24/7 Customer support here

Children’s ability to read and write: does it depend on knowledge of grammar?

   Until the 1960’s the vast majority of schools in England, and at that other parts of the traditional English speaking world such as the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, taught grammar in schools [1]. Deemed by some academics as pointless it was found that by 1980 the tradition of teaching grammar had disappeared in state funded comprehensive schools.

   In the 1960’s many reports were published which stated that the teaching of grammar does not benefit children’s abilities to write in fact some research material adversely claimed that grammar had a detrimental affect on children[2].

    In fact according to Dick Hudson from the University of Central London a list of studies through out the 60s and 70s were considered to be classic support for the view that grammar teaching does nothing for children’s writing[3].

Since the 1990’s schools have reintroduced grammar in the form of linguistics and many linguists have been able to contribute to grammar in the National Curriculum.

Issues pertaining to the essay question

   Upon delving into the essay question it can be noticed that the subject matter is rather wide. For the purpose of this essay in order to abstain from lengthening the paper it has been decided that certain words should be clarified and hence accordingly discussed. Points that need to be kept in mind have been listed below.

a. To begin with, the question uses the word ‘grammar’, for the purpose of this paper, in order to refrain from lengthening the paper; we shall exclusively concentrate on the grammar of the English language and at that as taught in schools in England. The history of English grammar in schools situated in Wales and Northern Ireland has been relatively different where as the education system in Scotland has been totally independent in relation to England. It should also be kept in mind that results of studies carried out abroad have been included at times.

b. Another issue which needs to be touched upon presently is regarding the meaning of the wording in the question ‘ability to write’. The wording has two most obvious implications which I have listed below.

1. ‘Ability to write’ could mean good creative writing which would be writing which is interesting, captivating and enjoyable but also open to grammatical corrections.
2. The second understanding one could assume would be the development of flawless English which is free from error and flows. It would also be considered to be at times perhaps enjoyable and creative and at times not.

   For the purpose of this assignment the second interpretation has been assumed and accordingly the question will be discussed.

   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:

i. There is no benefit in teaching grammatical analysis. (Elley 1994; Elley et al 1979; Hillocks 1986; O'Hare 1973)
ii. 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.’[4] (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)[5]. 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.

1  2

BACK TO EDUCATION