Search

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.

Among other things, learning to write entails learning how to use complex sentences effectively in discourse. Some research has therefore focused on relating measures of syntactic complexity to text quality. Apart from the fact that the existing research on this topic appears inconclusive, most of it has been conducted in English L1 contexts. This is potentially problematic, since relevant syntactic indices may not be the same across languages. The current study is the first to explore which syntactic features predict text quality in Dutch secondary school students' argumentative writing. In order to do so, the quality of 125 argumentative essays written by students was rated and the syntactic features of the texts were analyzed. A multilevel regression analysis was then used to investigate which features contribute to text quality. The resulting model (explaining 14.5% of the variance in text quality) shows that the relative number of finite clauses and the ratio between the number of relative clauses and the number of finite clauses positively predict text quality. Discrepancies between our findings and those of previous studies indicate that the relations between syntactic features and text quality may vary based on factors such as language and genre. Additional (cross-linguistic) research is needed to gain a more complete understanding of the relationships between syntactic constructions and text quality and the potential moderating role of language and genre.

Traditional L1 grammar teaching focuses on students' learning the correct grammar rules rather than learning how to deal with grammatical issues in real life. This is mainly due to the fact that traditional grammar education suggests that language consists of sentences which are well-formed according to a fixed prescriptive norm. However, language is messy (especially spoken language), and even the analysis of written language is often unclear and controversial. Students generally do not learn how to deal with the differences between the prescriptive norms taught at school, language in real language situations, and their own language intuitions. They are not taught how to develop a more reflective attitude to tackle ill-structured language issues. Such a reflective attitude could be stimulated by a pedagogical approach to grammar that addresses higher order cognitive thinking skills and teaches students how to consult language resources. In this paper we combine a cognitive learning model with a reflective development model into a pedagogical template aimed at stimulating both cognitive learning and reflective development.

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.

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.

AbstractA lot of research into the relationship between explicit grammatical understanding and literacy development in L1 contexts has focused on writing. A lot less is known, however, about the interconnectedness of explicit grammatical understanding and reading. This study investigated the relationship between grammatical understanding and reading comprehension in Finnish 9th grade students. Using national assessment data (N = 6,044) and multilevel quantitative analyses, the study found that explicit grammatical understanding accounted for a significant portion of the variance in reading skills, even after controlling for various background factors such as school, family socioeconomic status, homework and book reading habits, attitudes towards studying L1, and writing ability. The findings suggest, without implying causality, that understanding language structure and making explicit metalinguistic observations are closely connected to reading comprehension. The study encourages further research on the benefits of explicit grammar teaching for reading comprehension using different study designs. Additionally, it highlights the need to investigate how grammar instruction can be linked to reading, as well as explore the effectiveness of such instruction in different educational and linguistic contexts. [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.

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 Dutch L1 classrooms, style in non-fictional genres is typically taught by means of normative exercises in which students are tasked to identify stylistic lapses. Not much is known about the effectiveness of such exercises when teaching style. Unknown factors include what kinds of stylistic shortcomings are found in Dutch students' writing, and how the occurrence of certain stylistic lapses relates to writing quality. The current study empirically explores these scarcely investigated issues. Teachers rated 125 argumentative texts written by tenth-grade pre-university students by means of comparative judgement. Additionally, these texts were manually analyzed to investigate the occurrence of stylistic lapses, taking into account stylistic lapses that are common in text books ('standard category') and other types of style related errors ('other category'). Multilevel regression analyses revealed that only one of the stylistic lapses from the standard category negatively influenced text quality as evaluated by teachers, namely the use of detached phrases. In the other category, only mistakes in question marks negatively predicted text quality. A final model including those two predictors explained 11.1% of the variance in text quality. The article discusses the implications of these findings for non-fictional style education, suggesting that it might need to be refocused. [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]

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]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]