’t understand the voice of the hideous punctuation.

Ever put sentences of great writers through the word grammar check for fun? You should try it some time for some shits and giggles.

Switching back and forth between these processes in the early and middle stages of drafting not only reduces efficiency, but can block the necessary focus they need. I ask my students to consider how often they have been in the “groove” with generating ideas and working on the argument and then, after stopping to correct errors and do minor sentence level revision, lose that groove. Many will agree they have had that experience. Their muse isn’t the one providing inspiration on proofreading their text

BTW: Given where you are, perhaps a military analogy might also serve your point about efficiency. Working out minor tactical details can be a waste of time before one has effectively decided on a strategic plan and the overall tactical implementation since those plans are subject to change.

When error and other mechanics of illegibility are strategically inserted into a text to enhance meaning. When I teach writing, I teach students to transgress strategically — and in that sense, waiting ’til the end to work in purposeful error makes no sense.

When “error” is, very early on, keeping a student from producing meaning. To wait ’til the end, in cases like this one, is to put of teaching a productive compositional element.

I try to help the students identify the two or three mistakes they are most likely to make, and I encourage them to edit their own papers specifically for those errors. This works wonders when students are highly motivated. Non-traditionals who are simply rusty from being out of school for a while often make real progress by concentrating on their own patterns of mistakes.

As for the research about direct grammatical instruction, I’m sure it is correct. I do feel, however, that some sort of grammatical instruction has to take place for those who are struggling. I also feel that almost any method of instruction can work for students who are highly motivated.

The trick then is to get students motivated to improve. I don’t believe there is a catch all for that. Nothing will ever be a substitute for an instructor who has time and gives that time to individual attention to student writing.

And what do you think of the body of research that seems to show that direct grammatical instruction has little to no effect?

I do, however, mark mistakes on final graded drafts. This is what is required of me in my job, and the students I have are often quite grammatically challenged. When I was in graduate school, I remember we were asked to think about whether student errors “impeded readability.” Well, I am here to tell you that 90% or more of my students make the kind of errors that severely impede readability. Something has to be said or done about it in the grading process.

My mother had a cross-stitched piece hanging on the wall when I was growing up that said, “I once had six theories about raising children. I now have six children and no theories.” That’s the way I feel about teaching composition. I had a lot more theories about how it should be done before I had six sections at a time with an average of 35 people in each section, many of whom are in need of remediation.

I’d also hand your colleagues Hartwell’s famous “On Grammar…” and the introduction to Errors and Expectations. But don’t hold your breath. Despite all the educating I’ve tried to do at my place on this same issue, the grammar- thumpers don’t want to learn.

I’ve noticed that errors sometimes work themselves out in the process of revision anyway. Why spend all that time/energy making students hyper-aware of them early on?