24/7 Customer support here

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 metlanguage 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.[1] 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.’[6] (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.

________________________________________
[1] The National Literacy Strategy website is http://www.standards.dfee.gov.uk/literacy, and the site for the National Strategy for KS3 (i.e. for secondary schools - Key Stage 3 covers years 7 to 9) is http://www.standards.dfee.gov.uk/keystage3.
________________________________________

[1] Barton, G., and Hudson, R., 2002. Grammar teaching: grind or glamour? [Online]. Available at: http://geoffbarton.co.uk/writing/recent-articles.php [Accessed 20 December 2003]

[2] Harris, R. J. An experimental inquiry into the functions and value of formal grammar in the teaching of English, with special reference to the teaching of correct written English to children aged twelve to fourteen. PhD thesis, University of London, 1962.

[3] Hudson, R., 200. Grammar teaching and writing skills: The research evidence. [Online]. Available at: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/writing.htm [Accessed 20 December 2003]

[4] HMSO. 1975. A Language for Life. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

[5] QCA. "Recent research on grammar teaching." The Grammar Papers. Perspectives on the teaching of grammar in the national curriculum. 45-56. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. 1998. Also at http://www.open.gov.uk/qca/. Publisher's reference QCA/98/052.

[6] HMSO. 1975. A Language for Life. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
 

1  2

BACK TO EDUCATION