The Grammar Papers by Marc Conlon

National curriculum

1998 The grammar papers Perspectives on the teaching of grammar in the national curriculum

ÂŁ3 QCA ref: QCN98/052 ISBN: 1 85838 301 3 First published 1998 @ Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) 1998 Reproduction, storage, adaptation or translation, in any form or by any means, of this publication is prohibited without prior written permission of the publisher, unless within the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Excerpts may be reproduced for the purpose of research, private study, criticism or review, or by educational institutions solely for educational purposes, without permission, providing full acknowledgement is given. Printed in Great Britain. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is an exempt charity under the Charities Act 1993. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, Newcombe House, 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3JB and 222 Euston Road, London NW1 2BZ. Further copies of this document can be ordered using the QCA Publications Catalogue or by contacting: QCA Publications, PO Box 235, Hayes, Middlesex UB3 1HF (telephone 0181 8673333, fax 0181 8673233). When ordering, please quote title and QCA reference number. Cover extract reprinted from The Concise Oxford Dictionary, ninth edition, by permission of Oxford University Press. @ Oxford University Press 1995.

Contents Introduction

Overview of contents

Paper 1. What is grammar?

Paper 2. Grammar in the English order

Paper 3. Teachers' confidence, knowledge and practice in the teaching of grammar at key stages 2 and 3

Paper 4. Meeting the grammar requirements in the English order

Paper 5. Assessing pupils' knowledge and use of grammar

Paper 6. Recent research on grammar teaching

References

Further reading

Introduction Since the introduction of the revised English order in 1995 there has been much debate about the teaching of grammar. Evidence from the monitoring programme carried out by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA) in 1995-7 showed there is widespread uncertainty as to how to interpret and implement the grammar requirements in the national curriculum. Discussion with teachers indicated that there is little consensus about: the role of grammar in the English curriculum; how to integrate the teaching of grammar within the overall programme for English; the nature and extent of grammatical knowledge needed by teachers; . whether pupils' grammatical knowledge needs to be explicit; how pupils' grammatical knowledge and understanding can be assessed. The background to current concern is a long-standing controversy about grammar teaching in which positions have often become unnecessarily polarised. It is in this context that SCANQCA has undertaken several pieces of work on grammar teaching in the last two years. This collection of papers brings together the results of these studies to: identify key issues in the teaching of grammar; clarify the grammar requirements in the English order; establish clear principles to inform the planning of grammar teaching; provide guidance on assessing pupils' knowledge and use of grammar. In addition to providing guidance on teaching the national curriculum grammar requirements, it is hoped that these papers will promote and inform wider professional discussion of grammar teaching. The assessment of pupils' grammatical knowledge in national curriculum tests at key stage 3 is the subject of ongoing work. In 1997 SCAA developed a voluntary national pilot test of grammar, spelling and punctuation. In 1998 there is a technical pilot of separate reading and writing tests which will integrate the explicit assessment of grammar, spelling and punctuation with the assessment of pupils' reading and writing skills. Decisions about the future shape of the tests for English at key stage 3 will take account of the evaluation of both pilots. Comments on this document, or practical ideas on ways to teach grammar, are welcome and should be addressed to: The English team QCA Newcombe House 45 Notting Hill Gate London W11 3JB QCA ref: QCA/98/052

Overview of contents

Paper 1. What is grammar? This paper sets the current debate about grammar teaching in an historical context. It looks at the ways in which grammar has been taught over the centuries and traces some of the significant shifts in the meaning of the word 'grammar'. Key points Grammar has a long and complex history. Grammar includes syntax, morphology and semantics and was originally associated with logic and rhetoric. Early prescriptive school grammars used Latin terminology and narrowed the scope of grammar. Traditional formal grammar teaching in schools began to fall into disfavour in the 1950s. Descriptive grammars were developed in the nineteenth century for the academic study of language. In the twentieth century linguistics expanded and became specialised as an academic discipline. This has led to growing differences between school and university. study of grammar. This history underlies some of the questions that face grammar teaching today: - how can grammar teaching be systematic if it is taught only as and when it arises in the context of pupils' work? - how can systematic approaches to the teaching of grammar, which are responsive to the living language, be developed?

Paper 2. Grammar in the English order This paper clarifies the aims and scope of the grammar requirements in the English order and shows some ways pupils can apply their grammatical knowledge. Key points The aims of the requirements are to: ensure that pupils are familiar with grammatical terminology, and can make independent use of their grammatical knowledge in relation to their own and others' work. The grammar requirements should be met within an overall programme of English work which integrates speaking and listening, reading and writing. The requirements are broadly of two kinds, those concerned with language structure and those concerned with language variety. Pupils should be taught: - the organising principles and structures of language and how they contribute to meaning and effect; - how to make use of their knowledge of language structure in their reading and writing; - that language changes, the sources and causes of linguistic change, and how meanings are affected by choice of vocabulary and structure; - how to apply their knowledge of language variety. Analysis of language is the key to developing pupils' explicit grammatical knowledge. Analysis depends on the ability to name linguistic features, structures and patterns at word, sentence and whole text level.

Paper 3. Teachers' confidence, knowledge and practice in the teaching of grammar at key stages 2 and 3 This paper outlines the findings of a survey conducted by SCAA in ten local education authorities (LEAs). The survey focused on key stages 2 and 3 and included: a survey about schools' planning for grammar; a questionnaire about teachers' knowledge of grammar and their confidence in teaching grammar; and comments on pupils' writing. The findings provide the most detailed picture about current practice in grammar teaching. Key points The survey showed that explicit planning for grammar was patchy, and that much coverage was implicit. About one-third of schools at key stage 2 included phrase, clause and sentence structure in their plans. About one-quarter of schools at key stage 3 referred to all aspects of phrase, clause and sentence structure, outlined in the English order, in their schemes of work. However, about half included only some aspects, and one-quarter of schools made no reference to phrase, clause and sentence structure in their plans. The survey findings raise issues about: - what explicit knowledge of grammar teachers need; - how grammar should be explicitly taught; - the initial and in-service training needed to ensure that teachers have sufficient knowledge of grammar. The survey showed that teachers were uncertain about: - the meaning of the word 'grammar'; - the relationship between implicit and explicit grammatical knowledge; - the terminology to use when teaching grammar; - realistic expectations of pupils' grammatical knowledge; - how to plan for continuity and progression in grammar teaching; - the relationship between the grammar requirements, learning objectives and teaching activities. In the survey teachers revealed: - most confidence in teaching discourse structure and least confidence in teaching sentence structure; - confidence in identifying categories of words based on grammatical function and explaining them to pupils; - greater confidence on sentence demarcation than on punctuation within the sentence; -

more frequent comment on punctuation in a sample of pupil's writing than on its form and structure.

Paper 4. Meeting the grammar requirements in the English order This paper provides a framework within which schools can plan their teaching of grammar. General principles that inform effective planning are identified and illustrated in units of work. Key points Â&#x192; Planning should ensure that grammatical terms are: - taught explicitly and systematically; - looked for in day-to-day work; - made relevant to the texts studied and written in class; - used by all staff in their assessment and response to pupils' work. Â&#x192; Schemes of work should set out: - the nature of progression in grammatical knowledge; - the extent to which grammar is to be integrated or taught discretely; - those aspects best taught through direct teaching and those taught in the context of pupils' work through marking; - where grammatical concepts are to be revisited; - those aspects which are taught and reinforced regularly and those which are the focus of more extended work. Â&#x192; Effective grammar teaching should: - involve teacher exposition; - encourage pupil investigation; - focus on individual pupils' needs; - refer to previous grammar teaching; - include responses to, and assessment of, pupils' oral and written work.

Paper 5. Assessing pupils' knowledge and use of grammar This paper sets out key principles that inform the effective assessment of pupils' knowledge and use of grammar. Key points The assessment of pupils' grammatical knowledge and understanding should be planned for in the same way as other aspects of the English curriculum. Assessment methods should include those which are: - embedded in normal classroom work; - based on discrete tasks designed to assess a particular aspect of grammar; - focused on grammar as a subsidiary part of a larger task; - investigative and also which require pupils to identify and explain grammatical features and patterns. Opportunities should be provided for pupils to show their grammatical knowledge by: - using a variety of language features and levels of formality depending on context and situation; - recognising a variety of language uses, different grammatical features and structures of different genres; - replicating these features in their work. Opportunities should be provided for pupils to show their knowledge of grammar as a system by: - showing their understanding of grammatical concepts when describing the meaning or effect of their own or others' work; - identifying correctly parts of speech and grammatical structures and functions; - showing their understanding of word formation and patterns of vocabulary; - showing their understanding of the relationship between the linguistic choices made by the writer or speaker and the effect of the communication; -

making relevant and appropriate independent use of their grammatical knowledge and understanding in relation to their own and others' work.

Paper 6. Recent research on teaching grammar This paper looks at a research review undertaken by SCAA in order to consider the relative merits of particular approaches to grammar teaching. It details how traditional formal grammar teaching came to be discredited and examines the limitations of recent research into grammar teaching. It also clarifies how today's 'grammar' differs from traditional forms of grammar. Key points Research evidence on teaching grammar is patchy and limited in scope. Research evidence from the 1950s and 1960s was widely perceived to have shown that grammar teaching is of little benefit to pupils. This evidence now appears less conclusive and reliable than generally supposed. Reexamination of early studies shows that explicit grammar teaching is likely to benefit pupils when it is integrated with other work. There is little conclusive evidence about the effects of teaching non-traditional grammars. Several studies reveal that new teachers often do not have sufficient grammatical knowledge to teach the requirements of the English order.

Paper 1

What is grammar?

An historical perspective Any discussion about teaching grammar in schools today has to take into account: the various senses in which the word has come to be used; changes in classroom practice; developments in the academic study of language. In everyday speech, the word 'grammar' is often used to refer to almost any feature of language structure or usage, including spelling, punctuation and pronunciation, and is frequently associated with notions of correctness. In academic terms, grammar is part of the broader study of language known as linguistics. Even within the field of linguistics, however, the word has accumulated a number of different senses which are perhaps best understood in an historical context. Classical Greece In classical Greece, grammar was concerned with the forms and structures of language. It comprised three elements: syntax - the principles and rules by which words are combined into larger structures such as phrases, clauses and sentences, and how the relations between these units are indicated; morphology - the rules and principles of the structure and changes in word formation; semantics - the principles of the relationship between words, sentences and their meanings. These three subjects formed the core of education in the Greek city states where participation in democracy depended on effective public speaking. Therefore grammar was closely associated with rhetoric, the study of the persuasive use of language and its effects, and logic/dialectic, the study of reasoned argument. Medieval Europe In medieval times, grammar, logic/dialectic and rhetoric, known as the trivium, formed the basis of education in Western Europe. In this tradition the language studied was Latin, the lingua franca of Europe. The dominance of Latin and the trivium in education was gradually weakened in early modern times by: the development of nation states and the increasing use of their vernacular languages in public affairs; the rise of science; and the extension of secular education. As national languages were standardised and studied by scholars, they were described in terms derived from linguistic knowledge of Latin. The principles and structures of Latin, which had been observed and codified over centuries, were simply applied to English irrespective of the significantly different characteristics of the two languages. Although the medium of instruction for pupils at school was English, English did not exist as a separate subject until the mid- nineteenth century. Any language study was related to Latin, which retained a central place in the curriculum.

Paper 1 School grammars The gradual extension of literacy in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and the increasing importance of standard English, created a huge demand for textbooks which set out rules and principles of standard English for those with little or no knowledge of Latin. Lowth's Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762) and Murray's English Grammar (1794) are typical texts of this kind and are often referred to as school grammars. These school grammars became indispensable in the nineteenth century with the advent of universal elementary education in which English was the medium of instruction. Latin did not feature in the curriculum for most of the population although it retained an important place in the curriculum in selective and independent schools. The content of the school grammar textbooks for the new elementary schools was a narrow selection from what had counted as grammar in the classical tradition. Their primary concern was with the specification of rules designed to ensure correct sentence construction in written standard English. The traditional formal grammar teaching associated with these grammar books was dominated by exercises and drills in parsing, identifying parts of speech and clause analysis. By comparison with modern grammars, relatively little attention was paid to the variation of sentence structure; linguistic variation was conceived entirely in terms of adherence to, or deviation from, the standard form. These textbooks were not informed by any coherent view of language acquisition and development and there was little or no attention to the context, audience or purpose of pupils' writing. Although traditional formal grammar teaching persisted with very little change until the 1950s, it was largely abandoned within mainstream English schools by the 1970s. Between 1950 and 1970 there were substantial and lasting changes in how English was taught. Research findings from this period, which are now less convincing, claimed that grammar teaching not only failed to improve the development of pupils' language competence but actually impeded it. A varied range of other factors also helped to discredit traditional formal grammar teaching. These included: new teaching methods which were more responsive to pupils' interests and their linguistic and cultural experience; greater understanding of language acquisition and development; a desire to redress inequalities in the education system that were perceived to be linguistic in origin, particularly selection at 11 +; new courses and modes of assessment, such as the Certificate of Secondary Education (CSE), and coursework which involved much higher proportions of pupils and aimed to recognise positive achievement; the absence of commonly shared knowledge of grammar; a growing awareness of the mismatch between grammar based on static written forms and the range of pupils' spoken and written English. By the time of the Bullock Report (1975), most English teaching aimed to integrate the language modes and provide pupils with 'real' purposes and audiences for their language use. In this context, emphasis was placed on pupils' talk and personal responses to literature. The explicit, discrete teaching of grammar largely disappeared because explicit grammatical knowledge was no longer considered a necessary precondition for pupils' ability to communicate. Grammar was taught, as the need and occasion arose, in the context of pupils' own work.

Paper 1 The medieval trivium Grammar, logic/dialetic, rhetoric.

Traditional formal grammar syntax, semantics, morphology; analytical approach derived from Latin; concerned with written texts.

pedagogical grammars selective in coverage; concerned only with written language; prescriptive in approach.

descriptive grammars comprehensive coverage of both written and, to a lesser extent, spoken language; non-evaluative description of rules and conventions recognized in ordinary usage.

reference grammars based on analysis of a body of data of actual language usage.

theoretical grammars based on specific theories of language structure.

eg Lowth (1762) Murray (1794)

eg Sweet (1877) Jespersen (1922) School grammar books eg Nesfield (1st edn. 1898, 25th edn. 1961)

eg Quirk (1985) Sinclair (1990) Greenbaum (1996)

formal grammars structuralist in approach explanation of which combinations of words and phrases are permitted as sentence forms without reference to how these forms are used in communication.

functional grammars focus on meaning and language as social construct and practice; explanation of sentence forms in terms of their function in communication.

eg Chomsky transformationalgenerative grammar (1957)

eg Halliday systemic-functional grammar (1967)

The historical development of grammar studies

Grammar as an academic discipline The study of grammar in higher education in the nineteenth century developed very differently. During this time, the scholarly tradition of grammar study inherited from classical times was extended by increasing attention to the origins and histories of modern languages and the relationships between them. This led to a realisation of the inadequacy of Latin grammar to describe or analyse the contemporary usage and structures of the English language. Scholars such as Sweet and Jespersen developed descriptive grammars which set out to account for the forms and structures of the language on its own terms, rather than as an aberration from Latin. As this approach was developed, there emerged an increasing gap emerged between the study of grammar in schools and in higher education, which has persisted. These descriptive grammars incorporate much from Latin grammar but have additional features to take account of the significant differences between Latin and English, for example, that Latin is a highly inflected language whereas English no longer is. The purpose of descriptive grammars is to set out, in a systematic and principled way, the rules that appear to govern how a language is used. The rules are normally derived from the study of a wide ranging sample of spoken and written language that has been systematically collected. The rules derived are descriptive rather than prescriptive. This tradition continues today in the work of Quirk in A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985), and Sinclair in Collins Cobuild English Grammar (1990). Such works are known as reference grammars and offer full, authoritative contemporary accounts of the English language. 13

Paper 1 In the last fifty years, academic linguistics has grown extensively in England. As a result a range of new specialisms have been developed, and older areas of study have been expanded (see specialist areas of language study below). These changes have led to grammar being interpreted in more or less broad terms. Some linguists restrict their usage of the term to syntax. Others take a broader view of grammar as being concerned with the fundamental organising principles of language in whole texts. In contemporary linguistics, therefore, semantics, stylistics, morphology and pragmatics are part of grammar and also separate disciplines. Different approaches to the study of grammar Modern linguistics is made up of a range of specialisms which highlight particular aspects of spoken and/or written texts. Each specialism has subdivisions and beyond them are neighbouring subject disciplines with which they share common interests. For example, semantics, philosophy and literary criticism have some overlapping concerns with literary texts. phonology: the sound system of a language. graphology: the writing system of a language.

syntax: the combination and arrangement of words within larger structures such as phrases, clauses and sentences.

lexis: the total vocabulary items in a language.

morphology: the form and structure of words, and their inflection, derivation and change over time.

text: written or spoken.

semantics: meaning, changes in meaning and the principles that govern the relationship between words and sentences and their meanings.

pragmatics: the interpretation of utterances in the context in which they are used. psycholinguistics: psychology of how language is developed and used.

sociolinguistics: language in relation to its social context.

stylistics: characteristic choices in language use made by different individuals or groups.

Specialist areas of language study

In this sense, the word 'grammar' denotes a field of study as well as a particular method, system or approach within that field of study. Thus, the ways in which words combine into larger, structural units can be studied and described in a number of ways, and a range of grammars (in the sense of systems) has been developed for different purposes. Broadly speaking, these fall into three categories: traditional, formal and systemic-functional. Reference grammars are traditional as they seek to provide a comprehensive descriptive account of the language. Other grammars take a different form depending on what questions they seek to address or what functions they serve. There are disagreements and differences of emphasis and also of terminology, with varied definitions of a number of technical terms.

Paper 1 Transformational-generative grammar is a formal grammar that has been developed by the American linguist Chomsky, and his followers, in a series of publications starting with Syntactic Structures (1957). This grammar is 'formal' in the sense that its subject matter is primarily the formal patterning of words and phrases in sentences, though the meanings and functions of these patterns have also been studied in detail. The main theoretical aim is to understand how grammars are learnt and applied, so this approach is a branch of psychology and tries to explain the facts of individual languages as examples of universal features found in all languages. Hence, transformational-generative grammar is less concerned with meaning than with the form and properties that are common to all languages. This theory has developed into a complex technical system which is unlikely to be directly relevant to English teachers, but it is used in much current research into language acquisition. By contrast, Halliday, in a series of publications starting with The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching (1964), developed systemic-functional grammar which takes meaning rather than form as its starting point. This is a functional theory of language, with a concern for language as a means of communication. All utterances, spoken or written, are seen to serve some kind of function - to assert, promise, disagree, threaten etc. Central to this analysis is the notion of choice. Each aspect of grammatical description is seen as a series of options from which the speaker or writer makes choices that are dependent on context, audience and purpose. In contrast with formal theories, which tend to separate syntax and morphology from pragmatics and semantics, systemic-functional grammar is closely related to meaning. This has made it attractive to some educationists, especially in the fields of teaching English as a foreign language and English as an additional language, and also in the teaching of literacy to young children. A level language study - an introduction to the field The various branches of language study in higher education have influenced the development and design of A level English language courses. The current subject core for A level English language sets out a framework for the systematic study of language at different levels of analysis including: the characteristic speech sounds and intonation patterns of the English language (phonology); the origins and development of words in the vocabulary of English (lexis); the rules and conventions associated with morphology, phrase and clause structure, sentence organisation and textual patterns of English (grammar); key features of the principles and theories concerned with the construction and interpretation of meaning in speech and writing (semantics). In addition, all A level English language syllabuses must include the study of variations in language according to mode and context, including the role of personal and social factors in influencing forms and meanings. Grammar today - challenges for the classroom Aspects of its complex history regularly surface in any contemporary discussion about the merits of grammar teaching. For some decades, conventional wisdom has discouraged the explicit teaching of traditional formal grammar as a way of increasing pupils' competence in writing. The major recent reports on English teaching (Bullock 1975, Kingman 1988 and Cox 1989) have rejected very clearly the idea of a return to grammar teaching that is unrelated to other aspects of tile English curriculum. However, all three reports also advocated the systematic and explicit teaching of language, including grammar. This has left a gap in methodology which is proving difficult to fill. The problem has not been helped by post-war developments in linguistics which

Paper 1 have led to uncertainty over what grammar and which terminology to teach. Disputes over definitions have distracted attention away from the benefits of explicit grammar teaching in enhancing pupils' reading and improving their writing. For those seeking to teach grammar in the context of pupils' work there are some clear dilemmas. How can grammar teaching be systematic and progressive if it is only taught when it arises, either naturally or by chance, in the context of pupils' own work? At the same time, how can a systematic treatment of grammar avoid being a study of form, divorced from the living language it is meant to represent? The challenge now is to develop appropriate ways of teaching grammar that will increase pupils' competence and confidence in their language use.

Paper 2

Grammar in the English order The aim The English order aims to define the knowledge, skills and understanding that will enable pupils to undertake their own analyses and evaluation of grammatical structure, function and effect. Pupils should become familiar with grammatical terminology, at a level of detail appropriate to their understanding, to enable them to make independent use of their grammatical knowledge in relation to their own and others' work. No one single model of grammar is proposed in the English order. Rather than setting out a particular, complete and detailed model of grammar for pupils to be taught to apply in all cases, the order sets out a minimal number of terms, recognising that these are useful at different times and with different texts. This is similar to the treatment of literary critical terms in the order; a minimal number of literary critical terms is set out but no particular literary theory is proposed. The English order is not an applied linguistics course nor a course in literary theory. Teachers may choose for themselves their preferred model(s) of grammar (or literary theory), bearing in mind that pupils do not necessarily need to be taught a full systematic model of grammar. The requirements The grammar requirements of the English order are set out for each key stage in the standard English and language study sections of the programmes for study (see pages 22-24). For example, at key stage 2 the programme of study for writing includes the following requirements: Range Pupils should be taught the characteristics of different types of writing.

Key skills

Standard English and language study

Pupils should be given opportunities to develop their ability to organise and structure their writing in a variety of ways.

Pupils should be given opportunities to develop their understanding of the grammar of complex sentences, including clauses and phrases. They should be taught how to use paragraphs, linking sentences together coherently.

Planning should ensure that these requirements are met by interrelating them appropriately with those set out in other sections of the programme of study. While a particular piece of work might focus on one of the requirements, teachers will need to ensure that they attend to the other two when drawing up their plans. Further, each of the grammar requirements should be met within an overall programme of work in English which integrates the language modes. For example, the requirements regarding complex sentences at key stage 2, which are set out in the programme of study for writing, should inform work that is planned in speaking and listening, and reading. Much of the direct teaching of complex sentences, for example, is relevant when preparing pupils for a writing task, but should draw on how complex sentences are used in the texts pupils are reading or studying, and in the oral activities that they undertake at this time.

Paper 2 The grammar requirements of the English order are broadly of two kinds, those concerned with language structure and those concerned with language variety. The requirements for language structure include: word classes or parts of speech; function and effect of words in sentences; word formation and patterns of vocabulary; sentence structure; function and effect of phrases and clauses; punctuation; text structure and organisation. The requirements for language variety include: standard English, formal and informal; differences between spoken and written forms; dialects; influences on language change and use; changes in language over time. Language structure Pupils should be taught the organising principles and structures of language and how they contribute to meaning and effect. This includes such things as: the rules and conventions which govern how words are combined into phrases, clauses and sentences; how pronouns contribute to textual cohesion; and how the meaning or effect of a sentence is affected by changes made to the word order. Pupils should also be taught how to make use of this knowledge in their own reading and writing. There are two, complementary kinds of knowledge of language structure: implicit and explicit. Both are necessary to ensure the full development of pupils' language abilities. Implicit knowledge Implicit knowledge of language structure is acquired and developed informally through the everyday processes of language use and learning. It starts in early infancy and continues throughout adult life. The core of this knowledge is the ability to form hypotheses about language patterns and structures on the basis of past experience, and to use these hypotheses to make appropriate linguistic choices when faced with new or unfamiliar demands and contexts. For example, the implicit knowledge developed by young children that the past tense is formed by the addition of the -ed suffix to a verb stem such as 'walk', enables them to predict correctly that the past tense of 'vanish' is 'vanished'. However, the hypothesis does not hold if they try to form the past tense of 'run' in a similar way. The development of implicit knowledge depends on more than the ability to hypothesise. Equally important to the process are correction and reflection. Implicit knowledge will not develop further until it is pointed out that 'runned' is incorrect and that there are other patterns and structures to mark the past tense of some verbs. The correction may come from others, such as a parent or teacher, or it may arise from further reflection on alternative models of past tense formation.

Paper 2 Implicit knowledge of language structure is not articulated, but simply applied. In the course of a lifetime, the vast majority of language choices are made on this basis. Explicit knowledge Explicit knowledge of language structure is knowledge which can be articulated and explained. Whereas implicit knowledge enables the recognition of linguistic patterns and structures and prompts conformity to them as they arise, explicit knowledge can describe or account for such patterns. Explicit knowledge is valuable because it speeds up the process of learning and can pre-empt the need for correction. The key feature in the development of explicit grammatical knowledge of language structure is analysis. Analysis of hypotheses about language structure and patterns make it possible to see and describe the connections between different examples and types of usage, and extend the choices available. Naming The development of pupils' explicit grammatical knowledge is dependent on their ability to name linguistic features, structures and patterns at word, sentence and whole text level. Teaching should ensure that pupils are familiar with the grammatical terms that will enable them to identify linguistic features correctly. Knowledge of these will enable pupils to hypothesise more precisely and effectively about language structure and use. Such knowledge helps pupils reflect purposefully on examples, generalise from them and check the accuracy of their conclusions. Pupils should be familiar with the terms used to name: at whole text level - different genres, such as story, list, argument; and the features of text, eg first person, third person, tense, direct speech, reported speech; at sentence level - different types of sentence structure and their elements, eg statement, question, command; simple, compound, complex; phrase and clause, including the role of connectives; subject, object; active and passive; at word level - word classes, eg noun, preposition, adverb; and the main elements of word structure, eg inflectional endings, vowels, consonants, plural, singular. Function and effect The overall purpose of language analysis is to develop pupils' understanding of the function of particular linguistic features and patterns in spoken and written text, and to evaluate their effects on readers and listeners. Thus, analysis at whole text, sentence or word level might focus on: the relationship between the opening and closing paragraphs in a piece of persuasive writing: how the ideas are sequenced, which words provide cohesion throughout the text; the word order in the opening sentence of a narrative: how information is organised to create interest, the links between the different parts of a sentence, alternative ways of phrasing the sentence; the pattern of word usage and its contribution to, sentence or lexical cohesion: the use of connectives or pronouns, the use of technical or everyday vocabulary. In each case, analysis enables pupils to evaluate the appropriateness of the choices made. This can then be used to inform their judgement on the effectiveness of their writing or speaking in achieving its purpose.

Paper 2 Implicit knowledge based on generalisations from experience and applied in every day use.

Analysis based on grammatical terminology â&#x20AC;&#x201C; names and concepts.

Function

Effect

the role of particular linguistic features in a sentence or text.

the contribution made by particular linguistic features to meaning

Explicit knowledge knowledge that can identify and account for connections and distinctions between different examples of usage, enhance reading and improve writing. The development of explicit grammatical knowledge

Language variety The other dimension of grammatical knowledge is language variety. Pupils need to understand that language changes, what the sources and causes of linguistic change are and how meaning is affected by choice of vocabulary and structure. They should also be taught to apply this knowledge. As with knowledge of language structure, both implicit and explicit knowledge of language variety are needed for the full development of pupils' abilities. Implicit knowledge Through the everyday processes of language use and learning, young children acquire a great deal of implicit knowledge of language variety. They draw on this knowledge in their speech and writing to match their choice of language to context, purpose and audience. To varying degrees, for example, they develop knowledge of the differences between dialects and standard English, between written and spoken English, and are aware that language changes over time. In their speech and writing they adjust their choice of language according to whether the audience is their peers, familiar adults or unknown authority figures, and they recognise and respond to language which is different from their own. Thus implicit knowledge of language variety develops in the same way as knowledge of language structure - through a process of unconscious generalisations based on hypotheses formed from experience.

Paper 2 Explicit knowledge Explicit knowledge of language variety is developed through analysis. The overall purpose of analysis is to enable pupils to make linguistic choices that are appropriate to a range of different circumstances, and to develop their understanding of the distinctions in meaning and effect created by these choices. Pupils, therefore, should be familiar with the technical terms used to describe the differences between dialects and standard English, between speech and writing and to identify language changes over time, eg subject/verb agreement, negative, contractions, register, accent. The use of traditional grammatical terms in the English order is sometimes seen as a sign of a return to the aims and methods of traditional formal grammar teaching. Mistrust arises because many teachers are unaware of how grammar has developed, or how, although the same basic terms are still used, understanding about the role and importance of grammar in developing pupils' competence as language users has grown enormously in the last thirty years. It is clear, for example, that explicit grammatical knowledge: is important in understanding how meanings are made and how particular effects are achieved. Pupils who are able to articulate how language use and choice contribute to meaning and effect are likely to be more responsive and critical as listeners and readers; is relevant to all written and spoken texts. Pupils' progress as language users depends on their increasing familiarity with, and competence in, a wide range of forms and styles. Explicit grammatical knowledge enables them to recognise and understand the particular linguistic demands of different kinds of texts and contexts; is relevant to other subjects in the way that knowledge is constructed. Although each subject has its own vocabulary and technical concepts, explicit grammatical knowledge can help students use the language of the subject area appropriately, for example when describing events, reporting a process, or explaining what they have learned; provides a basis for the investigation and study of spoken language and how it relates to personal and social identity; provides an additional, more analytic dimension to the English curriculum which may appeal to those pupils, particularly boys, who are less interested in responses grounded in personal reaction; provides a basis for developing pupils' understanding of the differences between spoken and written English; is helpful in developing pupils' awareness of the grammatical features of their own writing. This is important when pupils are correcting and improving drafts.

Paper 2 Summary of grammar requirements for key stage 2

Standard English and language study Speaking and listening a) Pupils' appreciation and use of standard English should be developed by involvement with others inactivities that, through their content and purpose, demand the range of grammatical constructions and vocabulary characteristic of spoken standard English. They should be taught to speak with clear diction and appropriate intonation. Pupils should be taught how formal contexts require particular choices of vocabulary and greater precision in language structures. They should also be given opportunities to develop their understanding of the similarities and differences between the written and spoken forms of standard English, and to investigate how language varies according to context and purpose and between standard and dialect forms.

b) Pupils should be taught to use an increasingly varied vocabulary. The range of pupils' vocabulary should be extended and enriched through activities that focus on words and their meanings, including: Â&#x192; discussion of more imaginative and adventurous choices of words; Â&#x192; consideration of groups of words, eg word families, the range of words relevant to a topic; Â&#x192; language used in drama, role-play and word games. Reading Pupils should be introduced to the organisational, structural and presentational features of different types of text, and to some of the appropriate terms to enable them to discuss the texts they read, eg author, setting, plot, format. They should be encouraged to use their knowledge gained from reading to develop their understanding of the structure, vocabulary and grammar of standard English. Writing a) Pupils should be given opportunities to reflect on their use of language, beginning to differentiate between spoken and written forms. They should be given opportunities to consider how written standard English varies in degrees of formality. b) Pupils should be given opportunities to develop their understanding of the grammar of complex sentences, including clauses and phrases. They should be taught how to use paragraphs, linking sentences together coherently. They should be taught to use the standard written forms of nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and verb tenses. c) Pupils should be taught to distinguish between words of similar meaning, to explain the meanings of words and to experiment with choices of vocabulary. Their interest in words should be extended by the discussion of language use and choices.

Paper 2 Summary of grammar requirements for key stages 3 and 4

Speaking and listening

Standard English and language study a) Pupils should be taught to be fluent, accurate users of standard English vocabulary and grammar, Speaking and listening andPupils to recognise the language of users publicofcommunication. a) should its be importance taught to beasfluent, accurate standard English vocabulary and They should be taught to adapt their talk to suit the circumstances, and to be confident users of grammar, and to recognise its importance as the language of public communication. They English should be taught to theirsituations. talk to suitInthe circumstances, and be confident standard in formal andadapt informal role-play and drama, thetovocabulary, structand users of standard English in formal and informal situations. In role-play and drama, the tone appropriate to such contexts should be explored. vocabulary, structures and tone appropriate to such contexts should be explored. b) Pupils should be given opportunities to consider the development of English, b) Pupils should be given opportunities to consider the development of English, including: including: usage, words and meanings change how how usage, words and meanings change over time;over time; how how words and partsand of words arewords borrowed from otherfrom languages; words parts of are borrowed other languages; the coinage of new words andwords the origins of origins existingofwords; current influences on spoken and the coinage of new and the existing words; writtlanguage; to language use; currentattitudes influences on spoken and written language; attitudes to language use; the differences between speech and writing; the differences between speech and writing; the vocabulary and grammar of standard English and dialectal variations. the vocabulary and grammar of standard English and dialectal variations.

Reading

Reading a) Pupils should be taught to recognise, analyse and evaluate the characteristic features of a) Pupils should be taught to recognise, analyse and evaluate the characteristic features of different types of text in print and other media. They should be given opportunities to different types of text in print and other media. They should be given opportunities to consider the the effects of organisation and structure, how authors' purposes and intentions are consider effects of organisation and structure, how authors' purposes and intentions are portrayedshifts, thehow building of suspense, of imagery. portrayed, and attitudes, values the anduse meanings are communicated. b) Pupils should be taught: about the main characteristics of literary language, including figures of speech and sound patterning; to consider features of the vocabulary and grammar of standard English that are found in different types of text, eg technical terms in reports, rhetorical devices in speeches; to analyse and evaluate the use of language in a variety of media, making comparisons where appropriate, eg the treatment of a traditional story in a children's picture book and in its original source; a comparison of a television news bulletin with a report on the same event in a newspaper; about different genres and their characteristics, including language, structure and organisational features; to analyse techniques, eg the portrayal of setting and period, the weaving of parallel

narratives, time-shifts, the building of suspense, the use of imagery.

Paper 2 Summary of grammar requirements key stages 3 and 4 (continued) Standard English and language study Writing a) Pupils should be encouraged to be confident in the use of formal and informal written standard English, using the grammatical, lexical and orthographic features of standard English, except where non-standard forms are required for effect or technical reasons. They should be taught about variation in the written forms and how these differ from spoken forms and dialects. Pupils should be given a range of opportunities to use the syntax and vocabulary characteristic of English in formal writing, eg business letter; critical review, informative article, and to distinguish varying degrees of formality, selecting appropriately for a task. They should be encouraged to relate their study of language to their reading and their previous linguistic experience, written and oral. b) Pupils should be encouraged to broaden their understanding of the principles of sentence grammar and be taught to organise whole texts effectively. Pupils should be given opportunities to analyse their own writing, reflecting on the meaning and clarity of individual sentences, using appropriate terminology, and so be given opportunities to learn about: discourse structure - the structure of whole texts; paragraph structure; how different types of paragraphs are formed; openings and closings in different kinds of writing; phrase, clause and sentence structure - the use of complex grammatical structures and the linking of structures through appropriate connectives; the use of main and subordinate clauses and phrases; words - components including stem, prefix, suffix, inflection; grammatical functions of nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions and demonstratives; punctuation - the use of the full range of punctuation marks, including full stops, question and exclamation marks, commas, semi-colons, colons, inverted commas, apostrophes, brackets, dashes and hyphens. c) Pupils should be encouraged to consider apt and imaginative choices of vocabulary and the precise use of words, including consideration of synonyms and double meanings. Pupils should be given opportunities to use dictionaries and thesauruses to explore derivations and alternative meanings.

Paper 3

Teachers' confidence, knowledge and practice in the teaching of grammar at key stages 2 and 3 Background and context of the survey The grammar requirements for key stages 2, 3 and 4 invite schools to take a more systematic and analytic approach to language teaching than the previous order, but the order does not define how this should be done. This survey followed indications from a SCAA survey in 1995, and from the 1995-97 monitoring programme, that teachers were uncertain how to interpret and implement the grammar requirements to ensure their effective coverage. A total of 137 teachers, from secondary, primary and middle schools in ten Local Education Authorities, attended eleven half-day meetings. Before the meetings they were required to complete a survey which asked about the inclusion of grammar in schools' and teachers' planning and schemes of work. At the meetings participants completed a questionnaire which asked them to rate their confidence in their knowledge and teaching of grammar. They were also given a piece of writing by a pupil and asked to comment on the grammar, suggest feedback to the pupil, and identify relevant areas for further group or whole class coverage. This paper is based on the findings from the survey activities, teachers' curriculum plans, and the discussions which formed the major part of the meetings. Here teachers shared their experiences of planning and teaching grammar and discussed wider issues about teaching grammar in the English curriculum. The findings of the report are based on both quantitative and qualitative data. The great majority of those involved responded positively to the survey. However, many teachers expressed uncertainty and anxiety about changes to the curriculum. Some, for example, felt strongly about teaching pupils to extend their ability to use language, but were sceptical about the relevance of explicit grammar teaching in assisting this. Others were unsure exactly what model of grammar to use. There was also widespread uncertainty about the proposed grammar tests at key stage 3, which had been recommended by the Secretary of State in 1996. Although the survey was not directly concerned with these tests, inevitably the issue arose. Some teachers rejected the idea of testing grammar, but more were concerned that the tests might model a discrete, decontextualised approach to grammar which would subsequently lead to a similar approach in teaching. Others favoured incorporating testing into the existing key stage 3 tests in a way which would encourage an integrated teaching approach.

Paper 3 Key issues from the survey relating to teachers' confidence and knowledge What is meant by 'grammar'? Some teachers were uncertain about how to plan for language study, or what the English order expected. There was uncertainty about the relationship between the terms 'language study' and 'grammar'. Many teachers asked 'what exactly is meant by 'grammar'?', or, 'what does grammar mean today?'. The survey looked at all the grammar-related aspects of the order: discourse structure; phrase, clause and sentence structure; the grammatical function of words, verb tenses and choice of vocabulary; punctuation; spelling and structure of words; and language use and language change. However, teachers did not generally regard all these as 'grammar'. Key stage 2 teachers were often not used to thinking about the structure of different kinds of writing or degrees of formality in language use as grammar. Comments on the sample piece of work, from teachers at both key stages, focused on punctuation and spelling, despite teachers being prompted to interpret grammar widely. 'Grammar' as a term did not have a single universal meaning for teachers. Some interpreted it as relating exclusively to syntax and morphology, although these terms were rarely used, and for others it largely meant punctuation, spelling and parts of speech. For teachers of all ages, backgrounds and experience, the term 'grammar' also carried many other, often negative, connotations. Particular teaching styles, authority or rules tended to dominate its interpretation. Implicit or explicit knowledge of grammar? There was widespread uncertainty about the relationship between implicit and explicit knowledge of language, particularly the extent to which planning and teaching should make explicit pupils' implicit knowledge of grammar. Older teachers did not see their school experience of traditional formal grammar as relevant to the present, and younger teachers had generally not been taught grammar explicitly as part of their own education. Teachers tended to interpret the 'explicit' teaching of grammar as prescriptive and to associate it with drilling and exercises which are thought to have proved ineffective for teaching grammar in the past. In both key stages, decisions on what to teach and how to teach it were typically left to the discretion of individual teachers. Terminology At the centre of these issues is the need for a language with which to talk about grammar. On balance, the teachers in the sample were in favour of identifying a specialist terminology. However, they recognised that what they needed for themselves might be more advanced than the language used with pupils. They acknowledged the limitations of not having a technical language to explain grammar, although such terms as noun, verb, adjective, adverb, conjunction, tense, genre, narrative, punctuation, question, exclamation and statement were widely used. However, there was little use of terminology relating to sentence structure, either because teachers were unfamiliar with the relevant terms and concepts, or because they did not believe that using the ones they knew would be helpful to their pupils. The term 'modal verb' on the questionnaire, for example, was generally judged to be unhelpful. Teachers who also taught A level English language or literature - recognised that they often had to 'start from scratch' with a vocabulary to talk about language and style. There was general agreement that abler pupils at key stage 4 needed to acquire a confident use of meta-language as well as being able to talk and write in a variety of forms and registers. Discourse structure Teachers' confidence in their knowledge and teaching of discourse structure (whole text level) was high for both key stages, with higher levels of confidence expressed by key stage 3 teachers.

Paper 3 Teachers were generally at ease with the terminology of discourse structure such as genre, narrative and paragraph. Of all the areas surveyed, discourse structure caused the least consternation in discussion and was the subject of greatest agreement over good practice. About half of the discourse-based comments on the sample work referred to narrative structure and organisation. Some teachers focused on aspects such as the beginning, middle and end of the narrative. Others commented in a less technical way on control and use of imagination or the handling of direct speech. About two-thirds commented on paragraphs and more than three-quarters mentioned speech layout. Comments on narrative structure covered such aspects as the developing narrative skill of the writer, the imaginative qualities of the story, and its ability to hold the reader's interest. Discussion showed such discourse-based comment to be a standard aspect of teachers' work in developing pupils' narrative writing. Teachers regarded paragraphing as a significant marker in pupils' control of written English. There was general agreement that year 6 pupils at levels 4/5 should understand paragraphing and be able to apply it, at least to some extent, in their writing. Key stage 3 teachers listed paragraphing as expected knowledge for year 7 pupils and often made it a focus of work in years 7 and 8. This was generally thought to benefit from a variety of approaches, including explication, exemplification, modelling, exercises, games, visual display, drafting techniques, editing and pair work. It was evident that, in teaching paragraphs, teachers referred to rules and applied models and degrees of abstraction. While some teachers offered one-to-one advice on paragraphing and paragraph structure, they were also likely, if they judged it relevant to the needs of the class, to teach whole class lessons on paragraphs, but were less inclined to do so for other aspects of grammar. Phrase, clause and sentence structure Although teachers at both key stages generally felt confident teaching at whole text level, this confidence did not extend to phrase, clause and sentence structure either related to reading or in pupils' own writing. Sentence structure was found to be the least systematically covered in planning at both key stages. The terminology of sentence structure was seen as a barrier to accessibility and teachers were unclear about the level of detail they should employ in their use of terminology. There was no consensus as to the appropriate level of presentation and investigation to make phrase, clause and sentence structure accessible and helpful for the majority of pupils. The lack of an overview of sentence structure probably led to some under-reporting of work on sentences, eg on the use of connectives. However, teachers at both key stages gave examples of discussing sentence structure with individual pupils or whole classes, using terms such as subject, verb, object, complement and predicate. The word 'phrase' for a group of words less than a sentence appeared to be used quite often, without necessarily being perceived as a specialist term. While most teachers readily identified stylistic effects, using familiar literary critical terms to explain how those effects were achieved, they were not always able to develop their analysis further using grammatical terms and concepts. Comment on sentence structure in the sample work tended to show judgements made on the use of punctuation rather than on the way the sentences were constructed. There was also a tendency, particularly at key stage 2, to talk about written sentence structure in terms of an 'oral model', where pupils are encouraged to read their work aloud and mark where they pause for breath in order to decide where the 'units of sense' start and finish. The levels of confidence which teachers recorded for their knowledge of, and ability to teach, sentence structure were considerably lower than for any other aspect of the survey, except identifying modal verbs. Key stage 2 teachers were much less confident than those teaching at key

Paper 3 stage 3. There was a clear relationship between teachers' length of teaching experience and their confidence in identifying and explaining simple, compound and complex sentences and identifying and defining a clause and a phrase. Levels of confidence were higher among more experienced teachers and those with a degree in English. Where teachers were less confident, it tended to be because sentence structure had not formed part of their own education or training in English. There is substantial evidence that teachers would welcome clarification of the knowledge they need to successfully teach sentence structure. A few teachers were hostile to any increase in the explicit coverage of sentence structure whether for themselves or their pupils, either because they did not think it would work, or because they associated it with increased prescription and loss of teacher control. No teacher wanted to see a return to the parsing and clause analysis exercises that were the basis of traditional formal grammar teaching. Most thought that the explicit teaching of sentence structure should somehow be embedded in the context of pupils' writing and reading. The grammatical function of words, verb tenses and choice of vocabulary Teachers were confident in their ability to identify categories of words based on grammatical function and to explain these to pupils. They were also confident about being able to identify and explain errors relating to word categories and identifying verb tenses. They were not very confident in recognising verbs in the passive voice, and less confident in identifying modal verbs. Key stage 2 teachers were less confident than key stage 3 teachers in these areas. Again confidence was linked to length of teaching experience and level of English qualification. Punctuation Responses to the piece of pupil's writing and impressions from discussions suggested that punctuation was a major and recurrent preoccupation for many teachers. There were many more comments on the punctuation in the sample work than on its form and structure. This was despite teachers reporting that they were confident in their knowledge of discourse structure and concentrated on it in their teaching. Although the use of terms such as 'boundary markers' and 'sentence markers' indicated that some teachers thought of sentence punctuation in relation to sentence structure, it was not clear at either key stage how the teaching of punctuation was linked to sentence structure. There was almost no reference to the planned coverage of commas explicitly related to the structure of sentences. There were considerably fewer references to commas in the context of separating phrases or clauses on the sample of work, than to the use of commas for lists. Where specific guidance was offered to the pupil on placing commas it tended to be non-technical, recommending the pupil read back over the work and decide where a breath might be needed. Teachers were more confident about their knowledge of end of sentence punctuation, such as inverted commas and apostrophes, than of commas, colons, semi-colons, brackets, hyphens and dashes. This distinction was particularly marked amongst key stage 2 teachers, where not all the marks are included in the programme of study. Teachers who did feel confident about all features were more likely to have over ten years teaching experience and a degree in English. Punctuation was widely regarded as an important aspect of teaching writing, though it was not always linked to the purpose and style of different kinds of writing. Teachers in the survey were assiduous in their attention to punctuation in the marking process. The terminology of punctuation was widely accepted and used. Teachers at both key stages saw the main difficulty with punctuation as being the amount of teaching and reiteration needed before some pupils master it. There was a perception that some pupils do not accept the importance of being able to punctuate properly, but evidence suggested that motivation could be improved where pupils were persuaded that they were as much responsible for punctuation as for deciding what to write.

Paper 3 Spelling and structure of words Teachers were generally confident in their ability to identify the components of words, with key stage 3 teachers slightly more confident than those at key stage 2. They were considerably less confident in identifying and explaining spelling patterns in relation to word components. Teachers in the survey paid close attention to errors of spelling when marking the sample work, in some cases evaluating the writer's spelling development, categorising errors, suggesting reasons for them, prioritising them and proposing follow-up teaching of relevant spelling patterns and rules. On the other hand, some comments on spelling were general observations. Although key stage 2 teachers rated themselves less confident than key stage 3 teachers on identifying and explaining spelling patterns in relation to stem, prefix and suffix, they were more likely to view spelling in relation to word structure than key stage 3 teachers. At key stage 3, teachers' comments on spelling tended to be less specific. Language use and language change Teachers recorded high levels of confidence on aspects of language use; where uncertainty was expressed it was more likely to be by key stage 2 teachers. On the origins of words, under half of all teachers expressed confidence, but key stage 3 teachers were considerably more confident than those at key stage 2. However, lack of confidence was mostly related to the particular sample of words in the survey rather than a lack of knowledge of the process of language change in general. There were no links between confidence and teaching experience, although teachers with a qualification in English at A level or above were more likely to feel confident. Key issues from the survey relating to planning for grammar The survey asked teachers to report on their planning for teaching grammar to whole classes or groups, while acknowledging that much work on language and grammar might also be covered by helping pupils individually. Integrated or discrete grammar coverage? Approaches to curriculum planning for grammar were varied and in some cases there was no planning at all. The least popular aspects, or those about which teachers felt least confident, such as sentence structure, tended to receive little planned attention. There was also some indication that the more explicit requirements in the programmes of study were leading some schools to adopt a fragmented approach to grammar teaching, particularly where teachers were uncertain how else to ensure coverage. Other schools, with a clear idea of policy or approach to the teaching of writing, or of speaking and listening, were developing ways of explicitly covering grammar using appropriate terminology and modelling techniques by integrating it into the teaching of reading and writing. Differentiation There was widespread uncertainty about sensible expectations for pupils of differing abilities in regard to grammatical knowledge. Many teachers observed that some pupils seem to develop increasingly sophisticated control of language by exposure to good examples and by practice, without appearing to need any more explicit teaching, whereas for others this did not happen or happened much more slowly. They thought that the pupils who have problems learning or developing language skills are just the pupils who struggle with models and abstraction. The difficulty of identifying appropriate expectations across the whole ability range was cited several times as a reason why some schools were not more specific about grammar in their planning.

Paper 3 Progression Progression was a general issue of concern, both within and across key stages. Planning rarely considered how continuity of approach and progression could be maintained. The evidence suggested that key stage 2 teachers did have some models of language development, but these were often not fully articulated and did not always form the basis of planning. At key stage 3 there were some shared expectations of what year 7 pupils should be able to do, but frequently there were also expectations that these grammar aspects would be taught again during key stage 3 for reinforcement. In many schools, grammar was added to existing units of text-based work and it was these units which determined the order in which aspects of grammar were taught. In many cases, teachers attempted to keep everything going at once as pupils moved through a key stage. While there was widespread acknowledgement that language competence does not develop in strict linear progression, there did not appear to be any shared model of a hierarchy of language skills and teachers did not seem to find this in the order. Documentation At both key stages there was general support for more explicit schemes of work from younger and newly qualified teachers. More explicit schemes of work were also seen as helpful for nonspecialists. Discourse structure Over half of key stage 2 teachers specified the characteristics of different kinds of writing in their schemes of work. This included distinguishing degrees of formality and making judgements about tone, style, format and choice of vocabulary. However, planning for discourse structure appeared to be at the level of broad statement. Few schemes of work at key stage 2 set out the details of discourse characteristics, or teaching activities that identified characteristics of particular types of writing, to ensure that all teachers covered the same ground. Just over half of the secondary departments reported explicit references in their schemes of work to the structure of whole texts and to paragraphing, and just under half to openings and closings. The references to discourse structure in schemes of work at key stage 3 tended to be general, with details decided by individual teachers. However, some schools had reviewed their approach and developed a more explicit focus on structure in their planning, detailing the specific aspects of genre, layout, terminology or style to be covered in particular units. Over onethird of departments felt they were successful in teaching discourse structure, especially the structure of whole texts. Discourse structure was taught through the study of texts and through pupils' own writing, with greater emphasis on the teaching of paragraphs through writing activities. Phrase, clause and sentence structure Just over a third of key stage 2 schools included phrase, clause and sentence structure in their schemes of work, but coverage appeared patchy and was likely to be implicit, or to happen indirectly through work on other aspects of writing. Some schools addressed this area more explicitly in year 6, but generally schools referred to word classes and the tenses of verbs in their plapning rather than to phrase, clause and sentence structure. At key stage 3, one-fifth of departments said their schemes of work referred to all aspects of sentence structure outlined in the English order and just over half included some. Sentence structure was less widely included than any other aspect of grammar and a quarter of departments said they had difficulty teaching it. Only a small minority planned for explicit coverage and some departments covered it with individuals as the need arose, both usually in the context of pupils' writing. Although there might be more attention paid to sentence structure,

Paper 3 especially on a one-to-one basis, than the survey indicated, sentence structure was generally regarded as difficult for some pupils and more suitable for teaching to older or more able pupils. Some teachers specifically mentioned a differentiated approach. The use of connectives was recognised as a key to the development of pupils' writing. The evidence suggested that connectives are taught at both key stages, more often than phrases and clauses, even when they are not referred to specifically in schemes of work. The term appeared to have gained some currency, though there was variation in its use. In some cases teachers regarded it as synonymous with 'conjunction', while others included alternative ways of joining sentence parts, such as relative pronouns. The grammatical function of words, verb tenses and choice of vocabulary Just over half of key stage 2 teachers reported covering all aspects of vocabulary extension and word choice specified in the English order, although there appeared to be little detailed planning for explicit coverage. Context and timing for these aspects was generally made by individual teachers. More attention might be given to vocabulary work than the limited planning evidence suggested, particularly in relation to pupils' writing where teachers appeared to be more confident in dealing with vocabulary extension and word choice. However, the evidence suggested that teachers found it more difficult in regard to speaking and listening to provide opportunities for focusing on vocabulary, to ensure coverage occurred across the curriculum, and to monitor pupils' progress. About one-third of key stage 2 schools reported covering the grammatical function of words with more explicit coverage towards the end of the key stage. Even when word categories were not referred to in schemes of work teachers were likely to use the terms noun, adjective, verb, adverb and conjunction, though not necessarily other grammatical terms. At key stage 3 less than half the departments referred to all categories of words in their schemes of work. Some school plans allocated particular categories of words to particular years and contexts, usually the study of texts. However, examples which linked word categories to sentence parts were rare and word functions appeared to be seen more in relation to the appreciation of style than to sentence structure. The words covered most frequently were: noun, adjective, verb, adverb and conjunction. Evidence from the discussions suggested that while word categories were more widely taught than reference to them in schemes of work suggested, the choice of coverage was often left to individual teachers. Teachers at both key stages routinely drew pupils' attention to their use of words, both effective use and errors. However they tended to use the word labels, or teach word functions, only when there was some practical aim and the knowledge was directly applicable to a particular task in hand. There was general agreement that simply teaching word labels was unlikely to improve pupils' writing, but teachers were uncertain about which approach, and what level of detail, would be of practical use. In some cases, schemes of work presented word functions in discrete lists which were taught separately without relating them to pupils' reading, writing and talk. A few schools appeared to have developed planned coverage which linked the study of word functions and sentence structure to units of work that focused on the reading and writing of specific text types. Punctuation More schools at key stage 2 included reference to punctuation in their schemes of work than any other aspect of grammar, though information on how the coverage was planned was limited.

Paper 3 The most favoured approach was a mixture of direct teacher input backed up with published resources. Detailed planning tended to be confined to teachers' weekly plans. Planning was sometimes linked to pupils' overall writing development but it was not clear how this happened in practice, or how the teaching of punctuation was linked to sentence and discourse structure. The teaching of particular points were sometimes reinforced by exercises. At key stage 3 departments were almost equally divided between those who included reference in their schemes of work to all punctuation requirements of the English order, and those who included some. The less commonly used marks were less likely to be included and coverage of the whole range of punctuation, if it happened, was unlikely to be before key stage 4. Key stage 3 planning was more likely to specify the order and timing of particular punctuation and to link coverage more explicitly to particular types of writing than at key stage 2. Schemes of work showed a range of detail in planning, from simple lists of punctuation marks to be taught in a term, to units of work on texts or writing which incorporated the teaching of specific punctuation marks. However, decisions about when to cover different punctuation marks were likely to be made by individual teachers. Although planning at key stage 3 sometimes specified particular features to be taught in different years, teachers expected that most features would have to be revisited on an ongoing basis. Even then teachers were not confident that pupils would be able to understand punctuation sufficiently to use it correctly in their writing. Spelling and structure of words Almost all key stage 2 schools included some aspects of spelling, listed in the programmes of study, in their schemes of work, and just over half included all aspects. The level of planning detail was variable, but planning for spelling was likely to be more systematic than for other aspects of grammar, partly due to the use of commercial spelling schemes. In some schools, spelling was planned for as part of an overall approach to writing. At key stage 2 spelling coverage was extensive and often quite formally taught. Regular spelling practice based on: topic lists, word groups and individual words using the look/cover/write/ check method; spelling games; and dictionary work were all mentioned. However, there were anxieties about how best to encourage children to apply what they had learned to their writing. There were also concerns that many children required more repetition and more structured, daily practice than time allowed, given the other aspects of the curriculum to be covered. At key stage 3 only a quarter of departments included all the listed aspects of word components in their schemes of work. Where they included some, stem, prefix and suffix were more likely to be included than inflection. Coverage was more likely to be as part of the study of word origins than in relation to teaching spelling. A few departments integrated the study of the structure of words with spelling programmes in their schemes of work. Overall there was little evidence at key stage 3 of widespread, systematic coverage of spelling. Coverage was more likely to be in the context of a pupil's work. Language use and language change At key stage 2, fewer than half the respondents included all aspects of language use and language change, mentioned in the programme of study tor writing, in their schemes of work, and less than a third included all for speaking and listening. Teachers were most confident in covering language variation through writing and reading. They were less confident in planning for pupils to experience and consider ways in which oral language varies according to context. There was some uncertainty in planning for progression and for pupils' systematic reflection on language use. Most schools did not mention planning for this although a few did mention

Paper 3 strategies to promote it, such as the use of response partners for writing, talk partners or the role of drama activities. Teachers did draw pupils' attention to the features of different kinds of writing and the differences between standard and non-standard forms, but there was not enough evidence to say how systematic the coverage was. At key stage 3 just over half the respondents included all aspects of language use from the programme of study in their planning schemes, and just under half included all the listed aspects of language change. Planning at key stage 3 showed greater confidence and was clearer in purpose than at key stage 2. Reflection on language use was more likely to be covered with older pupils. Many departments cited aspects of language use or language change as areas of success. Many teachers described models of planning for explicit coverage which dealt with an aspect in each year, such as units of work covering the history of language, language use, accent, and dialect, or some combination of these. Others addressed issues in the context of other work. The study of Shakespeare was mentioned most often as a literary context for studying language change, along with pre-twentieth century poetry. Some teachers also used literary texts to teach accent and dialect. There was some evidence of explicit planning to cover language use and change. Some teachers specifically chose texts based on these aspects while others identified tasks and concepts to teach language change and use. In other cases it was left to individual teachers to decide how best to use a sequence of work to draw out ideas about language change and use. There was insufficient evidence to indicate whether pupils' understanding of accent, dialect and standard English was systematically developed and revisited, and there was some suggestion that pupils did not always see the connection between the study of language use and its application to their own writing and speaking. A few teachers reported difficulties in teaching standard English because they perceived it to be different from the range of dialects used by pupils. Approaches to planning at key stage 2 Most key stage 2 teachers planned their grammar teaching for year groups rather than individual classes or the whole school. However, there were occasional examples that covered two years at a time, or included an agreement to use certain terminology throughout the key stage. Schemes of work tended to be checklists, with some grammar included under writing, and speaking and listening. The areas planned for most fully at key stage 2 were: punctuation; different kinds of writing; range of vocabulary; and spelling. Included in plans least often, or only partially, were: differentiation between spoken and written forms and varying degrees of formality; the grammar of complex sentences; paragraphs; word classes; and verb tenses. The areas reported to be most successfully planned for and covered were a range of writing for different purposes and audiences, and spelling. The areas said to cause most difficulty were varied, including some which others rated as their most successful. Many teachers reported particular difficulties in ensuring coverage of grammar in relation to speaking and listening. Some schools had reviewed their teaching of grammar as they had reviewed other aspects of the English curriculum. Some plans linked grammar to initiatives in teaching reading or to whole school writing plans, others included at-a-glance reminders of grammar points. A few linked planning for grammar with other subjects besides English. Only rarely were specific aspects of grammar documented in any detail in whole school or whole year plans, because matters of detail were generally thought best dealt with in teachers' own termly or weekly plans. This approach made coherence and systematic coverage difficult, with a tendency to have a stronger focus on grammar in year 6 and much less attention to it in other years.

Paper 3 Some teachers thought that planning which explicitly detailed both content and timing would ensure that pupils of all abilities experienced thorough and systematic coverage. However, in practice a great deal was left to the discretion of individual teachers in terms of timing, teaching methodology and terminology used. There was some impressionistic evidence that planning for grammar was at the stage of using bolt-on exercises or commercial materials to meet the requirements of the English order. Elsewhere activities planned for other reasons might, almost coincidentally, have provided opportunities to address grammar. Overall, the planning evidence indicated that teachers at key stage 2 were uncertain about the relationship between the requirements for grammar, learning objectives and teaching activities. More careful planning was inhibited by a lack of successful examples. One LEA adviser described working with teachers at key stage 2 on topic-based planning, so that each topic included teaching a specific, related aspect of grammar, and set work gave pupils the opportunity to demonstrate how far they had mastered it. This did not mean that teachers did not revise it elsewhere, but the documented plans marked clearly where something was introduced or had special focus, and so guaranteed a minimum level of coverage. Approaches to planning at key stage 3 At key stage 3 there was a wide range of approaches to planning for grammar teaching. In some cases schemes of work contained a considerable degree of specific, explicit planning, while in others everything was implicit. Overall, implicit coverage was slightly more common than explicit coverage, although some departments combined both approaches depending on the aspect of grammar in question. Over half the schools in the sample made explicit reference in their schemes of work to: the structure of whole texts; paragraph structure; the grammatical function of nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs and conjunctions; the more commonly used punctuation marks; attitude to language use; differences between speech and writing; and the vocabulary and grammar of standard English. Language change and discourse structure were mentioned most often as areas planned for most successfully. Aspects of grammar that were more likely to be included in plans by implication only, or not at all, were: phrase, clause and sentence structure; the function of pronouns and prepositions; and the less common punctuation marks. As at key stage 2, some schools had not completed their planning for the revised order. A quarter of schools had no reference to phrase, clause and sentence structure in their schemes of work for key stage 3, either explicitly or implicitly, but some covered them at key stage 4. These were also most often mentioned as being the most difficult aspects of grammar to plan for and cover successfully. Many commented on the difficulty of finding effective strategies for teaching sentence structure and grammatical terminology in the context of pupils' reading and writing. Again there appeared to be few suitable models to address these aspects in a proven effective way which would justify specific teaching time over and above what arises in covering reading and writing requirements. Some departments developed detailed units of work or modules for years 7 to 9 which were designed to give pupils experience of a range of reading and writing activities. These modules had a direct relationship to the programme of study, sometimes explicitly noted to the sections on discourse structure. Sometimes these were reinforced by skills-based units, for example on paragraph structure or openings and closings. The extent to which these planning models incorporated other aspects of grammar often depended on the views about teaching style, or the nature of language development underlying the schemes of work. Where schools favoured a more explicit approach to teaching grammar, schemes of work included lists of topics to be covered in a particular year. These were sometimes listed along with types of writing and texts for a year group, but with integration and timing left to

Paper 3 individual teachers. Another approach was to list the skills to be demonstrated through particular tasks or assignments. Some schools did this with existing planning and identified opportunities for teaching and reinforcing aspects of grammar within current units of work. In a minority of schools planning contained explicit coverage of all or most of the grammar aspects, integrated to some extent into the overall planning structure. Few departments spelled- out repetition and revision in their planning documents. In some cases the introduction of A level English language had had an effect on planning at earlier stages. Some teachers noted that pupils' ignorance of simple grammatical terms at the start of the A level English language course had led them to question the success of indirect approaches in earlier key stages. Others, however, expressed reluctance to change teaching at key stage 4 along the lines of A level. Conclusions The survey showed that explicit planning for grammar teaching was patchy, and that much coverage tended to be implicit. The area which was least well covered was phrase, clause and sentence structure. Although more work may occur on some aspects of sentence structure than was reported in planning, its effectiveness is limited by the lack of an overview. There is a significant gap in coverage and in teachers' knowledge and confidence in sentence grammar, and this has implications for related aspects, such as the grammatical function of words, sentence punctuation and, more broadly, the teaching of language and style in texts and pupils' own writing. The survey raised two long-standing questions about the teaching of grammar: what explicit knowledge do teachers need to inform their own confidence, judgement and teaching style; and how much should be explicitly taught to pupils? The findings in relation to sentence grammar have clear training implications if teachers' knowledge and confidence in this area is to improve. The requirements in the English order set out in some detail the grammar to be covered, but the shortage of models of how to build coverage into the activities of the English curriculum as a whole means that some schools are likely to work through the lists of features in isolation. Some promising developments were seen in schools (at both key stages) which had explicitly addressed the grammar requirements through a discourse-based model of English teaching which emphasised the characteristics and forms of different kinds of writing, and aimed to teach pupils to write for a range of audiences and purposes. In these schools, the English curriculum offered pupils a clear focus on a range of texts, and included experience of different types of writing and talk in context. They tended to start with a clear sense that their primary purpose in English was to develop pupils' competence and control as the users of language but they made ideas about texts and conceptual frameworks explicit at an appropriate level, often by explicitly covering grammar in the context of style.

Paper 4

Meeting the grammar requirements in the English order Expectations at age 16 By the end of key stage 4 pupils should have enough knowledge of grammar to be able to name parts of speech, and grammatical structures and functions. They should be able to analyse these functions in texts and evaluate the effects on readers and listeners. They should also be able to use this knowledge appropriately and independently in their speaking and listening, reading and writing. For example, in reading, pupils' responses should include, and be influenced by, the identification and evaluation of language structures used by writers; in speaking and listening, pupils' choices of formal or informal registers should be informed by their understanding of language variety and appropriateness to context, purpose and audience; in writing, pupils' knowledge of the linguistic structures of different types of text should support and inform their own use and adaptation of these features. Planning To achieve the aim of the English order, schools and departments should ensure coherent and systematic coverage of the requirements across classes at the same key stage, and across different key stages. Schools and departments will need to decide their priorities in terms of the aspects of grammar to be taught and review their existing curriculum plans in light of these. They should identify opportunities in current plans where the explicit treatment of grammar could be incorporated and, where necessary, draw up new plans to deal with aspects not yet covered. The level and detail of grammatical knowledge needed by teachers to teach the programme should also be considered. Effective planning and teaching will be helped by an agreed approach to the use and range of grammatical terminology. To ensure that grammatical terminology is embedded into normal classroom discussion and activities, it should be clear which technical terms are: taught explicitly and systematically; looked for in day-to-day classroom work; made relevant to the texts studied and written in class; used by all staff in their assessment and response to pupils' work.

Paper 4 Schemes of work Schemes of work should set out clearly: the nature of progression in grammatical knowledge and understanding throughout a key stage; where grammatical knowledge is to be integrated into other work and where it is to be taught discretely; where concepts are to be revisited throughout a key stage; which aspects of grammar are best taught through direct teaching and which should be taught in the context of pupils' work through marking; where grammatical knowledge will be taught and reinforced throughout a year and where it will be the focus of a more extended sequence of work. Individual units in the schemes of work should identify: specific points of grammar to be taught; relevant technical terms to be introduced, used or consolidated; opportunities for pupils to use newly acquired knowledge; how pupils will be encouraged to reflect on the significance and usefulness of newly acquired grammatical concepts. Pupils' prior knowledge Teachers should base their planning on a clear idea of pupils' prior grammatical knowledge, to ensure that pupils are not taught the same aspects of grammar repeatedly and to make full use of pupils' implicit knowledge of grammar. This is particularly important in regard to the implicit knowledge that pupils gain from their reading, and their understanding of language variety which they demonstrate in their adaptation to different listeners and readers. Teachers should also consider the different needs and abilities of pupils for whom English is an additional language. Teaching methods Teachers will need to decide the contexts for grammar teaching, the resources needed to teach it, and the amount of time to be spent on different aspects of grammar. Effective grammar teaching should: involve teacher exposition; encourage pupil investigation; focus on individual pupils' needs; refer to previous grammar teaching; include responses to, and assessment of, pupils' oral and written work.

Paper 4 Decisions in planning The following examples show what secondary departments need to consider when planning their teaching of grammar for certain aspects of the programmes of study. Key stage 2 teachers will need to consider similar decisions as all the examples build on aspects of grammar that feature in the key stage 2 programmes of study. The programme of study for speaking and listening at key stages 3 and 4 specifies that pupils should be taught: to adapt their talk to suit the circumstances, and be confident users of standard English in formal and informal situations; the differences between speech and writing.

Pupils need to think about how some of the characteristics of speech are useful in talk but are inappropriate in writing. Some of these are evident, for example, the use in talk of fillers such as 'you know', 'don't you think'. The use of contractions, common in speech, is sometimes evident in writing, but for specific effects, such as in dialogue. Pupils need to be able to make these judgements explicitly. This could be tackled through contrasting transcripts and writing. More subtle differences may need to be discussed when helping pupils see the differences between a written piece and a formal talk on the same topic. Even though these can be close in form, there are important aspects of talk, such as the effect of spontaneity, which need to be developed. Speeches which are completely written scripts sound stilted and over literary. In most talk, even of a formal kind, the sentence boundaries are not clear and the significance of intonation, repetition, pauses, and emphasis needs to be considered. In writing, sentences need to be clearly demarcated and emphasis achieved through other means. For both these aspects of the programmes of study schools will need to decide: the starting point for investigation and discussion; the necessary resources; the level of detail which is appropriate; how much time will be spent on the work; which grammatical terms will be necessary and whether they are being taught for the first time; how to ensure terms are understood and used correctly; the type of feedback that will be given and how it will reinforce what has been learned.

Paper 4 The programme of study for writing at key stages 3 and 4 specifies that: pupils should be encouraged to broaden their understanding of the principles of sentence grammar. To implement these requirements a department should identify the aspects of word classes (or parts of speech) and sentence structure to be taught. For word classes this is likely to include: nouns - abstract/concrete; that nouns are more than single words; building up noun phrases, eg exploring patterns of building information around the noun, as in 'the train', 'the fast train', 'the fast green train', 'the fast green train with six coaches'; their effects in sentences; pronouns - their use in building cohesion through a text; differences in the use of pronouns in narrative and information texts, eg greater frequency of pronouns in fictional texts and less frequent occurrence in factual texts because the subject has to be clear; verbs - contrasting those which express or denote action ('to kick', 'to build') with those which express or denote being ('to be'), or relationship ('to have'), or thoughts and feelings ('to think', 'to feel'); active and passive voice, eg how the agent is identified or disguised, or how important information in the sentence is emphasised; and the effects of these; adjectives - differences between adjectives conveying attitudes and those which are verifiable, eg 'lovely juice'/'fruit juice', 'nasty taste'/'salt taste'; and their effect in texts. For sentence structure this is likely to include: phrases - the positioning of phrases and the effects achieved by positioning, eg how a phrase which appears at. the start of a sentence usually carries greatest importance; how phrases are used in some literary texts, eg 'in the depth of the forest', 'far away in a forgotten land', 'long, long ago'; clauses - coordination and subordination and how these change the emphasis and importance of items in a sentence, eg how coordinators can express alternatives (or) or contrast (but), and how subordinators can express condition (if), reason (because), purpose (because) or concession (although) to increase authenticity and objectivity, or to convey attitude and judgement. For each of these it is necessary to consider teaching the technical terms, their functions in sentences and their effects. The department will need to decide in which order to teach these aspects, whether some of them can be grouped together and the level of complexity which is appropriate. The grammar then needs to be linked into pupils' reading and writing, either by looking at existing work for opportunities or through devising new lesson plans.

Paper 4 The programmes of study for writing at key stages 3 and 4 specifies that: pupils should be encouraged to consider apt and imaginative choices of vocabulary and the precise use of words, including consideration of synonyms and double meanings. Pupils should be given opportunities to use dictionaries and thesauruses to explore derivations and alternative meanings. The aim of this requirement is to encourage interest in, and curiosity about, words, their origins and uses. This is also likely to enhance pupils' spelling. Some of the areas which can be easily built into ongoing English work might be: precision of meaning - eg contrasting 'very', 'nice', 'a lot' with 'extremely', 'delightful', 'dozens', or 'countless'; vocabulary related to levels of formality - when technical words might be needed and when common words are more apt; how some words have specific meanings for a particular group in informal settings; why formal talk is likely to include more generally known and widely understood uses of words; and the merits of technical terms; words and meanings - developing ideas of synonyms, double meanings, ambiguities, puns. These aspects fit naturally into the teaching of texts and spoken language, but they need to be made explicit in planning, so that pupils' entitlement to the curriculum is evident.

Paper 5

Assessing pupils' knowledge and use of grammar Expected outcomes from the English programmes of study Pupils are expected to be familiar with the grammatical terms and concepts relating to word, sentence and whole text structure that are outlined in the English programmes of study. They should be able to name parts of speech and grammatical structures, analyse their functions and evaluate their effects. They should be able to make use of this knowledge when reading, or when writing their own texts. The need for assessment The assessment of pupils' grammatical knowledge and understanding should be planned for in the same way as other aspects of the English curriculum. Effective assessment of grammar has clearly focused objectives which are closely related to a systematically taught and progressively developed body of grammatical knowledge. A balanced approach to assessing grammatical knowledge is needed so that the focus of assessment varies between word, sentence and whole text level and makes use of the relationships between them. Curriculum plans for units of work throughout a key stage should identify what grammar is to be explicitly taught. This will highlight the increased expectations in terms of pupils' grammatical knowledge and understanding, and will allow assessment activities to be pitched at an appropriate level. Ongoing assessment of pupils' implicit and explicit grammatical knowledge helps teachers identify how well individuals and groups have understood particular aspects of grammar. It also helps teachers judge whether further support is needed, or whether some aspects need to be revisited, more clearly exemplified, made more explicit or approached in a different way. A range of assessment methods is needed to take account of the varied ways in which pupils' implicit and explicit grammatical Knowledge, understanding and skills may be demonstrated. These include assessment which: is embedded in normal classroom work. Evidence of pupils' knowledge and understanding is gathered through informal observation of their performance in a range of ordinary classroom activities; is based on discrete tasks specifically designed to assess a particular aspect of grammar. This is particularly appropriate when new terms or concepts have been introduced; focuses on grammar as a subsidiary part of a larger task that is to be assessed, for example, looking at sentence structure when marking a narrative piece; is investigative and requires pupils to identify and explain specific grammatical features and patterns in their own and others' texts. Assessment activities will vary according to the degree of pupils' knowledge but should include a range of methods, oral and written.

Paper 5 Assessing pupils' use of grammatical knowledge Much of what pupils know and understand about grammar is shown by the accuracy and appropriateness of the choices made in their language use, both spoken and written. Teachers will need to plan the range of reading, writing, and speaking and listening activities so that, over a period of time, pupils experience a range of texts and situations which place varied linguistic demands on them and which provide them with a wide range of linguistic models. Evidence of some aspects of implicit knowledge is elusive because it depends on pupils' reflection on language use. Opportunities should be planned for pupils to demonstrate their implicit knowledge and understanding, in class or group discussions. Opportunities should be provided for pupils to apply their grammatical knowledge and understanding by: Â&#x192; using a range of language varieties and levels of formality depending on context and situation; Â&#x192; recognising in other language users the different grammatical features and structures of different genres and types of text; Â&#x192; replicating these features in their own work. Examples of activities for assessing pupils' use of grammatical knowledge The aim of these activities is to see how pupils manipulate and reflect on various aspects of language structure and variety. As part of the science programme of study, a year 5 class performed an experiment on soaking fabrics in water, following a set of clear written instructions provided by the teacher. In groups they then devised their own fair test on three fabrics to see which one was most suitable for use in anoraks. They then had to write a set of instructions for their experiment which another group in the class could follow. They were familiar with models for this kind of writing from the instructions they had followed earlier. The teacher assessed their ability to use verbs in the imperative, with no personal subjects, and to organise simple sentences in a logical sequence without over reliance on 'then'. In preparation for writing a mystery story, a year 6 class looked at the opening chapters of several stories. The teacher focused attention on the writers' use of a range of different sentence types, for example simple, compound and complex sentences, and these were identified in the opening paragraphs. The class then discussed the patterns of sentence types used by each writer and how these related to meaning and effect. The pupils then wrote their own opening paragraphs for a mystery story. These were assessed for the pupil's ability to use a range of sentence types accurately and effectively.

Paper 5 As part of their work on paragraph structure, a year 7 English class investigated how information was presented in their science, history and geography textbooks. The teacher drew attention to the grammatical structures and features of the texts, focusing particularly on devices used to link ideas in the paragraphs and how the main idea in a paragraph was developed eg the use of pronouns, connectives, topic sentence. Their understanding of these features was assessed in two activities. Pupils were asked to write their own information paragraph about their local neighbourhood, using one of the texts as a model for their own. They also wrote a one sentence summary of one of the texts. As part of a sequence of work based around a fictitious proposed motorway extension, a year 9 class acted out the public meeting at which officials listened and responded to the conflicting views of local residents and organisations. In undertaking this exercise the class considered the language used by the participants, focusing on the degree of formality in the language. They then read: letters of complaint and the replies to them, extracts from the minutes of a public meeting, and extracts from an official report. In preparation for their own written work they discussed features of formal writing eg the use of the passive voice, impersonal constructions using 'it', linking devices, and how to frame recommendations, register disagreement or support. Assessing pupils' knowledge of grammar as a system Pupils' knowledge and understanding of grammar as a system can be demonstrated at a number of levels. It is shown through explicit identification and naming of grammatical features and depends on an understanding of grammatical terminology. Activities to assess pupils' knowledge of grammar as a system will vary according to the degree of knowledge expected and should include a range of methods, oral and written. Opportunities should be provided for pupils to demonstrate their knowledge of grammar as a system by: showing their understanding of the usefulness of the underlying grammatical concepts when discussing the meaning or effect of their own or others' work; identifying correctly parts of speech and grammatical structures and functions; showing their understanding of word formation and patterns of vocabulary; showing their understanding of the relationship between the linguistic choices made by the writer or speaker and the effect of the communication; making relevant and appropriate independent use of their grammatical knowledge and understanding in relation to their own and others' work.

Paper 5 Examples of activities for assessing pupils' knowledge of grammar as a system A year 6 class working on the subject 'Britain at war' read and discussed accounts of the London blitz, including material from their history textbook, a transcript of an eyewitness account by someone whose house had been bombed, and an extract from a government publication for air-raid wardens. In groups, pupils compared the three texts looking particularly at the similarities and differences in terms of their audience and purpose, and the quality and amount of information they contained. They went on to investigate the different linguistic features of two of the texts, using a prompt sheet which asked them to look at: choice of vocabulary, use of pronouns, length and variety of sentences, connectives, and the use of active and passive verbs. In class discussion they compared their findings and considered the reasons for the different linguistic features of the texts eg the greater use of pronouns in the eyewitness account; the more frequent use of the passive in the government publication. In a sequence of work on animal poetry, a year 7 class read and discussed 'Snake' by D.H. Lawrence, 'Hawk Roosting' by Ted Hughes, and 'mehitabel's first mistake' by Don Marquis. As part of a class discussion about how the creatures are presented in the three poems, pupils considered how each poem uses first person narration in different ways, for example, in 'Snake' the first person narration is by the poet describing his encounter with a snake, in 'Hawk Roosting' it is the hawk who speaks the poem, and in 'mehitabel's first mistake' it is the voice of Archie, the office cockroach, who tells the life story of Mehitabel. In preparation for reading one of the poems aloud, pupils in groups looked at the sentence structure to help them decide which words to emphasise in their reading, eg marking where they thought sentence demarcation should occur in the unpunctuated poem by Marquis and identifying the main clauses in the other two poems. Some pupils went on to investigate the similarities and differences in the sentences used in the poems, eg length and variety of sentences used, how sentence structure relates to line length and stanza form, and discussed how these contributed to meaning and effect. As part of work on formal and informal language, a year 8 class was given 15 questions which had been asked in different contexts, including questions asked at the family breakfast table, in a burger bar, a classroom, doctor's surgery, questionnaire, courtroom, a soliloquy and playground. Pupils classified the questions in terms of formality and informality and investigated differences in some of the features of questions, such as the verb forms used, word order, choice of vocabulary, the kind of answer or response anticipated and the mode of address. They then rewrote some of the questions, changing the context in which they were asked but retaining the point of the original questions. They commented on the grammatical and lexical changes they had made and the way meaning was affected. As part of a sequence of work on persuasive language, a year 9 class read Mark Antony's speech to the crowd after Caesar's murder and Martin Luther King's speech 'I have a dream'. In class discussions they considered the context in which the two speeches were made, the speakers' intentions and the effect on their audiences. In groups, pupils then compared the use of language in the speeches using a prompt sheet which asked them to identify features such as questions, emotive vocabulary, repetition, patterns in the structure of phrases and clauses, exclamation and direct references to audience. Later the class watched a video of a recent speech by a contemporary political figure, read a transcript of it and discussed the speaker's use of language, referring to the devices and features they had identified in the earlier speeches. They then wrote a commentary on the speech in which they evaluated its effectiveness.

Paper 6

Recent research on grammar teaching What can research tell us about teaching grammar? Grammar teaching is a complex issue which offers great scope for research, both long and short term, and about which reliable evidence is needed. The present debate about teaching grammar would be better informed, for example, if there was conclusive evidence about: the impact of teaching grammar on pupils' speaking and listening, and reading and writing; the efficacy of different approaches to teaching grammar; the effect of teaching grammar on how other aspects of the English curriculum are taught; how marking is different when pupils and teachers routinely use grammatical terms; how much time it takes to teach grammar; how pupils' attitudes to English as a subject, and to the reading and writing demands of other subjects, are affected by teaching grammar; how the relative performance of different groups of pupils is affected by teaching grammar. At present, research in the area of grammar teaching is patchy and largely concentrated on the effect of grammar teaching on pupils' writing. Over the last thirty years there have been widespread claims in Britain and other English- speaking countries that the weight of evidence against the value of teaching grammar is indisputable. These claims have been readily accepted. However, there is much less empirical evidence about teaching grammar than commonly supposed and the limitations of the evidence have long been acknowledged. In 1956, Diack recommended 'a decent scepticism' in the face of apparent unanimity amongst researchers on the uselessness of teaching grammar. Harris (1962) judged most previous research, which he reviewed extensively, as inconclusive, a view echoed by Elley (1975), Bullock (1975) and Carter (1990). In a recent study, Tomlinson (1994) showed that the research evidence repeatedly quoted over the last thirty years in support of not teaching formal grammar explicitly does not support the claims made for it. He found the evidence was less extensive, less conclusive and less reliable than generally assumed; it had gained credence over the years by being frequently referenced but rarely closely examined. Research into the teaching of traditional formal grammar Tomlinson's study re-examined the evidence from a number of influential pre-1960 British studies which have been quoted as demonstrating the ineffectiveness of teaching grammar. This re-examination shows that these studies have little to contribute to contemporary debate about the teaching of grammar because they reflect too closely the views and practices of their times. The limitations arise not so much from the methodology employed as in what they were testing and what their expectations were. Moreover, the conclusions drawn from these studies have often taken partial account of the evidence.

Paper 6 Is grammar too difficult for pupils? Macauley (1947) set out to test the difficulty of learning grammar in primary and secondary schools in Glasgow. Around 400 pupils who had been taught traditional formal grammar for between three and six years were given a 50-item test asking them to label italicised words as parts of speech (nouns, verbal prepositions, adjectives and adverbs). Macauley concluded that 'even at the end of a three-year secondary course recognition of the simplest parts of speech by their function is still too difficult for the mean pupil'. He linked learning formal grammar with maturity and academic ability, and recommended it be abandoned for all but the most able secondary pupils. Macauley set out to test directly whether pupils had learnt what they had been taught and in so far as that goes, there is no reason to doubt his results. However, from a modern perspective what is striking is that the research centres entirely on recognition of parts of speech; it does not consider the difficulty of the concepts, the way the grammar was taught or pupils' attitudes to it. Does teaching grammar improve pupils' writing? A second study re-examined by Tomlinson was that by Cawley (1958). This study used a modified version of Macauley's test, this time with 1,008 pupils in different types of secondary schools in Manchester, who typically had one period a week of traditional formal grammar teaching. He extended the earlier investigation to look at whether there was any order of difficulty in recognising parts of speech, any significant correlation with intelligence, and whether grammar should be taught formally or incidentally. He also attempted to examine the relationship between pupils' knowledge of parts of speech and their essay writing. Cawley concluded that traditional formal grammar teaching failed to communicate the concepts to a large proportion of pupils. He found the order of difficulty of the parts of speech was, from easy to difficult: nouns, verbs, pronouns and adverbs, with adjectives divided into levels: where they modified a noun pupils could recognise them more often than they could adverbs; where a noun acted as an adjective pupils were more baffled. Cawley's research appears reliable in so far as it tests whether pupils learnt what they had been taught, and what parts were easier to learn than others; it is less so when he tried to relate parts of speech to essay writing. He concluded that 'factor analysis shows there is little connection with essay writing'. The surprising thing to contemporary eyes is the expectation that there might be that sort of transfer between what are clearly very different sorts of knowledge. Cawley's research demonstrates the belief which had gained ground during the century that teaching grammar must be justified only in terms of its direct relation to improving pupils' writing, rather than as a field of knowledge in itself. Much of the pre-1960 research quoted as demonstrating the ineffectiveness of grammar teaching judged it against this expectation. What counts as grammar and how is it taught? A limitation of these studies is that they deal with a very narrow range of grammar, reflecting what was largely being taught as grammar at the time. No conclusions can be drawn from them about teaching any other sort of grammar, or about other teaching methods. However, the studies do offer evidence of the ineffectiveness of teaching most pupils to recognise and label parts of speech in exercises that are unrelated to the rest of the English curriculum. They illustrate Diack's (1956) conclusion that what most research shows is that 'it is not profitable to teach grammar badly'.

Paper 6 The limitations are most apparent in Harris' study (1962) which was also re-examined by Tomlinson. Harris' study is the major work referenced in support of not teaching grammar and was influential in the disappearance of grammar from syllabuses and examinations during the 1960s and early 1970s. His aim was to 'test the effectiveness of the traditional grammar lesson in helping children to write correctly'. His study was an extension of Cawley's work on whether grammar teaching transfers to writing skills. Although the study was based on a wider concept of grammar than the recognition of parts of speech, and focused on sentence construction as well as labelling, it was well within what is known as 'traditional formal grammar'. Should coverage of grammar be integrated or discrete? Harris compared the progress of two groups of year 7 and year 8 pupils from five London schools over two school years. Each group was split into a grammar group and a non-grammar group. The groups followed the same English course, a combination of composition- and literature-based study, except that the grammar group spent one period a week learning grammar from a standard textbook (first published in 1939). In that period the non-grammar group had an extra period of writing. This was 'basically an extension of the usual composition practice but most teachers gave coherence and interest to the work by engaging in a variety of longer projects such as the compilation of a diary, a form newspaper, an adventure story... or a book of hobbies'. Harris tested the pupils at the beginning and end of the two years with a grammar test and essay. Progress in composition was judged by a set of eleven criteria including the number of: sentence patterns, subordinate clauses, and adjectival and adverbial clauses. He found that the grammar group scored more highly on the grammar test, which suggests that they had absorbed some knowledge. However, there was no significant correlation between high scores in the grammar test and improvement in writing. Harris concluded that control and accuracy of written language were more likely to be achieved by having more practice in writing than by being taught traditional formal grammar. It is easy to see how this result came to be so often cited as a justification for replacing grammatical instruction with an approach aimed at developing pupils' writing through reading and writing, especially as that approach fitted with new models of English teaching that were emerging at the time. His conclusions included the comment: 'It seems safe to infer that the study of English grammar had a negligible or even harmful effect upon the correctness of children's writing in the early part of the five secondary schools'. From then on the 'harmful' as well as 'useless' label was attached to teaching traditional grammar, and had far-reaching influence on the fate of grammar teaching in Britain and beyond. Nowhere did Harris conclude that the study of language should be abandoned, and in an appendix he outlined what he thought pupils should be taught instead of traditional formal grammar. His work was reviewed by the Bullock Committee (1975) who accepted the finding on the fruitlessness of teaching traditional formal grammar to improve writing but also noted: 'We do not conclude from this that a child should not be taught how to improve his/her use of language; quite the contrary. It has not been established by research that systematic attention to skill and technique has no beneficial effect on the handling of language'. The importance of systematic, integrated attention to grammar in improving pupils' competence in writing As Tomlinson (1994) rightly points out, the non-grammar group was actually being taught what would now be included as grammar. Harris detailed how the teachers of these classes drew attention to such features as: the devices of sentence structure for stylistic effect; paragraph structure; and 'linking ideas and incidents from paragraph to paragraph'. Common errors were picked up from pupils' writing and corrected 'by example and imitation' rather than by reference

Paper 6 to grammatical categories. What Harris described is the teaching of linguistic features, including, in modern terms, such things as non-standard dialect forms, the social dimensions of standard English, adverbial positioning, sentence elaboration and alternative structures conveying similar meaning. All this grew out of work in progress and was aired between the teacher and the class as a whole. There was therefore a closer relationship between what the non-grammar group was taught and what was measured in their essays than was the case for the grammar group. Tomlinson's conclusion after reviewing the evidence of this study was that this approach might have increased pupils' language awareness which they then applied as writers. The evidence re-examined From the perspective of the 1990s, Harris' work demonstrates that groups whose attention was actively and systematically drawn to language structure and use scored more highly for competence in a range of grammatical features as demonstrated in their own writing than I groups who had followed a traditional formal grammar course. The safest conclusion to be drawn from this research is that practice in writing, combined with a language focus which routinely draws attention to language features. patterns, choices and effects is more likely to improve pupils' grammatical range and competence than traditional formal grammar teaching that makes no connection with pupils' language use. Research into the teaching of non-traditional grammar The question of the usefulness of traditional formal grammar was a recurrent topic during the 1950s and early 1960s but after Harris (1962) there was little or no published research into teaching traditional grammar in Britain. By the mid-sixties English teaching was in a complex period of turbulence and change. So far as the language aspect of the English curriculum was concerned it was linguistics rather than grammar that provided the basis for change. Much of the language-focused research post-1970 was in the area of teaching English as an additional or foreign language rather than mainstream English. Some studies considered the relevance of linguistics to language teaching and as a possible replacement for traditional grammar (Cullup 1967, Wilson 1967, Crystal 1975), but there appears to be no research published in Britain which directly explored the teaching of nontraditional grammar to native English speakers. Professional opinion in Britain was in general suspicious of the potential influence of linguistics on the English curriculum, having seen and rejected its application in the United States, where curriculum development has always favoured more explicit and structured fri1meworks than in England. There was anxiety that the incorporation of linguistic theory into English teaching might encourage a narrow and prescriptive approach to learning in Britain just when the old model of grammar teaching had been rejected. This anxiety explains why linguistics was not seen as a suitable replacement for tradilional grammar and why its influence on the curriculum in this country took so long to be felt. It also explains the relative lack of research in this area. The influence of linguistics Despite these suspicions, there was also pressure to examine what linguistics might have to offer and in 1964 the Schools Council set up a project, initiated by Halliday, to investigate the applicability of this 'new discipline' to teaching English. The precise brief was 'to look into the teaching of English from the standpoint of modern developments in linguistics to make a study of the contemporary English language that would be useful to English teachers, and to offer recommendations about aims and methods, whilst also carrying out such experimentation as proved possible in the time available'. A series of position papers preceded the publication of teaching materials, called Language in Use, in 1971.

Paper 6 The first paper, 'The relevance of linguistics for the English teacher', stressed: 'We are not offering a "new English" for the classroom; still less - let it be clearly stated - are we offering a "new grammar" '. The basic premises of the programme were that the old grammar was discredited but in its place 'exposure' to 'good' language alone was not enough, and that teaching can order and structure a child's language experience without ceasing to be 'child- centred'. The project stressed the need for teachers to have more than 'a native speaker's' intuition about language, however much refined by the study of literature, and drew a distinction between 'operational' and 'explicit' knowledge. Both points remain topical. The influence of systemic-functional grammar The Language in Use materials are of continuing interest in that they originated in a theoretical proposition for which there was no empirical evidence: that helping pupils to be more aware of the functions and operations of language will increase their competence and control, not only as school pupils but in their lives as a whole. The verdict of the Bullock Committee on this work was that there was no evidence that teaching a linguistically-based language course would improve pupils' own language use. Their view was no doubt a factor in the project not being more widely taken up. There is still no evidence as such, as the approach has never been investigated in Britain, although the teaching materials were widely taken up in further education where the context-based 'real life' tasks fitted well with vocational programmes. The programme's extension of the scope of what pupils use language for and its adaptation of concepts such as register theory are both now part of the national curriculum. The effectiveness of transformational-generative grammar There is one frequently quoted New Zealand study by Elley (1975) which compares the effectiveness of traditional formal grammar and transformational-generative grammar in terms of pupils' progress in writing. Elley's team set out to study the direct effects of traditional and transformational-generative grammar on children's writing skills, avoiding the main weaknesses of previous research: brevity, limited testing instruments, and failure to consider the effects of teacher attitudes on results. Three matched groups of 'average ability' pupils, in a large co-educational high school in Auckland, followed three different English programmes for three years, from the beginning of their third year to the latter part of their fifth. Pupils' development was compared throughout the period on a range of language criteria, including essay-writing skills, sentence structure, usage, spelling, reading comprehension, vocabulary, understanding of literature and attitude. One group followed an English programme comprising strands on: literature and rhetoric, which included the analysis of texts to understand structure, substance and style; and writing for different audiences and purposes. In addition they studied a strand of transformationalgenerative grammar which was designed to explain the rules of grammar which a native English speaker naturally uses. Topics included: deep and surface structure; embedding; sentence parts; compound sentences; questions; negatives; passives; participle modifiers and restrictive and nonrestrictive modifiers. Students studied and analysed sentences to discover and apply grammatical rules. The second group followed the same literature and rhetoric strands but instead of studying transformational-generative grammar they were given time for free reading and creative writing, with exercises on word choice and imagery. In their final year there was emphasis on structured writing based on intensive reading. According to the report, 'when the need arose they did study some spelling, punctuation, paragraphing and other usage conventions, but learnt nothing of sentence analysis, parts of speech, phrase structure rules, transformations and the like'.

Paper 6 The third group followed an entirely different course throughout the study period. This included 'largely traditional grammar', eg subjects, predicates, objects, complements, parts of speech, inflexions, phrase, clauses and compound sentences, 'with many topical applications'. They also studied literature, but the two aspects were not closely related. Pupils' progress was assessed by an extensive range of tests including a series of set essays, at the end of each year, for which multi-marker assessments were devised to various criteria. In the fifth year school certificate results were incorporated. Few significant differences in writing performance or language competence emerged between the three groups, After three years the two grammar groups scored better in tests of correct language use with the traditional grammar group slightly better than the transformationalgenerative grammar group. Further analysis showed that higher scores followed no particular pattern but were spread across a variety of features relating to spelling and punctuation. School certificate grades showed no advantage to the grammar groups and a precis exercise showed no difference in mean scores between groups. The sentence combining test, where grammar study might have had some effect, showed no advantage to the grammar groups. The transformationalgenerative grammar group did master the fundamentals of transformational-generative grammar, without any apparent loss in other areas relative to the other two groups, but they also rated their English course more 'useless' and 'repetitious' than other groups. The results revealed disappointingly little about progress in writing. Elley concluded 'this study could be said to provide little discomfort for those who support the study of grammar for its own sake, or as a means of gaining greater understanding of their language'. Walmsley (1984), re-examining the evidence later, concluded that trying to demonstrate transfer of grammar knowledge to writing skills is probably a fruitless line of enquiry. A period of discussion but little research The relevance of linguistics to the teaching of English continued to be a topic of interest from the late sixties. Currie (1969), for example, set out to 'define the relationships between linguistics as a body of knowledge and the practical issues of teaching English in the Scottish senior secondary school', where traditional formal grammar teaching still took place. He concluded that transformational-generative grammar, whilst providing insights into language as cognition raised problems of formulation and handling which made it impractical as a model for schools. The Bullock Committee came to a similar conclusion based on the experiences of US teachers using transformational-generative grammar-based programmes. On the other hand, Currie saw in Halliday's systemic-functional grammar 'a profitable basis for applications to school courses'. He proposed a school language approach similar to the Language in Use project, along with the study of descriptive grammar and language varieties of the kind which later featured in the A level English language courses and the Language in the National Curriculum (LINC) materials. He concluded that the materials he tested 'produced a statistically significant increase in language awareness in the mother-tongue pupils taught over similar pupils studying traditionally oriented language courses'. This, however, is not a claim for increased language performance. Any links between increased awareness and progress in using language remains elusive. Studies of writing Although there has been very little research in Britain specifically into teaching grammar in the last thirty years, there have been several sizeable projects on the development of pupils' writing.

Paper 6 The need for systematic help with grammatical structures The Assessment of Performance Unit, set up in the wake of the Bullock enquiry, conducted annual surveys of reading and writing over the period 1979-83 and again in 1988, measuring performance at ages eleven and fifteen. The writing studies showed pupils' progress in writing was linked to their increased familiarity with a growing range of written discourse, and with writing for different purposes. The writing tasks which both age groups found more difficult were those which made greater demands on their grammatical resources, and both groups were least confident when required to write in formal registers. Fifteen-year-olds showed patterns of increased control over and use of a range of grammatical structures. Between 1981 and 1983 the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IAEEA) conducted a survey of written composition in 14 countries including England and Wales. Some 1,500 year 10 pupils undertook a series of written tasks such as a summary, a description, a personal narrative, a persuasive essay, a reflective or discursive essay, and a letter, which were assessed amongst other things for grammatical features. Most of the findings supported those of national surveys, for example pupils in this survey found writing based on personal experience easiest and reflective or discursive writing most difficult. These difficulties are likely to be connected with the types of grammatical structure required. Of relevance to the teaching of grammar was the observation that even very experienced teachers had difficulty in teaching discursive writing, with an overemphasis on providing materials but insufficient guidance on how to go about such writing, or analysis of the processes involved. The researchers concluded that 'despite teachers' dedication much of the effort expended in teaching writing achieves fairly limited effects'. Knowledge about Language (KAL) The emergence of Knowledge about Language which has had considerable influence on curriculum planning over recent years has been based not so much on research evidence as on the belief that linguistics has something to offer the English curriculum. Its roots go back to the Language in Use materials whose influence can be traced through the Bullock Report (1975), to the HMI's 'Curriculum Matters: English 5-16' (1984). This provoked strong objections from the profession for its proposal that pupils should be taught about language, in order to achieve a working knowledge of its structure and uses and a vocabulary for discussing these. Soon after, the Kingman enquiry into the teaching of English language was established, this was followed by the Cox Report's recommendations for the first national curriculum for English. Both the Kingman and Cox Reports accepted the evidence that traditional grammar teaching by rote learning and exercises was not effective in improving pupils' writing. Both were also cautious about claims that learning about language might improve performance, recognising that there is insufficient research into the link between reflection on language and competence in using it. The Cox Report found it 'very plausible' that knowledge about language, taught in relation to other aspects of the English curriculum would support developing competence. The growing interest in KAL reflected a perceived need for a more coherent approach to language study. It offered the prospect of synthesising some of the conflicting tensions in attitudes to explicit language teaching. The emphasis for KAL was on language use in context, thus avoiding the charge of being a return to discredited methods. It also introduced a justification for language teaching relating to the value of the study for its own sake that was of equal importance to the goal of producing more effective language users. The LINC materials have had greater influence on teachers' thinking about language varieties and sociolinguistics than about sentence structure. Mitchell, Brumfit and Hooper (1994)

Paper 6 reported that the project had not had widespread impact on the teaching of language in secondary schools. Another related development has been the rise of A level English language courses. Course developers have selected from the field of linguistics some central topics and approaches to provide a sound theoretical framework for studying language. There has been a strong focus on teaching grammar from a descriptive standpoint, but also on relating the study of grammar to the critical analysis of texts and the production of writing in various genres. A level English language courses have demonstrated that grammar can increase students' awareness of how language works, help students apply explicit grammatical analysis to texts, and also to reproduce the grammatical features of different types of texts in their own writing. As a result, A level English language teachers have introduced some explicit grammatical work, at both discourse and sentence level, in teaching English to younger students. Teachers' knowledge of grammar Following the Kingman Report and the introduction of the national curriculum, there have been several studies of student teachers' levels of language knowledge, including grammatical knowledge, in order to measure it against the requirements of the English order. Naming parts of speech Chandler, Robinson and Noyes (1988), tested 917 primary student teachers on BEd and PGCE courses at three institutions in Britain between 1986 and 1987. The tests looked at their knowledge of parts of speech and morphology, their ability to generate language rules from examples, and their attitudes towards language. They found the majority were familiar with most parts of speech, except preposition and article, and that student teachers who did well on recognising parts of speech also did well on assigning nonsense words to word classes, suggesting they were able to apply their knowledge. However, their deeper understanding of grammar was more limited, for example most could identify a verb as a 'doing word' but few could see the limitations of this definition. The authors concluded that knowledge of basic grammatical terminology was higher than popular presentations suggested, but that there were significant gaps. Identifying functions of parts of speech Wray (1993) assessed primary student teachers at the beginning and end of their course on knowledge of parts of speech, general language awareness, awareness of spoken and written features, audience, accent and dialect variations, and literary features of structure. Results on the knowledge of parts of speech were lower than in the earlier study but were not tested in the same way. Asked to comment on the statement, 'a verb is a doing word', 58 per cent of student teachers were unable to amplify or qualify it. Asked to turn a piece of spoken language into a letter most could do so satisfactorily but many could not explain what they had done. The end of course assessments showed increased knowledge of the functional aspects of language and of the literary uses of language, but little improvement in their knowledge of language structure, especially grammar. Williamson and Hardman (1995) looked at elements of clause and sentence structure and student teachers' ability to apply this knowledge to pupils' writing, in the context of the requirements of the revised English order. A group of 99 primary PGCE student teachers was asked at the beginning of their course: to identify the function of underlined words in sentences; comment on the achievement and grammatical errors in three sentences from pupils' writing; define the terms noun, verb, adjective and adverb; and indicate their level of agreement with statements about the grammatical understanding 11-year-olds should have.

Paper 6 The findings on knowledge of individual word functions were similar to those of earlier studies. In describing the function of some groups of words (two phrases, one clause) only six used the word 'clause' and 12 'phrase', although more gave either a correct descriptive- or linguisticallybased answer. In each case about two-thirds gave a wrong answer or no response. A quarter were able to write a sentence with a subordinate clause and underline it; but less than a quarter described the difference between a clause and a phrase, or attempted a grammatical definition of a sentence. Commenting on children's writing Responses to the pupils' sentences tended to focus on the correctness of the writing. There was little awareness for instance, that a pupil's spoken grammar might have influenced the structure of the writing, and little appreciation was given to the pupil's partially successful attempt to interrelate clauses. Although the study showed that teachers' knowledge of the functions of individual words was better than popular opinion might expect, the authors concluded that teachers' understanding of basic sentence structure was inadequate for the demands of the revised national curriculum. Without a proper understanding of sentence structure there was a danger of teachers adopting dogmatic approaches in the classroom based on out-dated models. Changing attitudes to grammar teaching Poulson et al (1996) reported a small research project, conducted in 1992-3 in eight secondary schools, to find out how implementation of the national curriculum was changing what teachers do. The testing of language was identified as an area where they felt teachers' practice was weak and would need changing or was already being changed. Although most schools organised their curriculum into termly or half termly units, few if any had an explicit language focus. Most units tended to be literature- or theme-based and schools were planning to incorporate language work within existing structures. Though the teachers in the survey recognised language study as a legitimate area for development, they did not see it as requiring them to make major shifts in curriculum planning. The researchers, all of whom were linguists, concluded that a systematic and focused emphasis on the teaching of English language would present a radical challenge to teachers' conception of their subject and their professional identity. Teachers saw their role in relation to language as enabling pupils to have access to a range of linguistic options and to better understand the operation of language in society. They thought this could be incorporated into their largely personal development model of English teaching. There was less agreement about the place of teaching language structure and forms in the light of the requirements of the revised English order. Language teaching tended to be discussed less in terms of content, which was equated with clause analysis and formal rules, than of the style of teaching. Some teachers did not attempt to teach any language aspects to the class as a whole, relying entirely on feedback to individual pupils. Some of these findings are similar to those of the 1996 SCAA survey, although there was evidence in the later study of a greater focus on language and greater variety of teaching approaches. This suggests there have been shifts since 1993 and a greater acknowledgement of the need and challenge to teach sentence structure without reverting to out-dated and largely discredited methods. Twenty years ago the Bullock Report noted the vagueness of many teachers' comments on grammar and punctuation. It is clear from these studies and the SCAA grammar survey that many teachers do not have sufficient or appropriate knowledge to implement the grammar requirements of national curriculum.

Paper 6 Developing teachers' grammatical knowledge Teachers' knowledge of grammar has been the focus of much of the work of Perera. Rather than offering a standard linguistic model of grammar, she begins with language development and uses observation-based research to establish the order in which children develop control of grammatical structures and at what likely ages. Her 1990 study of the grammatical differentiation between speech and writing is based on the analysis of a collection of samples of the language use of nine- and twelve-year-olds, with which teachers would feel comfortable. Her starting point is that teachers often complain that children 'write as they speak'. She concludes that children between nine and twelve have a well-developed sense of the differences between speech and writing and use grammatical constructions in writing that they do not use in speech. However, adults may not recognise this because the constructions are usually quite simple ones that they would use in speech themselves. She shows that the pressure to produce extended and coherent writing makes children experiment with new constructions, not always getting them right. As they mature and master a wider repertoire of constructions they will apply some of these in their speech. This study highlights the usefulness of grammatical terminology and concepts in relation to understanding the development of pupils' writing. In Children's Writing and Reading (1984) Perera's starting point is Bullock's recommendation that 'teachers must take deliberate steps to extend their pupils' linguistic resources'. To do this she argues, they must work in harmony with the natural sequence of language acquisition and understand the 'complex' relationship between oral and written language. They need to know the causes of errors in order to decide the remedy. Explicit grammatical knowledge will help teachers recognise 'mature syntax' and avoid underestimating pupils' linguistic abilities. Perera uses the terminology of the current national curriculum, and goes beyond it, using Quirk's classifications. She does not make recommendations on how teachers should use grammatical knowledge in their teaching; her focus is on teachers having this knowledge, to inform their understanding of the way they teach and respond to children's writing. Similar points are made by Williamson and Hardman (1995) who found that their student teachers failed to recognise when a pupil was attempting an ambitious structure. The importance of explicit grammatical knowledge in helping to set realistic expectations is also emphasised by Carter (1990). He suggests that grammatical knowledge should form an incremental part of writing development and be mainly discussed with pupils in the context of their own language use. He recommends that teachers structure activities in which competence precedes reflection on language, and reflection comes before 'discursive analysis of particular grammatical properties'; that the less formal, more individual and expressive functions of grammar should be integrated with its more formal and public uses.

Paper 6 Conclusions Few answers emerge from this research that are directly relevant to the current situation. Much of the evidence considered in this paper is concerned with the effects of grammar teaching on pupils' writing. There is little recent classroom-based evidence about this aspect of grammar teaching and even less about other aspects of teaching grammar outlined at the start of this paper. However, it can be reasonably concluded that: Discrete teaching of parts of speech and parsing in de-contextualised exercise form is not a particularly effective activity, and only older and more able pupils are likely to understand and retain the knowledge. There is no evidence that knowledge acquired in this way transfers into writing competence, though it has clearly given those who learnt it (older English teachers for example) some sort of framework for understanding syntax. It may also have helped develop some pupils' technical abilities as assessed on tests of those abilities. Transformational-generative grammar, while a ground-breaking concept in linguistic terms, is too far removed from the day-to-day needs of mainstream schools. It has little to offer unless the purpose is to teach pupils about transformational-generative grammar for its own sake, in which case there is some evidence that pupils may find this easier to master than the recognition of parts of speech. Linguistics has made a valuable contribution to English teaching, not so much in terms of grammar itseif, but in providing a much broader context in which grammar can be studied. Concepts which relate syntactic structure to type of utterance, text and purpose are powerful ways in which to explore grammar for its own sake and also raise pupils' awareness that grammar is a key to how and what they communicate. There is evidence from studies of writing development that experience of the syntactic demands of different types of tasks is a key factor in pupils' written performance and development. Although traditional formal grammar, as was commonly taught in Britain until the 1950s, has proved unproductive there is evidence that drawing explicit attention to the syntactic features of pupils' writing, in the context of an individual pupil's work and in relation to the type of task in hand, can increase pupils' awareness of how language works. This may in turn increase their sense of control over their writing. There are no easy answers to the relationship between knowing how language works and being able to apply that knowledge. There is no definitive evidence which says 'if you do this then this is likely to happen'. It is probably time to try to shift the criterion by which I the usefulness of grammar is judged. Walmsley (1984) questions the premise that the only justification for teaching grammar is direct improvement of pupils' writing. This strictly utilitarian purpose is not applied to other areas of the curriculum, or other parts of the English curriculum. For instance, extravagant claims are made that the teaching of literature helps develop pupils' understanding of human nature and nurtures their personal values, but these claims are not tested to justify literature teaching. Literature is accepted because there is a common belief among English teachers that it is of value. It maybe more profitable to promote the teaching of grammar on different grounds: as a strand in the teaching and learning of language, which like all other aspects, compositional and technical, does not have a straight transfer into writing. In this context grammar counts as another tool for developing literacy. Research confirms that most young teachers have knowledge of some parts of speech but little overall understanding of syntax or its relation to the development of writing and many lack a framework to assess pupils' syntactic development.

Paper 6 There is little research which is directly helpful for developing models of how to teach grammar to children, especially young children. There is a general sense in the research that children find syntax difficult to learn if it is abstracted. The work with primary children on functional grammar, described by Williams (1995) may offer some pointers though it also highlights the difficulties of balancing the time needed to teach the terms and concepts, with time to practise. Hudson (1993) offers many suggestions for activities which can increase children’s awareness, though their link with other parts of the English curriculum is not always clear. The language work which Harris’ non-grammar groups were doing in the early 1960s still has relevance. The social, educational and linguistic contexts have all changed, but the demands of the English language are more constant. The routine discussion and teaching of language, including syntactic structures and rules, as part of preparation for and feedback from writing is something which seems to have been lost. In the absence of other evidence, it is this, invigorated with more recent knowledge from linguists, genre and discourse theories, and a basic core of terminology, which offers the most fruitful way forward.

References 'A language for life' (Bullock Report), Department of Education and Science (DES), HMSO, 1975 Bloomfield, L. Language, New York, Holt, Richardson and Winston, 1933 Carter, R. 'The new grammar teaching' in R. Carter (ed.), Knowledge about Language: the LINC Reader, Hodder and Stoughton, 1990, pp.104-121 Carter, R. Keywords in Language and Literature, Routledge, 1995 Cawley, F. 'The difficulty of English grammar for pupils of secondary school age', unpublished MEd thesis, University of Manchester 1957. Abstract published in The British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol XXVII, 1958 Chandler, P., Robinson, W.P. and Noyes, P. 'The level of linguistic knowledge and awareness amongst students training to be primary teachers', Language and Education Vol. 2, No.3~ 1988, pp.161-173 Chomsky, N. Syntactic Structures, The Hague: Mouton, 1957 Crystal, D. 'Linguistic perspectives', Reading Vol. 9, No.2, 1975 Cullup, M. 'Linguistics and the teacher', Use of English Vol. 19, 1967, pp.19-21 Currie, W.B. 'The application of linguistics in the teaching of the mother-tongue', unpublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1969 Diack, H. 'A re-examination of grammar', Use of English Vol. 7, 1956, pp.251-255 Doughty, P. (ed.) 'Programme in linguistics and English teaching', papers related to Language in Use, Edward Arnold, 1971 Elley, W.B. et al., 'The role of grammar in a secondary school curriculum', New Zealand Council for Educational Studies Vol. 10, No. 1, 1975, pp.26-41 'English for ages 5-16' (Cox Report), Department of Education and Science (DES), HMSO, 1989 Firth, J.R. 'Papers in linguistics 1934-51', Oxford University Press, 1957 Gorman, T., White, J., Brooks, G., Maclure, M. and Kispal, A. 'Language Performance in Schools', Review of the APU Monitoring 1979-83, HMSO, 1988 Gorman, T., White, J., Brooks, G. and English, F. 'Language for Learning: summary report on 1988 APU surveys of language performance' SEAC, 1989 Greenbaum, S. The Oxford English Grammar, Oxford University Press, 1996 Gubb, J., Corman, T. and Price, E. 'The Study of Written Composition in England and Wales', NFER, 1987 Halliday, M.A.K., McIntosh, A. and Stevens, P. The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching, Longmans, 1964 Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, Edward Arnold, 1957, second edition 1994

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', unpublished PhD thesis, University of London, 1962, summary of research published in Use of English, Vol. 16, 1965 Hudson, R. Teaching Grammar: A Guide for the National Curriculum, Blackwell, 1993 Jespersen, O. Essentials of English Grammar, Allen and Unwin, 1933 Lowth, R. Short Introduction to English Grammar, London, 1762 Macauley, W.J. 'The difficulty of grammar', The British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. XVIII, 1947 Mitchell, R., Brumfit, C. and Hooper, J. 'Knowledge about language: policy, rationales and practice', Research Papers in Education, 9 (2) pp.183-206, 1994 Mittins, W., 'The dilemma of grammar', The Journal of Education, Vol. 80, No. 944, 1948 Murray, L. English Grammar, London, 1794 Nesfield, J.C. English Grammar: Past and Present, London, 1898 Perera, K. Children's Writing and Reading: Analysing Classroom Language, Blackwell, 1984 Perera, K. 'Grammatical differentiation between speech and writing in children aged twelve to fourteen', in R. Carter (ed.), Knowledge About Language: The LINC Reader, Hodder and Stoughton, 1990 Poulson, L., Radnor, H. and Turner-Bisset, R. 'From policy to practice: language education, English teaching and curriculum reform in secondary schools in England', Language and Education, Vol. 10, No.1, 1996 Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G.N. and Svartvik, J. A Grammar of Contemporary English, Longman, 1972 Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G.N. and Svartvik, J. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Longman, 1985 'Report of the committee of inquiry into the teaching of the English language' (Kingman Report), Department of Education and Science (DES), HMSO, 1988 Saussure, F. de Course in General Linguistics, 1916, translated by R. Harris, Duckworth, 1983 Squire, J .R. and Applebee, R.K. 'A Study of the Teaching of English in Selected British Secondary Schools', US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1967 Sweet, H. A New English Grammar Logical and Historical, Oxford, 1891 Tomlinson, D. 'Errors in the research into the effectiveness of grammar teaching', English in Education, Vol. 28, No.1, 1994, pp.20-26 NATE Walmsley, J. 'The uselessness of formal grammar?', Committee for Linguistics in Education working paper No.2, Language Studies Unit, Aston University, 1984, reprinted 1993 Williams, G. 'Learning systemic functional grammar in primary schools', unpublished paper, University of Sydney, 1995 Williamson, J. and Hardman F. 'Time for refilling the bath?: a study of primary student teachers' grammatical knowledge', Language and Education, Vol. 9, No.2, 1995

Wilson, R. 'Linguistics and standards', Use of English, 18, pp.243-6, 1967 Wray, D. 'Student teachers' knowledge and beliefs about language', in N. Bennett and C. Carre (eds.) Learning To Teach, Routledge, 1993

Further reading Burchfield, R. W. The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, Oxford University Press, 1996 Crystal, D. Rediscover Grammar, Longman, 1988 Crystal, D. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, Cambridge University Press, 1987 Crystal, D. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, Cambridge University Press, 1995 Greenbaum, S. The Oxford English Grammar, Oxford University Press, 1996 Greenbaum, S. and Quirk, R. A Student's Grammar of the English Language, Longman, 1990 Leech, G. An A-Z of English Grammar and Usage, Arnold, 1989 Sinclair, J. Collins Cobuild English Grammar, Collins, 1990 Sinclair, J. Collins Cobuild English Usage, Collins, 1992

Pre-school

National curriculum 5-16

GCSE

GNVQ

GCE A level

NVQ

Other vocational qualifications

@ Qualifications and Curriculum Authority Newcombe House, 45 Notting Hill Gate, London Wll 3JB and 222 Euston Road, London NWl 2BZ http://www.open.gov.uk/qca/ QCA ref: QCA/98/052 For further copies please contact: QCA Publications, PO Box 235, Hayes, Middlesex UB3 IHF. Telephone: 0181 8673333. Fax: 0181 8673233.