Search

This mixed-method quasi-experimental study examined whether metaconceptual grammar teaching impacts on (a) students' L1 grammatical understanding, (b) their 'blind' use of grammatical concepts and (c) their preference of using explicit grammatical concepts over everyday concepts in explaining grammatical problems. Previous research, involving single group pre-postintervention designs, found positive effects for metaconceptual interventions on secondary school students' grammatical reasoning ability, although a negative side effect seemed to be that some students started using grammatical concepts 'blindly' (i.e., in an inaccurate way). While there are thus important clues that metaconceptual grammar teaching may lead to increased grammatical understanding, there is a great need for more robust empirical research. The current study, involving 196 Dutch 14-year old pre-university students, is a methodological improvement of previous work, adopting a switching replications design. Bayesian multivariate analyses indicate medium to large effects from the metaconceptual intervention on students' grammatical understanding. The study found a similar effect of the intervention on students' ability to use explicit grammatical concepts over everyday concepts in tackling grammatical problems. No evidence for increased 'blind' concept use as a negative byproduct of the intervention was found. Additional qualitative analyses of in-intervention tasks provided further evidence for the effectiveness of metaconceptual interventions, and seemed to indicate that cases of blind concept use, rather than being a negative side effect, might actually be part of a gradual process of students' growing understanding of grammatical (meta)concepts. We discuss these findings in relation to previous work and conclude that linguistic metaconcepts can improve L1 grammatical understanding., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Teaching grammar has always constituted a major part of language education in curricula around the world, although it has also been heavily debated. Most of the debate on grammar teaching focused on the rationales for teaching it, rather than on the linguistic content that should be taught. At the same time, there appears to be a renewed interest in restoring the bond between linguistic theory and grammar education. Previous research has suggested that it would be highly desirable to gain a clearer picture of this content. Which concepts are being discussed in the literature on grammar education, and to what extent are these compatible with modern linguistics, in other words: is the literature on grammar teaching up-to-date? This systematic literature review is the first to dive into these questions. Results indicate: (1) most of the concepts in the literature on grammar teaching are from traditional grammar. To a limited extent, there are also concepts from modern linguistic theory that are being discussed, but mostly implicitly; (2) most concepts are not being motivated because they are meaningful in modern theoretical linguistics, but because they reflect traditional classroom practices and policy. It can consequently be concluded that education on linguistic analysis is not up-to-date, which potentially has severe consequences: implementing insights from modern linguistics is likely to provide students with deeper insights, and teachers with a better equipped pedagogy.

L1 grammar teaching worldwide often takes the form of traditional grammar teaching with decontextualized parsing exercises and rules of thumb. Some researchers have proposed enriching such forms of grammar teaching by relating traditional grammatical concepts to underlying metaconcepts from linguistic theory. The merits of such an approach have become apparent in recent intervention studies, but the question remains how teachers perceive such forms of grammar teaching, which is of particular importance for curriculum development. The present study investigated Dutch teachers' beliefs in focus groups and a national survey (N = 127). It is found that Dutch language teachers see important benefits of a metaconceptual approach to grammar teaching, particularly as a means to improve students' grammatical understanding. However, results also indicate that while teachers may see clear pedagogical and conceptual advantages of working based on underlying metaconcepts, their own teaching practice appears to be much more traditional. This discrepancy is explained by assuming that contextual factors have a restraining effect on what teachers can or want to do in reality. Once such contextual factors no longer play a part, teachers' views tend to be much more geared towards a metaconceptual approach. The paper concludes with some implications for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2003, Theo Janssen wrote a contribution for Nederlandse Taalkunde [Dutch Linguistics] about the incorporation of linguistic knowledge into the school subject of Dutch Language and Literature, hoping thus to enrich the content of the school subject and making it more inspiring. In our contribution we discuss the great relevance of Janssen's contribution, and we show that his plea is still extremely topical. In addition, we discuss some recent developments, and we particularly draw attention to the complex relationship between academic linguistics and the related school subject. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In L1 grammar teaching, teachers often struggle with the students' conceptual understanding of the subject matter. Frequently, students do not acquire an in-depth understanding of grammar, and they seem generally incapable of reasoning about grammatical problems. Some scholars have argued that an in-depth understanding of grammar requires making connections between concepts from traditional grammar and underlying metaconcepts from linguistic theory. In the current study, we evaluate an intervention aiming to do this, following up on a previous study that found a significant effect for such an approach in university students of Dutch Language and Literature (d = 0.62). In the current study, 119 Dutch secondary school students' grammatical reasonings (N = 684) were evaluated by language teachers, teacher educators and linguists pre and post intervention using comparative judgement. Results indicate that the intervention significantly boosted the students' ability to reason grammatically (d = 0.46), and that many students can reason based on linguistic metaconcepts. The study also shows that reasoning based on explicit underlying linguistic metaconcepts and on explicit concepts from traditional grammar is more favored by teachers and (educational) linguists than reasoning without explicit (meta)concepts. However, some students show signs of incomplete acquisition of the metaconcepts. The paper discusses explanations for this incomplete acquisition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Explicit linguistic metaconcepts strongly contribute to students' grammatical reasoning. • A short intervention can boost students' explicit metaconcept use in solving grammatical problems. • Grammatical understanding is enhanced by relating metaconcepts to traditional concepts. When teaching grammar, one of the biggest challenges teachers face is how to make their students achieve conceptual understanding. Some scholars have argued that metaconcepts from theoretical linguistics should be used to pedagogically and conceptually enrich traditional L1 grammar teaching, generating more opportunities for conceptual understanding. However, no empirical evidence exists to support this theoretical position. The current study is the first to explore the role of linguistic metaconcepts in the grammatical reasoning of university students of Dutch Language and Literature. Its goal was to gain a better understanding of the characteristics of students' grammatical conceptual knowledge and reasoning and to investigate whether students' reasoning benefits from an intervention that related linguistic metaconcepts to concepts from traditional grammar. Results indicate, among other things, that using explicit linguistic metaconcepts and explicit concepts from traditional grammar is a powerful contributor to the quality of students' grammatical reasoning. Moreover, the intervention significantly improved students' use of linguistic metaconcepts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

L1 grammar education is internationally criticised because of its pedagogy and its curriculum content. There is a gap between linguistic theory and school grammar in which the latter rarely makes use of possibly relevant insights from the former. At the same time, linguistics itself has never seriously undertaken attempts to identify the fundamental, theory-neutral conceptual knowledge of the field. Instead, most linguists spend time on defining the boundaries between different linguistic theories, making it harder for language teachers to take advantage of insights that linguistics has to offer. This paper, therefore, aims (1) to establish a theory-neutral foundation for sentential syntax and semantics and (2) to explore the role this foundation should play in language education according to linguists. The experts were asked to articulate the most important linguistic concepts for both the domain of linguistic theory and the domain of grammar education. Twenty-six concepts were identified and ranked in a Delphi study for relative importance in both domains. The importance of the concepts correlated strongly for both domains, making it feasible to bridge the gap between linguistics and school grammar. The Dutch context is taken as a frame of reference, although the study's relevance is likely to be broader. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]