Poster presentation from the EARLI Conference, August 2015, on the pedagogy of grammar for writing in primary education

1. Thinking allowed? Facilitating high-level thinking about
grammar in the writing classroom
Anthony Wilson
Theoretical Framework
Since the rediscovery of the work of Vygotsky (1978)
there has been a widespread acceptance that learning is
a situated and culturally mediated process, chiefly
through the ‘tool’ of language.
This study draws on Resnick’s et al (1997) and Michaels’
et al. (2008) notion of ‘accountable talk’ and questions
how far teachers demonstrate accountability to
knowledge in relation to grammar.
Bakhtin (1986, p.168): ‘If an answer does not give rise to
a new question…it falls out of the dialogue.’
Nystrand et al. (1997, p.72): ‘The extent to which
instruction requires students to think, not just report on
someone’s thinking.’ ‘Questions building on’ thinking
(Alexander, 2004, p.65).
Abstract Summary
Recent studies (Derewianka and Jones, 2010; Jones and Chen, 2012; Myhill et al, 2012; Myhill et al, 2013) have
underlined the importance of teachers’ linguistic subject knowledge in mediating metalinguistic knowledge in the writing
classroom, and that of pedagogical content knowledge over content knowledge (Myhill et al, 2013), for example in
handling discussion and questions about grammar.
Teachers’ low levels of grammar knowledge (Jeurissen, 2010, 2012) and lack of confidence with grammar (Watson,
2012) therefore create challenges for teachers and learners alike (Myhill et al, 2013):
•Knowledge of the domain (Alexander, 2010): the need to go beyond prescriptive grammar, merely identifying and
defining parts of speech (Jeurissen, 2010); ‘knowing grammar is knowing how more than knowing what’ (Cameron, 1997,
p.238)
•Knowledge of pedagogy (Alexander, 2010): creating a ‘discourse that takes seriously the connection between writing
and thinking’ (Miccicche, 2004, p.718) International Context Standards agenda in Anglophone countries raising
the profile of grammar teaching. Derewianka and Jones (2010): ‘grammar
as hallmark of civilisation’; ‘back to basics’ rather than a means to
supporting meaning making (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004).
•Watson (2012): oppositional discourse of some teachers: grammar is
‘inspiring’ vs. ‘threatening’.
•Jones et al (2010); Jeurissen (2012): many teachers ‘have no formal
study of language’ and are heavily reliant on their own experiences and
‘remembered folklore’ about grammar.
•Hammond and Macken-Horarik (2001): Primary teachers confident with
text types/genres but less so discussing the relationship between text,
context and grammar.
•We know more about ‘deficit’ in teachers’ content knowledge of grammar
but less about how this plays out in pedagogical practice (Myhill et al,
2013).
•Lack of an agreed metalanguage of students’ development (Jeurissen,
2012; Derewianka and Jones 2010).Challenge:
•Without declarative knowledge --- tendency towards teaching structures
and labels in isolation from meaning (Derewianka and Jones 2010).
•Issue not only of declarative grammatical content knowledge
---pedagogical content knowledge more significant in making meaningful
connections (Myhill et al, 2013).
Findings:
•Tendency to rely on semantic rather than functional
definitions (as in Myhill et al, 2013) in combination
with overt cueing towards the ‘right’ or preferred
answer, incorporating clues to the required answer
(Edwards and Mercer, 1987).
•Repetition more like a verbal tic than meaningful
response (Alexander, 2004).
Methodology This paper draws on data from a national study of
teachers in 54 schools across England, and which set out to
investigate whether drawing attention to specific grammar features
during the teaching of writing might help raise student attainment
in writing for primary children aged 10-11.
The research data collected included observations and audio data
from 54 lessons, focussing on the nature of the metalinguistic
discussion. The data analysis process was inductive. An initial
stage of open coding following the constant comparison method,
generated a first set of codes. These were then axially coded into
thematic groups.
Discussion
Is this a sign of what Alencar (2002, p. 15) calls ‘inhibiting
practices’: the need for correct responses; emphasis on
reproducing information; scant emphasis on students’ capabilities
to engage in imaginative thinking (Kampylis et al., 2009, p. 15).
Who, or what, is doing the inhibiting?
Dr Anthony Wilson, Graduate School of Education, University of Exeter email: a.c.wilson@exeter.ac.uk www.anthonywilsonpoetry.com Twitter: @awilsonpoet
Code Definitions
Labouring a point The teacher dwells too
long on a point
Too much teacher talk An episode is dominated
by teacher talk
Missed opportunity for
learning
Teacher misses a
valuable opportunity to
explore a grammar-
writing connection
Unclear focus for
discussion
The learning purpose for
the discussion is not
clear, or is confused
The challenge for teachers remains as much about pedagogical
content knowledge as grammatical content knowledge.