Abstract
Recent data suggest less-than-ideal student achievement in general academic skills, including in writing performance (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022; Jaggars & Stacey, 2014; National Center for Education Statistics, 2012). This qualitative study addresses this problem by exploring the role of grammar instruction in writing development in secondary education.
Specifically, this presentation will be guided by the following research question: Are the Indiana Academic Standards for English Language Arts (6-12) consistent with current research on linguistically-informed grammar and writing instruction? A decades-long debate regarding the usefulness of formal grammar instruction continues, and educators have not always displayed an eagerness to work with linguists to develop best educational practices. However, many linguists argue that a relationship of cooperation between the two fields would promote student success (e.g., Chatterjee & Halder, 2022; Denham, 2020; Myhill, Newman, & Watson, 2020; de Oliveira & Smith, 2019; van Rijt, de Swart, & Coppen, 2019; Hacker, 2018).
The present qualitative study followed a process of open and axial coding while examining modern research on the impact of grammar instruction in writing development informed by systemic functional linguistics and metacognitive theory. By the conclusion of the axial coding stage, four salient themes in the discussion of linguistically-informed pedagogies were identified: 1) Prescriptivism vs. Descriptivism, 2) Connection Between Spoken and Written Language, 3) Grammar Instruction in Isolation vs. Grammar Instruction in Context, and 4) Writing as a Long-Term Developing Process. These themes were then applied to a qualitative analysis of the 2020 Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) academic standards for English Language Arts to highlight and identify language promoting either more traditional, prescriptive approaches to grammar and writing instruction or more modern, linguistically-informed descriptive approaches.
The results of the present study show that the IDOE standards for English Language Arts (6-12) contain some elements recommended by current linguistic research but that more revisions need to be made to the standards in order to encourage more robust linguistically-oriented instruction in grammar and writing lessons in Indiana schools. Long term, a larger restructuring to the state standards is recommended. More research is needed to find and develop effective
linguistically-informed pedagogical practices, but the underlying assumption of this study is that if no explicit language exists within the Indiana standards to promote greater linguistic understanding, there is little external motivation or accountability for school corporations to choose curricula with linguistically-informed approaches, for teachers to receive sufficient linguistic knowledge in their pre- and in-service trainings, and for teachers to then make these connections for students in the classroom. The presentation of this study will include an overview of the context and the literature reviewed, an explanation of the coding and analysis methods, examples from the IDOE standards for English Language Arts (6-12), and recommendations for changes to the standards and for further research. The presentation will conclude with a time of Q&A regarding the methods and implications of the study.
References:
Chatterjee, A. & Halder, S. (2022). Teaching grammar in the context of writing: A critical review. Journal of Education, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574221074308
de Oliveira, L. C., & Smith, S. L. (2019). Systemic functional linguistics in teacher education. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.494
Denham, K. (2020). Positioning students as linguistic and social experts: teaching grammar and linguistics in the United States. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 20, 1- 16. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2020.20.03.02
Hacker. D.J. (2018). A metacognitive model of writing: An update from a developmental perspective. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 220–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1480373
Jaggars, S., & Stacey, G.W. (2014). What we know about developmental education outcomes. Community College Research Center, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.7916/D8K0729T
Myhill, D., Newman, R., & Watson, A. (2020). Going meta: dialogic talk in the writing classroom. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, Vol. 43(1), 5-16.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). National assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Mathematics and reading scores of fourth- and eighth-graders declined in most states during pandemic, Nation’s Report Card shows [Press release]. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/supportive_files/2022_rm_press_release.do cx
van Rijt, J., de Swart, P., & Coppen, P. A. (2019). Linguistic concepts in L1 grammar education: A systematic literature review. Research Papers in Education, Vol. 34(5), 621-648. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1493742