"Does knowledge of grammar improve a child's ability to write?"

Questions which need addressing

1. The word ‘grammar’ is a vague term the teaching of which could be approached in two ways. Firstly the old form of teaching grammar, the origins of which lie in the teaching of Latin. Secondly the modern grammar or linguistics approaches. For the purpose of this paper the following terminology has been adopted:

• Structured grammatical exercises (denoting the old fashioned approach to teaching grammar)
• Grammatical Analysis (modern approach or the linguistic approach to the teaching of grammar)

Both aspects will shortly be discussed and analysed in light of academic research.

2. Should grammar be taught with metalanguage? This question will be discussed under question one.
3. Another question which arises is regarding the aspect or scope of grammar. Grammar has many aspects and scopes such as syntax, semantics, phonetics etc. The question regarding which aspect of grammar is beneficial to the developing of writing skills in children will also be discussed.
4. The word ‘knowledge’ is also a vague term which has many implications, it would need deciding whether a the meaning is:

• An in-depth knowledge
• A little bit of knowledge

The point is that the term ‘knowledge’ is vague and hence this factor shall be discussed in due course.

Question 1: Structured grammatical exercises versus grammatical analysis

Structured Grammatical Exercises

Professor Richard Hudson says that structured grammatical analysis where in which a child is taught grammar in a covert manner with less usage of metalanguage and the teachers purposefully diverts from the traditional teaching form of grammar most certainly benefits children’s writing. (Abrahamson 1977; Barton 1997; Hillocks 1986; Mellon 1969; O'Hare 1973)

In fact in some studies Hudson keenly points out that the overt method of teaching grammar produces better results than the more traditional teaching methods of grammatical analysis. (Weaver 1996, reporting Hillocks (1986)

Grammatical Analysis

With regards to the teaching of grammar analysis or the old-fashioned method of teaching grammar, Professor Hudson divides research material in to two groups:

1. There is no benefit in teaching grammatical analysis.(Elley 1994; Elley et al 1979; Hillocks 1986; O'Hare 1973)
2. There is a benefit in teaching grammatical analysis but studies have been structured either by a) Correlating two groups of children, on the one hand those children who have received education in grammar and secondly the group which has not. b) Through language awareness which is the comparing of writing skills of children with their knowledge of the topic. (Bateman and Zidonis 1966; Bryant et al 1997, 2000; Gale 1967; Heap 1991; Kennedy and Larson 1969; Klotz 1996; Mason and Mason 1997; Mason, Mason, and Quayle 1992; Mccleary 1995; Mellon 1969; Nunes et al 1997a,b; Williams 1995)

Hudson points out that the latter two studies can be brought together by highlighting the exclusive features of the studies which have been reproduced below:

1. It is clearly focussed on one particular area of grammar (subordinate and main clauses) which correlates with an aspect of writing where children need help (punctuation).
2. It is spread over many years - at least from third to sixth grade.
3. It starts in primary school.

The Bullock Report

The UK government’s Bullock report in the 1960’s on English teaching was a classical study investigating the ‘grammatical analysis’ approach to teaching grammar. The Bullock Report found that the teaching of grammar needed some drastic changing it concluded: ‘What has been shown is that the teaching of traditional analytic grammar does not appear to improve performance in writing.’ (HMSO 1975:169) from the above it seems that the report was merely intending to encourage teachers to improve standards of grammar teaching rather than end its’ being taught. But with in the space of the next decade rather than improving standards England saw a dramatic end of grammar in English schools.

People who are of an opinion which is anti-grammar forward the argument that the Bullock report supports the move to the abolishment of grammar. But when we look in to the Bullock report it can be seen that is was more in favour of improving the teaching of grammar rather than totally ending it.

At the moment in the UK it can be said that there is a growing trend showing that the teaching of grammar could improve writing standards. This growing trend is most evident with the presence of grammar as being one of the main pillars of the newly introduced National Literacy (DfEE 1997) and the National Curriculum for English (DfEE and QCA 1999).  Hudson says, “one of the reasons given for this major change of teaching policy is the beneficial effect of grammar teaching on the children's writing.”

Geoff Barton

In the UK, Geoff Barton, a secondary school teacher with a training in linguistic, reported (1998) that some of his weakest students benefit ‘dramatically’ from an exploration of simple compound and complex sentence types.

Mary Mason

Mary Mason, a linguistically qualified teacher, designed a complete 3 year course in academic languae for 12 to 14 year olds which now has been taught over a number of years in several schools. (Mason et al 1992). The course improved writing skills dramatically.

So which grammar is best?

Hudson points out that studies regarding grammar have explored three types of grammar, the traditional grammar, transformational grammar and systematic grammar. Fundamentally it still remains unclear as to which form of grammar is best. Many different researches have suggested their own opinions regarding this but it still remains debateable and open to scrutiny. (ordoir and Wesdorp (1979); (Gale (1967) (Bateman and Zidonis 1966; Gale 1967; Heap 1991; Kennedy and Larson 1969; Mason and Mason 1997; Mason, Mason, and Quayle 1992; Mccleary 1995; Mellon 1969; Williams 1995.)

So with regards to the research material available regarding the affects of grammar on the writing of children we can safely say that the vast majority of such material is clearly indicative that some sort of grammar in fact benefits the writings of children.

Looking at the research evidence it seem that the actual content of old fashioned grammar and the method of teaching was probably the main problem why many studies that were undertaken by academics concluded that grammar does not benefit language and writing skills.

From the above it can be said that although there is a disagreement as to which type of grammar is advantageous for children in enabling them to write English but fundamentally the studies show that there is a majority thinking that some sort of grammar is much better than none.

An observation

After having completed my secondary education in a comprehensive school with no knowledge of grammar what so ever I, like many other 16-17 year olds embarked upon studying at the internationally acclaimed seat of learning for traditional Islamic theology and classical Arabic, Darul Uloom al-Arabiyyah al-Islamiyyah, Bury.

Arabic was taught by learning Arabic grammar which involved learning by rota, Nahw (syntax) and Sarf (morphology). Students would learn the Arabic and Urdu texts of classical grammar manuscripts some of which dated back to over a thousand years. Students were also required to learn and inculcate in themselves the method of translating Arabic to Urdu. Looking back at the course structure it now transpires that the course never really emphasised writing Arabic, in fact one would estimate that in the first three years of study (the course was a six year study) students spent a mere hardly any time involved in creative writing. But nevertheless out of the six former luminaries of Darul Uloom who are presently at study undertaking the 3rd year English in Education Module, 4 of them received As in their A level Classical Arabic Examinations, an examination the vast part of which required students to write stories in Arabic which as the syllabus stated was supposed to be creative and free from error. The remaining two students received a B and a C, marks clearly reflected the competence of the students in their mastering of concepts of grammar.

From the above it can be noticed that a mere strict and rigid study of grammar where in which metalanguage does improve children’s abilities to write.

Question: 2 Should Metalanguage be taught?

Metalanguage is a word describing specialist terminology used in the teaching of grammar. The National Literacy Strategy has included a glossary of 200 technical terms, of which less than third is related to grammar. Academics such as Hudson feel that ‘technical terminology is accepted as a necessary part of explicit teaching’. But looking at the research studies on the whole it seems that grammar either way by teaching through metalanguage or without benefits children. Therefore there does not seem to be a valid argument against the usage of metalanguage but rather it should be included.

Another point which should be made is that the beneficial effects of the NLS on the development of children’s skills in writing can not be disputed. Hudson says, ‘during the first few years after it was introduced, literary standards improved dramatically before stabilising at a higher level. Observing the NLS it can be seen that there is as mentioned above a third of the NLS glossary dedicated to metalanguage. Although metlanaguage can not be considered to be the sole catalyst for the improvement of standards but it most certainly has contributed

Question 3: The scope of grammar

Secondly, should grammar teaching go beyond the traditional focus on sentence-level grammar (i.e. syntax)? The research strongly supports the inclusion of both morphology (Bryant et al 1997, 2000; Nunes et al 1997a, b) and features relevant to the organisation of discourse and texts (Heap 1991; Mason and Mason 1997; Mason, Mason and Quayle 1992).

Conclusion

The large scale literature summary undertaken by Richard Hudson shows that “the idea that grammar teaching improves children’s writing skills is much better supported by the available research than is commonly supposed. (Hudson 2000:4)

National Literacy Strategy

During the Thatcher years having noticed a decline in standards of literacy

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/revolution.htm

to appear in : Bringing Linguistics into the Schools: Preparing K-12 Teachers, edited by  Kristin Denham and Anne Lobeck

Revolution in England:  at last, linguistics meets school teaching.

Richard Hudson

This top-down pressure for KAL was further increased by one of the first steps taken by the new Labour government in 1997, the trial introduction of the National Literacy Strategy (extended to all primary schools in 1999). This is a highly focused programme for raising reading and writing standards in primary schools (years 1 to 6);  it was paired from the start with a National Numeracy Strategy, and more recently it has fed into the English strand of a National Strategy for years 7 to 9 in secondary school. The government has given this programme very high priority both in terms of publicity and in terms of resources, so schools have been bombarded with guidance and training materials and all serving teachers have had a certain amount of training.  Not surprisingly there has been some resistance, but by and large the Literacy Strategy is accepted as part of primary education, and most teachers seem to agree that its benefits outweigh its weaknesses. During the first few years after it was introduced, literacy standards improved dramatically before stabilising at a higher level, but it is hard to separate the effects of KAL from all the other changes that were introduced at the same time.

Cont metalanguage yes Hudson

In the world-wide debate about grammar teaching one of the main questions concerns terminology: should the teacher use specialist metalanguage? In the UK context this is not an issue: technical terminology is accepted as a necessary part of explicit teaching. Indeed, the documents that launched the National Literacy Strategy included a glossary of 200 technical terms, of which about 90 related to grammar. These are terms which teachers are expected to use in class, and which children learn to use; so the UK's primary schools are now full of five-year olds talking about phonemes and adjectives. Since these documents had the official stamp of approval, this glossary counts as the first-ever government-sponsored glossary of grammatical terminology in the UK.

The Bullock Report

The UK government’s Bullock report in the 1960’s on English teaching was a classical study and found that grammar teaching needed some drastic changing. It concluded: ‘What has been shown is that the teaching of traditional analytic grammar does not appear to improve performance in writing.’ (HMSO 1975:169) 

The Bullock Report was intending to encourage teachers to improve standards of English grammar teaching but with in the space of the next decade rather than improving standards England saw a dramatic end of grammar in English schools.

---