School of Education

Primary Educators’ Knowledge of Grammatical Concepts as Mandated

in the Australian Curriculum (English): Comparison of Pre and In-
Service Teachers

Ross Allan Mackenzie

This thesis is presented for the Degree of

Master of Philosophy (Education)
of
Curtin University

November 2016
 Declaration

To the best of my knowledge and belief this thesis contains no material previously
published by any other person except where due acknowledgment has been made.

This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other
degree or diploma in any university.

Signature:

Date: 24 November 2016

 Acknowledgements

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all of those involved in the writing of
this thesis. I am particularly grateful to my supervisor, Professor Rhonda Oliver, for
her guidance, support and belief. I’m not convinced I was always the easiest pupil, so
thank you for your wisdom and patience.

Postgraduate study seems to bring with it life events unexpected and unhelpful. As
such, it was only with continual and generous encouragement, humour and support
from family, friends and colleagues that I was able to navigate my way through to
completion. Thank you.

Special thanks must also be given to Maureen Sawyer, a mentor teacher without
whom I am quite convinced I would not have survived those early years of teaching.

Finally, pre-service and in-service teachers are, in my experience, people who care
deeply about their students and in helping little people become amazing adults.
Participating in research, when there are already significant demands on their energy
and time, is a credit to each of them and bodes well for the continual improvement of
teaching and learning in Australian schools.

iii
 Abstract

This study, undertaken in Western Australia during a period in which the National
Curriculum was developed and implemented in schools, investigates pre-service and
in-service teacher knowledge of grammar. In particular, it seeks to identify how well
teachers understand the grammar terminology derived from the National Curriculum:
English (NCE) and the concepts tested annually in the National Assessment Program
- Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN).

As a first step in this study, the literature describing historical and contextual factors
influencing grammar pedagogy is explored, including an account of the enduring
difficulty of finding an agreed upon definition of grammar. To further elaborate this,
comparisons are made with other Anglophone countries, especially those in which
governments have sought to improve standards in education through curriculum
innovation and the introduction of testing regimes.

A mixed methods approach involving both quantitative and qualitative data

collection and analysis was used in this study in three-phases. First, teacher
perceptions of grammar and the NCE were quantified using a Likert scale. Second,
teacher knowledge of grammar terminology contained in the NCE and concepts
derived from NAPLAN were assessed using a questionnaire completed by 69 pre-
service and 47 in-service teachers. Third, 6 pre-service and 6 in-service teachers
were interviewed to discuss emergent issues and which allowed descriptions from
teachers to better inform pre-service educational institutions on how to prepare
beginner teachers with respect to grammar knowledge and pedagogy.

The findings suggest that both pre-service and in-service teachers lack knowledge of
the grammar terminology used in the NCE and understanding of those concepts
tested by NAPLAN. While pre-service and in-service teachers value grammar and
share similar ideas on a functional and integrated pedagogical approach, they also
share concerns over the increasing complexity of grammar terminology and concepts
they are required to teach. The findings support previous research, and also provide
direction on how to improve pre-service teacher education.

iv
 Table of Contents

Declaration ................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... iii

Abstract ....................................................................................................................... iv

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... v

List of Tables............................................................................................................... ix

List of Figures ............................................................................................................. xi

List of Appendices ..................................................................................................... xii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................ xiii

Chapter 1 .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Background to the Study .................................................................................................. 1

1.2. The Research Problem ...................................................................................................... 3

1.3. Research Aims..................................................................................................................... 7

Chapter 2: Literature Review ................................................................................... 8

2.1. Background .......................................................................................................................... 8

2.2. Definitions of Grammar.................................................................................................... 9

2.3. Theories of Grammar and Pedagogy ......................................................................... 13

2.4. How Grammar is Currently Taught ........................................................................... 16

2.5. Grammar and the Australian Curriculum ................................................................. 18

2.6. Pedagogical Grammars and Pre-Service Education .............................................. 24

2.7. Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 30

v
Chapter 3: Method ................................................................................................... 31

3.1. Research Methodology ................................................................................... 31

3.2. Participants and Ethical Issues ....................................................................... 32

3.3. Materials ......................................................................................................... 36

3.4. Procedure ........................................................................................................ 39

3.4.1. Stage 1 Development of Grammar and NAPLAN Test Questions for the
Questionnaire ..................................................................................................... 39

3.4.2. Administration of the Questionnaire for Pre-service and In-service

Teachers ............................................................................................................. 44

3.4.3. Development of the Interview Protocol and Interviewing of Participants

............................................................................................................................ 46

3.5 Analysis ........................................................................................................... 47

3.5.1. Stage One Analysis .................................................................................. 47

3.5.2. Stage Two Analysis ................................................................................. 48

3.6. Validity, Reliability and Trustworthiness ...................................................... 54

Chapter 4: Findings ................................................................................................. 59

4.1. Section One .................................................................................................... 59

4.1.1. The Value of Teaching Grammar ............................................................ 60

4.1.2. Beliefs and Understandings about Grammar and Confidence to Teach the
National Curriculum........................................................................................... 61

4.1.3. Summary .................................................................................................. 68

4.2. Section Two .................................................................................................... 69

4.2.1. Grammar Terminology Test Descriptive Statistics .................................. 69

vi
 4.2.2. NAPLAN Test Descriptive Statistics ....................................................... 74

4.2.3. Comparing Pre-service and In-service Teacher Grammar Terminology

Test Scores ......................................................................................................... 79

4.2.4. Comparing Pre-service and In-service Teacher NAPLAN Test Scores .. 80

4.2.5. Relationships Between Age and Years since University Graduation,

Grammar Terminology Scores and NAPLAN Test Results .............................. 83

4.2.6. Comparing Languages other than English for Pre-service and In-service
Teachers with Grammar Terminology and NAPLAN Test Scores ................... 83

4.2.7. Comparing Gender for Pre-service and In-service Teachers with

Grammar Terminology and NAPLAN Test Scores ........................................... 85

4.2.8. Summary .................................................................................................. 86

4.3. Section Three .................................................................................................. 86

4.3.1. A National Standard and Teaching Grammar are Important ................... 87

4.3.2. It is Beneficial for both First and Second Language Development to use a
Common Grammar Terminology....................................................................... 88

4.3.3. Grammar Teaching should be an Explicit, Eclectic and Meaningful

Pedagogical Approach ....................................................................................... 89

4.3.4. Perceived Failures of the National Curriculum: English to Adequately

Support Grammar Teaching and Learning ......................................................... 92

4.3.5. Perceived External Interference with “Preferred” Grammar Pedagogy .. 94

4.3.6. Section Three Summary ........................................................................... 96

4.4. Section Four ................................................................................................... 96

4.4.1. Pre-service Teacher Grammar Knowledge is Too Low ........................... 96

vii
 4.4.2. Pre-service and In-Service Teacher Perceptions of Pre-service Education
and Grammar...................................................................................................... 99

4.4.3. Section Four Summary........................................................................... 103

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion................................................................. 104

5.1. Teachers Value Grammar and NCE Limitations ......................................... 104

5.2. Pre-service and In-service Teacher Grammar Knowledge........................... 109

5.3. Implications for Pre-service Education in Western Australia ...................... 112

5.4. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 114

References ............................................................................................................... 116

Appendices .............................................................................................................. 138

viii
 List of Tables

Table 3.1. Approximate Number of Enrolled 3rd and 4th Year 33

Students in Bachelor Studies Related to Primary Years
Education in 2013

Table 3.2. The Demographic Information of the Interview 35

Participants

Table 3.3. Origins of Grammar Terminology Questions 37

Table 3.4. Example of Line-by-Line Coding 49

Table 3.5. Conceptualisations of Grammar – Open Coding 51

Grouped into Categories

Table 3.6. Example of Open Codes Grouped Providing a 53

Statement (Axial Code) Leading to Theme

Table 4.1. Description of Pre-service (N = 68) and In-service (N 61

= 47) Teachers’ Perceptions of the Value of Teaching
Grammar

Table 4.2. Description of Pre-service (N = 68) and In-service (N 63

= 47) Teachers’ Perceptions of their Competence to
Teach Grammar in Accordance with the Australian
NCE

Table 4.3. t -test Showing Differences between Pre-service 65

Teachers (N = 68) and In-service Teachers (N = 47) in
their Perceptions on the Value of Teaching Grammar
and on their Competence to Teach Grammar in
Accordance with the National Curriculum

ix
Table 4.4. Correlations between Perceptions of the Value of 67
Teaching Grammar and Teacher Competence to Teach
Grammar (N = 115)

Table 4.5. Description of Pre-service Teachers’ (N = 68) and In- 70

service Teachers’ (N = 47) Scores on the Grammar
Terminology Test

Table 4.6. Percentage of Correct Responses for the Groups of 72

Pre-service (N = 68) and In-service (N = 47) Teachers
on Individual Grammar Terminology Test Questions

Table 4.7. Description of Pre-service (N = 68) and In-service (N 74

= 47) Teacher Scores on the NAPLAN Questions
(Student Skills)

Table 4.8. Percentage of Correct Responses for Pre-service and 76

In-service Teachers on Individual NAPLAN
Questions for Year 3 (N = 115)

Table 4.9. Frequency of Correct Responses for Pre-service and 77

In-service Teachers on Individual NAPLAN
Questions for Year 5 (N = 115)

Table 4.10. Frequency of Correct Responses for Pre-service and 78

In-service Teachers on Individual NAPLAN
Questions for Year 7 (N = 115)

Table 4.11. Descriptive Summary of Mean Percentage Scores (t- 81

test group statistics) Separated According to Year 3,
Year 5 and Year 7 NAPLAN Questions

x
 List of Figures

Figure 4.1. Number of pre-service (N = 68) and in-service (N = 70

47) teachers achieving raw scores on Grammar
Terminology test.

Figure 4.2. Percentage of correct responses for pre-service (N = 73

68) and in-service (N = 47) teachers on individual
grammar terminology questions.

Figure 4.3. Number of pre-service (N = 68) and in-service (N = 75

47) teachers achieving raw scores on the selected
NAPLAN test items.

Figure 4.4. Pre-service and in-service mean percentage correct 82

scores (t-test group statistics) grouped according to
Year 3, Year 5 and Year 7 questions.

xi
 List of Appendices

Appendix 1 Information Sheet and Consent Form 138

Appendix 2 Example of Questionnaire 142

Appendix 3 Selection of Descriptions 163

Appendix 4 Interview Schedule 168

xii
 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACARA Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority

ECE Early Childhood Education

KAL Knowledge About Language

LTC Language Teacher Competence

NAPLAN National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy

NCE National Curriculum: English

PD Professional Development

ScOT Schools Online Thesaurus

xiii
 Chapter 1

This chapter provides an introduction to the current study. It describes the historical
context for the development of the National Curriculum and the associated
challenges of including grammar in these policy documents (1.1). These challenges
include providing an agreed upon definition of grammar, differences in the
conceptual and theoretical rationale for including grammar, variance in teacher
knowledge, and the diversity of beliefs and approaches to teaching grammar, all of
which are of pedagogical significance. This information may be used to inform pre-
service teacher education. The chapter concludes with an outline of the research
problem (1.2) and the research aims (1.3).

1.1. Background to the Study

The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (Ministerial

Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 2008) set out the
direction for Australian schooling for the subsequent ten years and resulted in a
process designed to develop an Australia-wide curriculum from Kindergarten to Year
12. The purpose of this first Australian National Curriculum was to set out the “core
knowledge, understanding, skills and general capabilities important for all Australian
students” (The Department for Education, 2011, p. 5). Integral to this centralised
government-led policy was the aim of raising literacy standards (Masters & Forster,
1997; Watson, 2013). Consequentially, the development and introduction of the NCE
included “Content Descriptions” and the “re-introduction” of explicit teaching of
grammar in Australian schools. By 2014, all Western Australian schools were
expected to teach the Australian Curriculum in English from Foundation to Year 10
and subsequent state school curriculum documents adhere to this framework.

This initiative reversed an approach that existed to the 1966 Dartmouth Conference
and which, many believe, has resulted in Anglophone countries, including Australia,
excluding explicit and formal grammar teaching from classroom practice (Myhill &
Watson, 2014). Although some teachers may have continued to teach grammar in
their classrooms in Australia, this was likely the exception rather than the rule.

1
Therefore, when the Labor Government (2007 – 2013) sought to re-introduce the
explicit teaching of “grammar” this was highly politicised and fuelled what had been
described as “grammar wars” (Kamler, 1995; Locke, 2005). Underpinning this
debate were the perennial questions of how “grammar” is defined and if and how it
should be taught.

This debate was evident throughout the consultation period, which occurred prior to
the implementation of the NCE, with different perspectives on and submissions
offered about the value of grammar for language learners and potential education
benefits, if any, for students (Myhill & Watson, 2014). The issues raised were much
more complex than a simple dichotomy of whether “To grammar or not to
grammar?” (Weaver, McNally, & Moerman, 2001, p. 17), and perhaps for this
reason, reaching complete agreement on the theoretical perspective and pedagogical
rationale was not achieved (Fontich & Camps, 2014; Myhill & Watson, 2014).

While the issue remains vexed and there has never been a unified account or clear
rationale for teaching grammar (Fontich & Camps, 2014; Hudson & Walmsley,
2005; Myhill & Watson, 2014), with the introduction of the NCE, what is not in
contention is that teachers were required to present the “standard grammatical
terminology” (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority formerly
National Curriculum Board (ACARA), 2010, p. 5) as outlined in the NCE “Content
Descriptions” in Australian Primary Schools by 2014. This reality required schools
and pre-service institutions to address two issues; namely, implementation and
capacity.

Firstly, if the NCE is to achieve its objectives and provide students with core
knowledge and understandings it must be accepted that teachers are “…ultimately
the arbiters of how curricular policy is enacted in the classrooms” (Clark, 2010;
Watson, 2013, p. 4). Therefore, in order for schools and pre-service institutions to
address any potential gaps, there must also be recognition that teachers’ beliefs,
perceptions and “conceptual uncertainty” (Cajkler & Hislam, 2002, p. 172),
particularly in “contested areas” of the curriculum such as grammar (Watson, 2015,
p. 333), can affect pedagogical practice (Poulson, Avramidis, Fox, Medwell & Wray,
2001) and, in turn, the implementation of policy.

2
The second issue concerns the capability of primary school pre-service and in-
service teachers to teach the grammar components of NCE. Because of an absence of
formal language in Australian schools over several decades (Myhill & Watson,
2014), it is unclear whether teachers have the requisite knowledge of grammatical
terminology and concepts (i.e., the capacity) to teach grammar. A similar study
conducted in Western Australia noted the literacy standards of teaching graduates in
secondary schools was of perennial debate and conducted research indicating many
undergraduates in Bachelor of Education courses lack personal literacy competence
(Moon, 2014). Furthermore, in-service training on linguistic subject knowledge has
been recommended by some researchers (e.g., Hudson & Walmsley, 2005; Kolln &
Hancock, 2005; Myhill & Watson, 2014; Wales, 2009) to address the fact that
teachers may potentially have little or no experience in learning it themselves
(Gordon, 2005; Kolln & Hancock, 2005; Myhill & Watson, 2014).

The synthesis of these two issues raises further questions not only about teacher
knowledge, but also of school and classroom environments: Do teachers have the
knowledge of terminology used in the NCE to plan effectively? Are they able to
demonstrate competency of the grammar concepts, such as those in NAPLAN tests,
they are required to teach? Depending on the answers to these questions, the
remaining concern becomes whether pre-service institutions are preparing university
students appropriately for the rigours of teaching the grammar contained in the NCE
to primary aged students.

1.2. The Research Problem

The overall goal of this research is determine what is necessary in terms of pre-
service teacher education regarding “grammar knowledge” and “grammar teaching”.
To achieve this, the current study addresses three dimensions of the research
problem:

The first dimension of the research problem concerns identifying teacher perceptions
of the value of teaching grammar to students; how teachers have formed their beliefs
and their conceptions of grammar; and, identifying preferred, effective pedagogical
practices for teaching grammar. In order to do this, the first problem requiring
investigation is to discover what grammar content is evident in the NCE. Central to

3
this issue is determining, if possible, an agreed definition of “grammar” and
“grammar teaching” between academics, teachers and the wider community.
However, the challenge of agreeing to a definition of grammar is evident in
professional literature (Myhill & Watson, 2014) and complicated by what Halliday
(1978) termed “social semiotics”; namely that language cannot be separated from
society. Research has also suggested that conflicting social forces, oppression and
marginalisation including race, ethnicity and privilege are the genesis of the grammar
debate (Dunn & Lindblom, 2003; Zebroski, 1994).

It is because of this that some assert “grammar” has become one of many fronts for a
wider ideological battle between supporters of an “economic imperative perspective”
and those subscribing to a “critical resistant perspective” (Wang, Spalding, Odell &
Klecka, 2011, p.115). The “economic imperative perspective” purports that teachers
must be held responsible for equipping a nation’s future workforce with specialised
knowledge and be held accountable for continually “raising standards” (Cameron,
1994; Pullman, 2005; Watson; 2013). The consequence of this in Anglophone
countries, including Australia, is that educational systems have had to respond to
“literacy drives” (Masters & Forster, 1997; Watson, 2013). In turn, these have been
fuelled by government rhetoric and sections of the media demanding a “back to
basics” approach to language teaching (e.g., Donnelly, 2008; Elliott, 2014).
Increasingly, in the Australian context, the tension between “public and political
discourses” represents grammar as a tool for maintaining these “standards”
(Cameron, 1994; Pullman, 2005; Watson, 2015, p. 332). Consequently, the debates
about grammar have resulted, some assert, in the definition of “grammar” being
potentially oversimplified, pressuring teachers “to teach handbook rules in traditional
fashion to address the ‘quick fix’ requirements of pundits and politicians and
increasingly more urgent standardized exams” (Dunn & Lindblom, 2003, p. 43).

The development of the NCE includes the reinstatement of grammar and the
“resurgence of the explicit study of language in English curricula” (Jones & Chen,
2012, p. 148) that ended many decades in which “grammar” was often absent from
the pedagogy used in state schools (Hudson & Walmsley, 2005; Jones & Chen,
2012). However, the reality of preparing a consistent, national metalanguage drawn
from competing grammar taxonomies has proved challenging. In part, because of a
national landscape where the political context surrounding education is often over-

4
simplified and debate limited to a call for “back to basics”. Academic disagreement
also continues and the terms “grammar” and “grammar teaching” remain difficult to
define (Myhill & Watson, 2014).

Therefore, one of the current research aims is to provide pre-service educational

institutions with a clearer understanding of Western Australian teacher conceptions
of grammar and to what extent they perceive there is value in teaching grammar to
students. It attempts to explore how pre-service and in-service teachers have formed
their beliefs about grammar, while providing contextual understanding of external
factors that may influence what Western Australian teachers believe are effective
pedagogical practices and whether or to what extent these practices are actualised for
students in Western Australian classrooms.

The second dimension of the research problem relates to teacher knowledge about
grammar terminology and concepts used in the NCE. With the absence of formal
grammar in Australian schools over several decades, many current and future
teachers may be “unaware or misinformed about the elements of language that they
are expected to explicitly teach” (Moats, 2009, p. 387). The varying types of
metalinguistic language and differing pedagogical approaches that have emerged
further complicate this issue. Therefore, while dispute remains over which approach
to grammar teaching should be used, there has been a sustained call by many
researchers to review pre-service education and to improve linguistic subject
knowledge (Hudson & Walmsley, 2005; Kolln & Hancock, 2005; Watson, 2015, p.
343). What factors may influence this are also explored in the current research
through an examination of key demographics that influence teachers’ understanding
of grammar terminology and concepts. This is done by ascertaining pre-service and
in-service teachers’ beliefs and perceptions about these issues.

Finally, in most Anglophone countries there is a “lack of a coherent theoretical

underpinning for the place of grammar in the curriculum” (Watson, 2015, p. 334).
However, in Australia, ACARA asserted that grammar should be taught K-12 as part
of a “toolkit” for learners and that the goal of teaching grammar “should go beyond
students labeling various grammatical categories” (ACARA, 2008, p. 6). Instead, the
goal of teaching grammar in English is to equip students with knowledge about
language as “a resource for effective reading, listening, viewing, writing, speaking

5
and designing” (ACARA, 2008, p. 6). More recently, the Western Australian
Curriculum, which is to be fully implemented by 2018, has as its rationale the notion
that literacy is concerned with constructing meaning in different social and cultural
contexts, articulating the “intrinsic and interdependent relationship between social
context, meaning and language” (School Curriculum and Standards Authority, 2014).
However, this may underestimate the impact of already held teacher beliefs and the
important role they play in “contested domains” of curricula (Borg & Burns, 2008;
Nespor, 1987; Watson, 2015, p. 343). At the same time, pre-service institutions have
a responsibility to prepare beginner teachers for teaching a national and state
curriculum that contains explicit grammar terminology and concepts. Therefore, this
research seeks to examine teachers’ perceptions not only about the theoretical
constructs surrounding grammar teaching, but how they approach it in a school
system where they are required to prepare students for national testing in a standards-
focused environment.

Together these issues need further investigation, not only for the pedagogical
implications they entail at a general level, but also because the findings can be used
specifically to inform and improve pre-service teacher education. Therefore, this
study seeks to discover: what knowledge pre-service and in-service teachers have of
grammar terminology; their ability to apply primary school grammar concepts; and,
the beliefs teachers hold about grammar pedagogy. By collecting data in order to
identify similarities or differences between pre-service and in-service teacher
knowledge and beliefs, tertiary institutions will be well placed to ascertain whether
there is a need to adjust their programs to improve the quality of teachers entering
into classrooms. A summary of these aims is presented below.

6
1.3. Research Aims

This study aims to identify similarities and differences between pre-service and in-
service teacher perceptions, their knowledge and understanding of grammar
terminology and grammar concepts, which is used to provide feedback to inform the
development of teacher education programs.

Specifically, this study aims to discover:

1. To what extent pre-service and in-service teachers value the teaching of

grammar; how they have formed their beliefs and conceptions of grammar;
and what they believe are effective pedagogical practices for teaching
grammar.
2. To what extent pre-service and in-service teachers differ in the knowledge of
grammar terminology as defined by the NCE.
3. To what extent pre-service and in-service teachers differ in their ability to
apply primary school grammar concepts derived from NAPLAN language
conventions tests, and then to examine the impact of demographic features
(age and years since university graduation; comparing participants with
proficiency in languages other than English, and gender) on these results.
4. To what extent pre-service and in-service teachers perceive pre-service
institutions are adequately preparing teachers for grammar teaching, and if
there are recommendations that can be made to inform the development of
these teacher education programs.

7
 Chapter 2: Literature Review

As outlined in the previous chapter, the aim of this study is to identify similarities
and differences between pre-service and in-service teacher perceptions of the value
of teaching grammar and their preferred pedagogical practices; their knowledge of
grammar terminology and NAPLAN concepts; and, to provide pre-service and in-
service teachers with the opportunity to discuss how pre-service education
institutions can better prepare beginner teachers for the rigours of teaching grammar
in Western Australian primary schools. Therefore, the following Literature Review
explores a range of issues related to these aims, including description of the
complexity of determining a definition for grammar and grammar teaching (2.1), a
detailed discussion about the definitions of grammar (2.2), and an outline of theories
pertaining to grammar and pedagogy (2.3). It also explores research on how grammar
is taught in different countries as well as in Australia (2.4). Next, contextual
information is provided that explores the focus and inclusion of grammar in the
National Curriculum (2.5). Finally, pedagogical grammar and how it relates to pre-
service education is explained including how established beliefs can influence the
effectiveness of pre-service education related to grammar pedagogy (2.6). The
chapter concludes by providing the context for the research questions (2.7).

2.1. Background

The terms “grammar” and “grammar teaching” are complex and difficult to define
(Myhill & Watson, 2014, pp. 49 - 50) and to “talk of grammar in the singular is to
deny the diversity of approaches evident in the field” (Australian Association for the
Teaching of English Council (AATE), 2009, p. 9). Kolln (1996) illustrates the “vast
number of potential referents” with respect to the term “grammar”, namely whether
individuals are referring to sentence combining, or traditional, Latin-based grammar,
and prescriptive “school grammar”, including punctuation and spelling (p. 26). All of
which reflects the large body of professional and ideological literature concerning
the definitions of grammar (historically and semantically), teachers’ emotional
responses to these issues and the arguments about whether to teach grammar or not,
and if so, how, and if this then leads to an improvement in student writing
(Barzarolo, 2010; Beers, 2001; Braddock, Lloyd-Jones, & Schoer (1963); Hillocks,

8
1984; Hudson & Walmsley, 2005; Jones & Chen, 2012; Jones, Myhill & Bailey,
2013; Kolln, 2006; Macken-Horarik, Love & Unsworth, 2011; Micciche 2004;
Moats, 2009; Myhill, 2005; Myhill, Jones, Lines & Watson, 2012; Schiff, 2004;
Schleppegrell, 2007; Shulman, 1987; Smoot, 2001; Wales, 2009; Watson, 2012;
Weaver, McNally & Moerman, 2001; Wyse, 2001).

In Anglophone countries, how grammar is defined or conceptualised is a particularly

contentious issue. Myhill and Watson (2014) echo Vavra (1996) noting that only a
small number of studies in the USA (Petruzella, 1996) and the UK (Cajkler &
Hislam, 2002) have explored “how teachers define or conceptualize grammar”
(Myhill & Watson, 2014, p. 49). Additionally, Pomphrey and Moger (1999) and
Watson (2012), report a “tension or inconsistency between prescriptive / descriptive
and prescriptive / rhetorical conceptualizations of grammar teaching” (Myhill &
Watson, 2014, p. 49). Further, there are not only tensions, as indicated above, but
also “difference(s) between prescriptive, descriptive, and pedagogical grammars”
(Rothman, 2010, p. 53). Underpinning all of this is the fluidity of grammar and the
reality that it can change depending on what is deemed “most socially acceptable at a
given time” (Allen, 2008, p.310). All of these dimensions provide challenges for
policy-makers, curriculum writers, teachers and students.

2.2. Definitions of Grammar

For many, the most familiar conceptualistion of grammar is a prescriptive model in

which usage is either correct or incorrect. However, this is a grammar in which
teachers can be deemed to be correcting “linguistic disadvantage” (Myhill & Watson,
2014, p. 45) and tends to belong to those outside education and serves only to
“highlight the cultural hegemony of this stance and its lack of understanding of
language variation and the descriptive grammar advocated by modern linguistics”
(Myhill & Watson, 2014, p. 45). Kolln (1996) refers to prescriptive grammar as “the
unmodified grammar” about which people complain and this occurs because
“grammar isn’t taught anymore” (p. 26). Thus, they are referring to “linguistic
etiquette as well as traditional grammar rules” and to more obvious deviations of
standard usage, such as may occur with spelling (Kolln, 1996, p. 26). In fact, some
suggest that the term grammar is so frequently misunderstood in this way, that it

9
should be barred from discussions altogether because the breadth of conceptions and
misconceptions can be a distraction from the “more significant discussion about
writing, access, and improving the world” (Dunn & Lindblom, 2003, p. 43).

Despite these concerns, Schiff (2004) suggests that a less prescriptive definition of
grammar can become a positive, task-specific aid to language arts instruction,
encouraging such things as cultural and consumer awareness by application of
grammar knowledge, and by exploring grammar usage in technological contexts,
which in turn may enhance literacy appreciation. Grammar, defined in this manner,
explores ideas such as “language in use”, in spoken and written texts, as well as the
capacity to “throw light on the structure of almost any kind of text” (Hudson &
Walmsley, 2005, p. 611). Arguably, given the way changes in technology have
influenced communication, it is potentially a useful framework for students to be
able to discuss “contemporary multimodal and cross-cultural texts” (Exley & Mills,
2012, p. 1). Also, in developing the concept of a “tool” or a useful “framework”,
Myhill, Lines and Watson (2011) defined the idea of contextualised grammar as
comprising of three principles which together have the goal to “open up a repertoire
of possibilities, not to teach about ‘correct’ ways of writing” (p. 2) and to do so by
using examples and patterns. Broadening the definition of grammar usage in this way
can also provide opportunities to enhance thinking skills as “Grammar is, if nothing
else, an organizing system for understanding the use of language to express varied
information and concepts” (Schiff, 2004, p. 5).

Furthermore, in an attempt to avoid the traditional prescriptive notion of grammar,

different terminology such as “knowledge about language” (KAL) has been
introduced as it “implies a more liberal, learner-centered perspective” and carries
with it more positive associations (Myhill, 2005, p. 78). In the USA, for instance, the
terminology of “rhetorical grammar” is similarly seen as a tool that provides students
with the resources of language, so that they are empowered to make conscious
choices (Dawkins, 1995; Hancock, 2009; Myhill & Watson, 2014; Petit, 2003). In
Australia, Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) is also well defined and supports an
alternative option to the prescriptive notion of grammar (Christie & Derewianka,
2008; Christie & Unsworth, 2006; Halliday, 1993, 1994, 2003; Hasan, 2002). SFL is
“essentially a meaning-oriented theorization of grammar…and is concerned with

10
how language works or functions” (Myhill & Watson, 2014, p 45.) This approach
also sees grammar as a resource and KAL that is embedded in meaning. Thus:
Systemic Functional Linguistics and rhetorical approaches to grammar share
a common focus on developing understanding about how language works,
rather than simply regarding grammar as a body of knowledge that describes,
or prescribes, the system of language. Theoretically, the knowledge that these
approaches foster is metalinguistic knowledge. (Myhill & Watson, 2014, p.
46)

Therefore, while different terminology is used, they all share commonalities in

approach (which is explored in greater detail later in this Literature Review).

Linguistics and Applied Linguistics both utilise theoretical grammars (Allen &
Widdowson, 1975; Burner, 2005). These can include traditional, taxonomic, phrase
structure, transformational, and case grammar. Linguistics is concerned with the
description of language of which grammar is one part. There is also a difference
when grammar is used within the field of Applied Linguistics. Here it is identified
and used for practical application, but still for research purposes (Burner, 2005).
Grammar concerned with presenting grammar to learners is known as pedagogical
grammar. Myhill and Watson (2014) suggest the historical division between
linguistics and educational grammar can be bridged by a more descriptive approach,
influenced by socio-linguistics. As stated previously, the most well known in
Australia is Halliday’s SFL, which focuses on meaning-making and the
interrelationship of form and meaning.

The use of terminology such as metalinguistic knowledge and development is

relevant to this study in that it can include stages or phases from implicit to explicit
knowledge (Gombert, 1992; Myhill & Watson, 2014; see also Culioli, 1990;
Karmiloff-Smith, Grant, Sims, Jones & Cuckle, 1996; and, van Lier, 1998). That is,
how grammar is defined can shift focus from the provision of a language experience
for students who, as first language speakers, understand grammar implicitly and so
do not need formal grammar (Elbow, 1981), to more explicit grammatical knowledge
providing students with a repertoire of knowledge and skills that empowers
conscious choice over language use (Carter, 1990; Myhill & Watson, 2014). Thus,
the definition and conceptualisations of grammar remain complex.

11
Further, there is evidence that grammar teaching does not necessarily lead to
improvement in literacy skills, particularly when “traditional grammar [is] taught in
traditional ways” it does not improve students’ writing (Derewianka, 2012, p. 139;
see also Braddock, Lloyd-Jones & Schoer, 1963; Hillocks, 1986). However, in
contrast, supporters of functional grammar assert concepts and terminology have
shown the capacity to improve student literacy (Derewianka, 2012; Folkeryd, 2006;
Schleppegrell, Achugar & Oteiza, 2004; Williams, 2005). Thus, debate continues on
whether moving away from isolated grammar instruction to contextualised grammar
teaching may be more useful (Hudson, 2001; Rimmer, 2008; Watson, 2015) and/or
whether rhetorical approaches should be implemented for “shaping meaning”
(Watson, 2015, p. 333; Kolln, 2006; Myhill et al., 2012). This debate is also likely to
shape the way teachers perceive grammar and, as a consequence, how it is used in
classrooms. For example, Dunn and Lindblom (2003) suggest “there are many
effective writing teachers who understand that grammar is a tool for making meaning
and not an end in itself” (p. 43).

To address these challenges, and in spite of the difficulty of finding an agreed upon
definition of “grammar”, the NCE has attempted to provide a description of
metalanguage for teachers through the Language Strand. Critics might argue that a
standardised approach could lead to prescriptive methods to enforce a
“discriminatory power system” (Dunn & Lindblom, 2003, p. 44). However, a shared
and consistent definition, including a standardised metalanguage, may enable a rich
learning dialogue between teachers and students. It is based, in part, on the premise
that there is “robust evidence of a positive relationship between grammar and
writing” when grammar is treated as a “meaning-making resource” (Jones, Myhill &
Bailey, 2013, p. 1258). To do this, teachers use their explicit grammar (KAL) or as
Thornbury (1997) identified, teacher language awareness, which is the “knowledge
that teachers have of underlying systems of the language that enables them to teach
effectively” (p. X) to support their students’ learning (Andrews, 1999; Andrews &
McNeill 2005; Bartels, 2002; Borg, 1999b; Cots & Arnó, 2005; Thomas, 1987;
Thornbury, 1997).

However, given the absence of explicit grammar teaching over so many years, the
very practical question remains as to whether beginner and experienced teachers in
Western Australia have the requisite KAL to effectively teach the grammar that is

12
mandated by the NCE and, concomitant to this, whether pre-service institutions need
to do more to better prepare beginner teachers. On this basis, the current study aims
not to assess a specific and theorised grammar metalanguage and pedagogy, but
rather to determine the level of teacher knowledge (both in-service and pre-service)
of grammar terminology derived from the NCE and the application of concepts from
the Language Conventions found in NAPLAN testing.

Therefore, for the purposes of this study, the definition of grammar that has been
adopted is that found in the NCE glossary (Version 8.2):
Grammar: A description of a language as a system. In describing a language,
attention is paid to both structure (form) and meaning (function) at the level
of a word, a sentence and a text.

This is the definition that primary teachers are mandated to use when programming
and assessing student learning. (Also see the method section (p. 32), which explains
in detail the procedure for how and why particular descriptions from the NCE were
included in this research).

2.3. Theories of Grammar and Pedagogy

Pedagogical grammar is the focus of this study and is explored in greater detail
below, particularly in relation to the National Curriculum. In Australia, as in most
English speaking countries, not only has grammar teaching been hindered because of
the lack of a clear understanding of the term grammar, it has also been a vexed issue
in both academia and schools. Further, there has never been a unified account. In
fact, the lack of clarity surrounding grammar was evident as early as the Newbolt
Report in 1921 which juggled “several different kinds of grammar at the same time
– the grammar of English, traditional Latinate grammar, the grammar of form and
the grammar of function, historical grammar, and ‘pure’ grammar” (Hudson &
Walmsley, 2005, p. 615). According to Hudson and Walmsley (2005), from the
1930s to the 1970s, “an informed understanding of language and an appropriate
metalanguage to discuss it in were systematically eradicated from the state school
system” (p. 606).

According to some, the reason for the historical eradication of “grammar” teaching
was in part due to the development of English Literature as a subject in its own right

13
because “in order to establish itself as a worthy discipline at university level, English
Literature felt that it needed to free itself from the shackles of “philology” (Hudson
& Walmsley, 2005, p. 602). However, in the USA, Kolln (1996) blames the demise
of grammar and the demise of the “lively, open discussion of grammar and
linguistics” (Kolln, 1996, p. 27) upon the inclusion of the phrase “harmful effect”
written in the NCTE Report by Richard Braddock, Richard Lloyd-Jones, and Lowell
Schoer (1963):
The teaching of formal grammar has a negligible or, because it usually
displaces some instruction and practice in composition, even a harmful effect
on the improvement of writing. (p. 37–38)

By the 1980s, inspired by Graves (1983), academics focused on process writing and
whole language techniques that were subsequently widely implemented in Australian
primary schools. Teachers’ roles during this period, especially in the writing stream
of the subject “English”, shifted to that of a facilitator (Rothery, 1996). As a result,
students’ experience of writing became narrower and based on their own
experiences. Yet it was also found that this approach to writing was too limiting for
“learning across the curriculum” in secondary school (Martin, 2009, p. 11).
Consequently, in the 1990s, relationships between school disciplines and workplace
literacies generated a genre led approach to teaching writing. With a focus on reading
(Martin, 2009, p. 11), initiatives such as Rose’s Learning to Read / Reading to Learn
followed (Rose, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007), and this contributed further to the
development of the genre writing approach (Martin, 2009). During this period, while
whole text structures remained a focus for teachers, explicit grammar teaching was
neither a teaching nor learning priority for many educators.

Once grammar teaching was no longer a focus, it became subjugated, forgotten or

lost as teachers worked to provide children with learning experiences across an
expanding curriculum. As a result, it is not surprising that gaps and inconsistencies in
teacher knowledge of grammar terminology and concepts appeared. For example,
studies have shown how teachers associate grammar with phonics, spelling and
punctuation (Cajkler & Hislam, 2002; Myhill & Watson, 2013; Petruzella, 1996;
Pomphrey & Moger, 1999; Watson, 2012).

Nevertheless, the rationale for the NCE indicates that concepts in the Language
Strand were “drawn largely from historical and linguistic accounts of the English

14
language” (ACARA, 2011, p. 4) which, considering the complexity surrounding
reaching agreement on grammar and grammar teaching, can be described as nothing
short of ambitious. For example, as mentioned previously, grammar related to
language teaching, which uses prescriptive and pedagogical grammars, is different
from that used in the field of Linguistics. Whereas pedagogical grammar is that
adopted for the purposes of teaching, in Linguistics the focus is on the scientific
study of language using standard scientific methodology:
It endeavours to descriptively account for, in an explanatorily adequate
manner, the properties of all possible languages, which includes
microdescriptions of properties in particular languages. (Rothman, 2010, p.
53)

Exley and Mills (2012) conclude that the NCE “draws upon the complementary
tenets of traditional Latin-based grammar and systemic functional linguistics” and
that “such an approach is necessary” (p. 1). However, given the clear theoretical
differences, whether a blended approach to grammar in the NCE is helpful or not
remains unclear. Whether this integrated grammar is well understood by pre-service
and in-service teachers underpins the aims of this study. It also examines whether
“further conceptual clarification of the meanings of and relationships between”
differences in grammar terminology might be required from the research community
to better support teachers and policy-makers (Watson, 2015, p. 12).

Meanwhile, debate continues as to whether grammar teaching does or does not

support students in learning to communicate by “developing facility with language”
(Watson, 2015 p. 333; Kolln, 2006; Micciche 2004; Myhill et al., 2012; Wyse,
2001). It has been asserted that this has, in part, been due to a lack of “critical
theorisation of how grammar might support the development of writing” (Myhill,
2005, p. 77), which has exacerbated arguments surrounding the potential benefits (or
otherwise) of different pedagogical practices and also whether (and in what ways) it
does or does not affect student literacy learning. With the introduction of NCE in
Australia and elsewhere, a narrow prescriptive definition of “grammar has become
inextricably intertwined with notions of correctness and standards” (Myhill et al.,
2011, p. 1). In many ways, these are also reflected in teacher beliefs, which have
fluctuated over time (e.g., resulting in its demise during the 1960s). Therefore,
grammar teaching has been and remains contentious with provocations around the
question of grammar being raised by the English Association as early as 1923, the

15
Newbolt Report in 1921 and the description of the demise of grammar described in
the 1960s (Hudson & Walmsley, 2005, p. 600).

2.4. How Grammar is Currently Taught

In non-English speaking countries “In both Europe and Asia, the teaching of
grammar as part of first language teaching is largely regarded as the norm” (Myhill
& Watson, 2014, p. 43). In these contexts, it is often taught traditionally using top-
down teacher directed grammar instruction, often done in isolation. It focuses on
prescribed rules and, therefore, language, particularly written language, is either
correct or incorrect. Such an approach aligns neatly with a standards-based approach
to education.

As previously stated, countries such as the USA, England and Australia have in
recent times moved towards a standards-based approach to education and so it is not
surprising that traditional grammar has been re-introduced. This is because
traditional grammar, according to public perception and to some teachers and
educational policy-makers, is a discrete subject that can be tested and these standards
can then be applied to both teaching and to assessing language, particularly writing.
This is in spite of research, such as Hillocks (1986), which “highlighted the idea that
teaching grammar and grammatical structures does not enhance writing proficiency”
(Fearn & Farnan, 2007, p. 64). On this basis, critics of teaching traditional grammar
in isolation, such as Myhill and Watson (2014), argue that the pedagogical rationale
for teaching grammar in the USA and England lacks clarity. As they caution: “At
policy level, the reasons for maintaining or re-introducing grammar appear to be
neither evidence based, nor clearly articulated” (p. 44). More precisely, Watson
(2010) articulates the concerns that policy-makers may have ignored “the evidence
of a huge body of research” and failed to recognise “the complexity of the language
that children bring to school” and in doing so perpetuated the view of grammar as
rules and terminology embedded in “drill” (p. 36).

Canada is an example of a country that uses an alternative methodology.

Specifically, they use an inductive approach in which students explore language
through participation, observation and reflection. In this situation, using a shared
metalanguage has substituted for traditional grammar teaching in isolation (Myhill &

16
Watson, 2014; Poulin, 1980). Using this approach, Canadian students are encouraged
to actively explore language use, and to deduce grammar from language use in
context.

In the USA, although there is no nationally mandated curriculum, standards are

driven through Common Core Standards in most states (CCSSI, 2016). There are
three Language Anchor Standards, two of which “relate to accuracy and avoidance
of error” (Myhill & Watson, 2014) and the third is meaning orientated. Thus, the
USA, while suggesting the importance of contextualising grammar, appears to use a
predominantly prescribed approach. Because of the first two anchors, grammar can
be taught in isolation, with the application of this knowledge used by students mostly
in their written language.

England has also adopted a standards-based approach to education that lends itself to
a prescriptive approach to grammar, but with aims of a contextualised approach. This
occurred for a number of reasons, including in response to a series of reports (See
‘The Bullock Report; 1984, 1988, 1989; also for a summary see Carter, 1994) that
recommended, “similar to the definition given in the Cox Report of 1989” (Hudson
& Walmsley, 2005, p. 610) that English teaching:
Should include explicit teaching about grammar, but they also agreed that the
teaching should be different from the traditional grammar-teaching that had
died out by 1960…The most important feature of this definition is the
absence of the word error; the grammar was to be descriptive, not
prescriptive. (Hudson & Walmsley, 2005, p. 610-11)

Subsequently, the National Literacy Strategy was introduced in 1998 and part of this
included the provision of teaching resource materials for grammar (e.g., “Grammar
for Reading” and “Grammar for Writing”). These materials have been designed in
such a way that they “explicitly addressed grammar and in a manner that was clearly
attempting to be contextualized” (Myhill & Watson, 2014, p 43). However, as
teachers are permitted to choose how the content is delivered, there is a tendency to
draw upon specific grammatical concepts and to teach in a decontextualised manner.

More recently, the new National Curriculum for England outlines what is essentially
a year-by-year scope and sequence syllabus for teaching grammar, which is
integrated with teaching. Unfortunately, it is also accompanied by student “high-
stakes assessment” (Myhill & Watson, 2014, p. 43). The incongruity between these

17
elements results in grammar lessons taking place during English or writing lessons,
once again in a decontextualised way. Specifically, because of the pressure for
students to achieve good results in these high-stakes assessments, teaching has been
corralled into isolated, prescriptive grammar (Myhill, 2004, 2006; Myhill & Watson,
2014; Wyse, 2006), now known as “SPaG” lessons (Spelling, Punctuation and
Grammar). Therefore, the pedagogical rationale in England has been criticised
because of its lack of emphasis on the relationship between grammar and meaning,
and because of the lack of evidence for why such an approach should be re-
introduced into the National Curriculum. It is further complicated by “teachers’ lack
of explicit grammatical knowledge” (Wales, 2009, p. 524). Not surprisingly it has
been recommended that training in the area of grammar be prioritised, especially in
the case of pre-service training.

In Australia, it has been asserted, “research and teaching on English grammar have
gone from strength to strength” (Hudson & Walmsley, 2005, p. 607) and the re-
introduction of grammar teaching into the Australian National Curriculum has led to
considerable discussion in the political arena, the media and in education. This is
described in detail next.

2.5. Grammar and the Australian Curriculum

The lack of a “cogent rationale” on how grammar can improve writing and literacy
has resulted in an “ideological-driven” debate that “tend(s) to reveal more about the
proponent’s stance than about the issue itself” (Myhill, 2005, p. 79). In Australia, as
in other Anglophone countries, the “standards issue was politically motivated” with
education being viewed as a “valued economic commodity”, one that resulted in
globalisation and “mediatisation” of policy (Chen & Derewianka, 2009, p. 231).

Neoliberal political ideology gathered momentum in the 1980s and provided the
impetus for both Coalition and Labor governments in Australia to successively shift
the focus of educational policy towards the national standardisation of education.
This culminated in reports such as the Department of Education, Science and
Training (2005) “Benchmarking Australian Primary School Curricula Project”,
Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) (Masters, 2006), “Australian
Certificate of Education: Exploring a Way Forward” and the ACER (Matters &

18
Masters, 2007) “Year 12 Curriculum Content and Achievement Standards Report.”
They recommended developing Australia-wide syllabus documents, a national
subject panel responsible for identifying essential curriculum content in a given
subject, so that all students should be expected to learn specific content within
particular subjects and the development of national achievement standards.
Consequentially, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education, as well as
all state Ministers of Education signed the “Melbourne Declaration on Educational
Goals for Young Australians” (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment,
Training and Youth Affairs, 2008), which set the direction for Australian schooling
for the next ten years, including the implementation of the National Curriculum
(which, relevant to the current study, specifically included NCE).

By 2009, ACARA released key foundational documents including “The Shape of the
Australian Curriculum: English” (May 2009a) and the “Framing Paper Consultation
Report: English” (May 2009b). The Framing Paper noted, “very strong
support…(and)…applauded the focus on teaching grammar in use and context” (p.
6). It also explained that, “…respondents endorsed the embedding of ‘basics’ in
authentic language, literary and literacy tasks rather than reducing English to a ‘back
to basics’ approach” (p. 6). However, in Section 4.5 of the Framing Paper “Feedback
requiring further examination: The teaching of grammar in English” the challenge of
deciding which kind of grammar should be mandated in the curriculum was raised:
One extensive submission argued that a functional approach is an appropriate
model of language for the curriculum; another submission argued that a blend
of traditional and functional grammar would be suitable and another argued
in favour of traditional grammar on the grounds that this would lessen the
demand for professional development because of the likelihood that more
teachers would be familiar with this type of grammar. (ACARA, 2009b, p. 7)

Therefore, the first challenge for creators of the NCE was reconciling the general
agreement from educators that grammar in use should be taught, but doing so
without moving towards a “back to basic” approach. Unfortunately, the debate was
not the sole domain of education and the discussion on how grammar should be
taught was often shaped by politicians in the media. For example, the release of the
Australian Curriculum for National Consultation on 1 March 2010 saw both Prime
Minister Rudd and Deputy Prime Minister / Education Minister Julia Gillard, refer to
the importance of a “back to basics” approach to education, while speaking at a press
conference for the launch at Amaroo School:

19
 When it comes to teaching the basics, let me be very frank: what we need to
make sure is our kids know how to sound out letters, that they know
grammar, that they know punctuation…these elements must be part of the
basic knowledge in the school education of all Australian kids, and that’s why
we are proud to launch this national curriculum document today. (Interview
with Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard, 1 March 2010,
http://australianpolitics.com/2010/03/01/rudd-gillard-national-
curriculum.html)

During an interview “Gillard on the Education Revolution” on “The 7:30 Report”

(Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 2010) with Kerry O’Brien, the reporter
highlighted this use of political rhetoric:
Kerry O’Brien: You as minister you know that it’s much more than basics,
but is that what you think will resonate most with parents, will have the most
political appeal: back-to-basics?

Julia Gillard: Kerry, this is basics and beyond. I think the Prime Minister is
using the description basics because this is returning to some traditional
styles, some traditional curriculum content that has been lost in the last few
years in education. (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2833597.htm)

The framing of the national curriculum as “back-to-basics” and a “traditional” style

of curriculum content generated a lot of media attention and influenced discussion on
writing standards of Australian students and particularly the teaching of “traditional”
grammar. Watson (2010) describes the roots of this “obsession with grammar” (p.
31) and the need for children to have an “explicit knowledge of a grammatical
system” (p. 31), as occurring due to a misunderstanding of the richness of early Latin
and even ancient Greek literature. Watson (2010) therefore, bemoans the
“depressingly illustrated” (p. 31) columns such as The Australian Newspaper, which
openly supported this “traditional” view:
For years, groups such as the Australian Association for the Teaching of
English have turned their backs on teaching formal grammar and literature.

While The Australian has led the campaign for a back-to-basics approach to
English, as a result of falling standards and a dumbed-down curriculum, the
AATE and the Australian Curriculum Studies Association have argued that
talk of a crisis is a media beat-up…it appears that those in charge of
developing the nation’s curriculum have sided with the critics. Teaching
grammar, punctuation and spelling is back on the agenda. (Donnelly, 2008)

In a political climate in which knowledge production is favoured and where enquiry

that is “isolated from contamination by contextual considerations and reduced as far
as possible to its most simple elements” is supported, it is not surprising that

20
grammar hit the headlines (Chen & Derewianka, 2011, p. 235). However, politicians
and the media overlooked the call from policy-makers that prescriptive teaching of
grammar does not lead to better writing (Baron, 2003) and that the word grammar
has more than one referent (Kolln, 1996). Nevertheless, while this political and
media driven public debate continued, ACARA tackled the second challenge of
deciding how grammar should be defined within an Australian Standard English
Framework and specifically what grammar would be included in the NCE. In Section
4 of the “Shape of the Australian Curriculum: English” (Key Terms) grammar was
defined as follows:
Grammar refers both to the language we use and the description of language
as a system. In describing language, attention is paid to both structure
(syntax) and meaning (semantics) at the level of the word, the sentence and
the text. (ACARA, May 2009a, p.5)

In “The Shape of the Australian Curriculum: English” (2009a), the structure of the
English Curriculum was outlined and in Section 5 of this document the distinctive
goals of each strand were explained. In Section 5.2 the teaching of grammar is
provided in the “Language: Knowing about the English Language Strand” (ACARA,
2009a, p. 6). The explanation provided includes the statement that, “The overall goal
is conversion of ‘knowledge about’ language into a capacity for effective listening,
speaking, viewing, reading, writing and creating” (ACARA, 2009a, p. 7). In Section
5.2.7, the need for students to “develop a clear, consistent and shared language for
talking about language” highlights the importance of the metalanguage related to
grammar pedagogy (ACARA, 2009a, p. 7). Such a language provides students with
the vocabulary necessary to discuss and to continuously improve their language use
across all years of schooling. Finally, in Section 5.2.8 (ACARA, 2009a) the
emphasis is on teaching the “fundamentals” with the note made that these should be
explicit but also embedded and integrated in “language, literary, and literacy tasks”
(p. 7).

Later in the document examples of integration of grammar within the Literature and
Literacy strands are provided. These include points made in Section 5.3.1 whereby
“different perspectives are associated with different uses of language” and “a text’s
formal, creative and aesthetic qualities” are included as part of the Literature strand’s
goal of student “…engagement with and study of, literary texts…” (ACARA, 2009a,
p. 8). Also in this section, knowledge about language can be integrated with goals

21
such as “Encountering literary texts and creating their own will engage students
partly because of what they might learn about human experiences and what they
might learn about how language has been used, and can be used by them” (ACARA,
2009a, p. 8). This idea is elaborated further in the Literacy Strand in Sections 5.4.5;
5.4.6 and 5.4.7 where the needs of students in this regard are discussed in relation to
the linking of language, text and grammatical skills as follows: “Students’ accurate,
fluent and confident engagement with texts is based on developing skills of
decoding, spelling, punctuation, and grammatical and textual fluency” (ACARA,
2009a, p. 9). However, the document goes beyond superficial ideology asking
pertinent pedagogical questions of teachers about the role of grammar: “The value of
learning grammar, for example, lies not simply in the ability to name a grammatical
formation, text type or genre; rather, the educational questions to start with are ‘What
is the purpose of this communication?’ and ‘In that light, what grammatical
formations and text types can best achieve it?’” (ACARA, 2009a, p. 9).

Therefore, both “The Shape of the Australian Curriculum: English” and the
“Framing Paper Consultation Report: English” do far more than state a “back to
basics” approach, and instead also reflect Australia’s “strong functional theory of
language” (Chen & Derewianka, 2009, p. 241). Relevant to the current research,
these documents also raise the questions about whether teachers have the requisite
knowledge to teach grammar effectively and, also, how a balance between the
tension of a NCE servicing both beginner and more experienced teachers with an
appropriate level and clarity of technical language can be achieved:
The English curriculum needs to be sufficiently descriptive to guide
beginning teachers but should avoid a level of prescription that would prevent
experienced teachers from using their professional skills. The documents
need to be written clearly, without excessive jargon, and should communicate
succinctly the key aspects of student learning. (ACARA, 2009a, p. 15)

Despite this, the NCE is written in such a way that there is little explanation about
the rationale for teaching specific grammatical concepts. For example, how will
teaching noun groups in Year 2 or clauses in Year 3 help students to improve
literacy? As Weaver, McNally and Moerman (2001) suggest:
Much of what we teach in the name of grammar amounts to labeling parts of
speech and their functions or identifying kinds of sentences, yet students need
very little of this to learn the conventions of written edited English. (p. 17)

22
This lack of clarity also extends beyond the content of grammar contained in the
NCE to how it should be taught in order to best provide for student learning.

There has been extensive academic debate between those in favour and those against
explicit teaching of grammar (Cameron 1995; Carter 1990; Fontich & Camps, 2014;
James 2002; Locke 2010). However, the extremes of research as well as analysis of
grammar teaching from a positivist perspective do not take into consideration the
teaching and learning situations experienced by learners (Fontich & Camps 2014;
Hudson 2001; Locke 2009, 2010; Wyse 2001). Derewianka (2012) provides a
detailed account that outlines how the Language Strand of the NCE conceives
“knowledge about language” that is embedded in a “Hallidayan functional model of
language” (p. 129). However, Derewianka (2012) also acknowledges that the
Language Strand reveals terms that refer to traditional grammar terminology, as well
as grammatical descriptions that include a functional approach. She also suggests
that this is an area that requires more research with respect to the types and numbers
of terms, when to introduce metalinguistic terms, or even whether a metalanguage is
needed. Similarly, Exley and Mills (2012) suggest that the NCE has grammar
terminology drawn from both traditional and functional grammar and that this is
necessary. However, in contrast, Mulder (2011) asserts that the blending of different
types of grammar has been done in a “rather ad hoc way” (p. 840). In addition, she
suggests that the glossary is full of inaccuracies and inconsistencies likely to cause
confusion, and in need of informed insight by modern grammatical analyses as well
as made relevant to the needs of students and teachers (Mulder, 2011, p. 842).

However, irrespective of the existing rationale and whether the overall framework
has inadequacies (Mulder, 2011), pre-service and in-service teachers are now
required to have a working knowledge of grammar terminology as described in the
NCE and the ability to apply language convention concepts in their teaching. Further,
with an increased emphasis on “raising standards”, there has also been a parallel
increased focus on teachers’ subject knowledge in first and second language teaching
not only in Australia, but “across many parts of the word and across subjects, as
governments seek to create ‘benchmarks’ of teacher competence” (Andrews &
McNeil, 2005, p. 160).

23
As has occurred in the UK, the final complicating factor affecting pedagogy in
Australia is the high stake tests that assess the set standards (e.g., in Australia
NAPLAN testing). In spite of the NCE (and recent state variations) providing
guidance as to what the students need to know at each year level, what is unclear is
the “knowledge about language” pre-service teachers currently understand and need
to know, in order to effectively teach grammar and to make pedagogical choices that
best facilitate student learning (e.g., knowing basic grammar concepts). Also, while
“political agendas can invite cynicism…political interests alone should not be taken
as proof that concerns about teacher literacy are mere fabrications…” (Moon, 2014,
p. 111). For instance, one Australian study showed that pre-service teacher
knowledge was limited to basic concepts (Harper & Rennie, 2009) and, in a
secondary context, teachers were found to be “below the ability level of the students
they will be hired to teach” (Moon, 2014, p. 127).

Therefore, pre-service education must ensure that new teachers have the requisite
knowledge of grammar terminology used in the NCE and the understanding of
effective pedagogical practices. However, whether this is currently being achieved in
Western Australian universities is uncertain (Moon, 2014). Similarly, it is not
apparent if in-service teachers are able to implement the current curriculum (i.e., the
NCE) or the Western Australian alternative. This can be answered by examining pre-
service and in-service teacher knowledge and their ability to apply grammar
concepts. This information can then be used to improve tertiary programs. It is one
aim of the current research to do this.

2.6. Pedagogical Grammars and Pre-Service Education

As a consequence of the re-introduction and focus on “grammar teaching”, questions

have once again arisen over whether teachers have the requisite knowledge to teach
grammar and what universities need to include in their courses for pre-service
educators with regard to literacy in general and grammar teaching in particular.
According to Kolln and Hancock:
The largest hurdle for substantial change is and will continue to be an
appalling lack of training for teachers and prospective teachers. In many
places, teacher training includes a single survey course in linguistics, which is
not nearly sufficient to cover syntax in any kind of comprehensive way.
(2005, p. 29)

24
This is particularly important in the current environment where preparing pre-service
teachers also requires that they be able to teach their future students for the current
national testing regimes. For primary pre-service teachers, this situation is
additionally problematic, as whilst they are expected to be expert practitioners, they
are also subject generalists. This is especially difficult in relation to English, which is
such a complex and broad subject made of up often quite disparate elements. Some
even suggest that language and literature may need to be recognised as two separate
learning areas taught by two different types of expert (Hudson & Walmsley, 2005).

Teacher training institutions are concerned to design programs that better prepare
teachers for a “culturally, politically, technologically, and linguistically changing
world” and to meet “more stringent professional requirements” (Love, 2009, p. 541).
This knowledge has become known as “pedagogical content knowledge” (Darling-
Hammond 2006, Love, 2009). May and Smyth (2007) established that “high school
teachers are unable to address, overtly and deliberately, the specific language and
literacy demands of their varied teaching and learning contexts” (Love, 2009, p.
544). In fact, Christie, Devlin, Freebody, Luke, Martin, Threadgold and Walton
(Vol.1, 1991) made similar suggestions much earlier and had called for “a
compulsory component (as part) of their preservice education, (and that) all teachers
should receive a substantial preparation in knowledge about language and literacy
and the pedagogical principles for their teaching” (Christie et al., Vol. 1, 1991, p.
98).

In the UK, Cajkler and Hislam (2002) found that “in terms of basic knowledge and
awareness, sensational and alarmist claims are not justified” (p. 175). Whereas
Jensen and Harrington (2008) found “there is some evidence of need for professional
development in language awareness of practicing language teachers” (p. 8). Jeurissen
(2010) concluded that New Zealand followed a similar path to Australia and that
“Teachers and students need a shared metalanguage that enables them to construct
and deconstruct texts…knowledge about grammar is a fundamental part of this
metalanguage, yet it is possible that many teachers lack this knowledge” (p. 78).

Grammatical content knowledge has been investigated in pre-service education

(Alderson, Clapham, & Steel, 1997; Alderson & Horak, 2011; Bloor, 1986) with the
research findings suggesting that grammatical knowledge, particularly terminology,

25
is limited (Myhill, Jones & Watson, 2013). Studies, which have explored attitudes to
grammatical terminology, found that “it is more suitable for use with higher rather
than lower ability students” (Myhill & Watson, 2014, p. 50). In another study,
Wilson and Myhill (2012) found that teachers retain the belief that grammar is “rule-
bound and constraining” (p. 10). However, one of the implications drawn from a
study by Harper and Rennie (2009) of first year pre-service teachers, is that “we need
to take a strong approach to teaching these concepts throughout the preservice
program” (p. 8) and that “teacher education programs can be effective in changing
student views” (Shaw, Dvorak & Bates, 2007, p. 223).

In the USA, teachers’ knowledge has been found to be important for effective
reading instruction (McCardle & Chhabra, 2004; National Reading Panel, 2000).
Moats (1994) found that regarding spelling rules and conventions “Ignorance was the
norm” (p 93). Other researchers, such as Berger (2001) question whether pre-service
teachers have the required “verbal equipment” (p. 47) to facilitate dialogue. This is
exemplified by Bos, Mather, Dickson, Podhajski and Chard (2001) who found that
53% of pre-service and 60% of in-service teachers were unable to “correctly answer
half of the questions regarding ‘knowledge of language structure’” (Joshi, Binks,
Hougen, Dahlgren, Ocker-Dean & Smith, 2009, p. 393). This study pertained to
improving reading, but arguably “we need to turn our attention to improving teacher
education and teacher development at the early grade levels by providing intensive
instruction on the linguistic features of the English language” (Joshi et al., 2009, p.
400). This may also be required if grammar is to be taught well to students in
Western Australian schools. Thus, there is increasing attention paid to teachers’
metalinguistic knowledge:
We believe an effective pedagogy for writing should include attention to
linguistic possibilities and that teachers who are confident with grammar
themselves, who understand the principles of contextualized grammar
teaching, and who are creative and resourceful “adapters” of published
materials are best placed to realise the potential of a focus on grammar.
(Myhill, Lines & Watson, 2011, p. 10)

In England, Wales (2009) also supports a view that linguists should be consulted
“and their expertise should guide policy and decisions concerned with grammar
content” (p. 538). Schleppegrell (2007) suggests this should take the form of
functional grammar in order to enhance pre-service and in-service teacher knowledge
because it goes “beyond structural categories such as noun and verb to show the

26
meanings that follow from different language choices. It offers a set of coherent
constructs related to the systems of grammar that writers draw on to make meaning”
(Schleppegrell, 2007, p. 123).

This discussion is pertinent to Australian teachers given the nature of the grammar
terminology outlined in the NCE and the way that NAPLAN now has a designated
grammar component. Thomas (1987) described the importance of language teacher
competence (LTC) and Cots and Arnó (2005) elaborate this further suggesting it
“consist[s] of two components: Language competence…as well as pedagogic
competence” (p. 59). These sentiments are similarly described by Kolln and
Hancock:
The expectation is that this evolving approach will treat grammar as a
meaning-making system and pay careful attention to rhetorical choices made
in the creation of effective text (both in reading and writing), and that in
doing so, it will draw on all relevant linguistic grammars, including
generative, functional, and cognitive grammars, and that it will include
advocacy for thoughtfully selected technical terminology. (2005, p. 28)

Therefore, while to codify teacher knowledge is difficult, particularly the “wisdom of

practice” (Shulman, 1987, p. 11), today’s prescribed curriculum has placed subject
matter as a central tenet of teacher pedagogical content knowledge (Andrews &
McNeill, 2005; Brophy, 1991; Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1999; Shulman, 1986,
1987; Turner-Bisset, 2001). In this context, subject content knowledge refers to the
academic domain, and pedagogical content knowledge refers to how to teach within
that academic domain (Myhill & Watson, 2014).

However, it has also been noted that in addition to teachers’ knowledge, their beliefs
and awareness also “impact upon their pedagogical practice” (Andrews & McNeill,
2005, p. 160). For pre-service teachers this must be recognised, as otherwise “teacher
education programs and university preparation have minimal overall impact” (Shaw,
Dvorak & Bates, 2007, p. 225). For example, one of the key beliefs that needs to be
assessed is whether pre-service teachers, who may believe that they write well,
despite not having an express understanding of grammatical structures, will question
the need for teaching grammar. Interestingly, “Teachers with higher levels of
awareness of language structure tended to underestimate what they knew, whereas
teachers with lower levels on objective measures tended to overestimate what they

27
knew” (Moats, 2009, p. 388), which could lead to teacher misconceptions being
passed onto students.

Although Bigelow and Ranney (2005) note that there has been an “impressive
amount of research on language teachers’ metalinguistic knowledge and beliefs
about grammar instruction and their match to classroom practice” (p. 180) (e.g.
Andrews, 1999; Borg, 1998, 1999a, 1999b) and there is considerable research on
teacher language awareness (i.e., KAL), in the main it has mostly been undertaken
with “teachers with relatively limited experience and training” (Andrews & McNeill,
2005, p. 160). As Andrews and McNeill (2005) note, there has been “little or no
research to examine the language awareness of flesh-and-blood ‘Good Language
Teachers’” (p.161) and this is particularly the case for in-service primary teachers in
Australia. Therefore, teacher expertise in “management of ideas within classroom
discourse” is central to this discussion (Shulman, 1987, p. 1) and provides the
justification for a comparison between pre-service and in-service teachers.

Further, while what explicit knowledge of grammar students need to know is still
being debated (Locke, 2010), there is “widespread agreement that teachers’
grammatical knowledge needs to be richer and more substantive than the grammar
they may need to teach students” (Myhill & Watson, 2014, p. 51). Whether it is
described as an ability to be “conscious analysts of linguistic processes” (Brumfit,
1997, p. 163) or having “conscious awareness” (Armstrong, 2004, p. 223) of text
structures, “a teacher with a rich knowledge of grammatical constructions and a more
general awareness of the forms and varieties of the language will be in a better
position to help young writers” (Andrews, 2005, p. 75). Myhill and Watson agree,
asserting that:
Teachers who understand grammatical forms may be better placed to support
developing writers (Andrews, 2005), to identify linguistic development in
their students (Gordon, 2005), and to “make the analysis explicit” (Hudson,
2004, p. 113) when examining texts with their students. (2013, p. 51)

Therefore, teachers need a “combination of subject-matter understanding and

pedagogical skill” (Shulman, 1987, p. 2) and by comparing the similarities or
differences between in-service and pre-service teachers, gaps in this understanding
and skills might be bridged. For example, it can be used to build on Grisham’s
(2000) work, which “discovered that a constructivist orientation of a pre-service

28
program had a measurable impact on the pre-service teachers” (Shaw et al., 2007, p.
226). Pre-service institutions might also be able to target the “most serious concerns
expressed by beginning teachers in this Australian study related to the relevance of
literacy teaching knowledge during their preservice education” (Louden & Rohl,
2006, p. 76). For example, “Fewer beginner teachers were confident about their
capacity to teach specific aspects of literacy such as viewing, spelling, grammar and
phonics” (Louden & Rohl, 2006, p 66).

Additionally, pre-service teachers may need to observe the impact of their instruction
on student learning and be given the opportunity to “analyse their beliefs, consider
and apply new information and articulate how their thinking has changed as a result
of formal knowledge and teaching experiences” (Shaw et al., 2007, p. 238).
Therefore, pre-service education will, at a minimum, need to introduce future
teachers to grammar terminology used in the NCE, how to apply this metalanguage,
and also explain why and how the knowledge can be applied to improve students’
literacy skills.

29
2.7. Research Questions

Definitions of grammar and approaches to grammar teaching are both contested and
contentious. This research is not designed to provide clarity on a definition of
grammar, or suggest the best method for teaching grammar. Rather, the purpose of
this research is to learn more about Western Australian teachers’ perceptions and
beliefs about grammar, and to ascertain a starting point of what pre-service and in-
service teachers actually know of the grammar terminology and NAPLAN concepts
in the NCE, which their role as primary teachers requires them to know and
understand. It also intends to provide information to pre-service institutions about the
experiences pre-service and in-service teachers have had with grammar and grammar
teaching. This may provide the impetus for pre-service institutions to modify their
own programs so that beginner teachers may be better equipped to teach grammar
concepts found within the NCE. Therefore this research seeks to answer the
following questions:

1. Are there similarities or differences between pre-service and in-service

perceptions, beliefs and conceptions about the value and methods of teaching
grammar in Western Australian schools?
2. Do pre-service and in-service teachers differ in the knowledge of grammar
terminology as defined by the NCE?
3. Do pre-service and in-service teachers differ in their ability to apply primary
school grammar concepts derived from NAPLAN language conventions
tests?
4. To what extent do demographic features, such as age, influence results on the
grammar terminology or application of grammar concepts?
5. How can pre-service institutions better prepare beginner teachers for teaching
grammar effectively in Western Australian schools?

30
 Chapter 3: Method

This chapter provides a description of the method used in the current study. It begins
with a description of the methodology used (3.1). Next the research participants and
ethical issues (3.2), materials (3.3) and procedures (3.4) for each stage of the
research are described in detail. The procedures for the analysis of the quantitative
and qualitative data are then presented (3.5). The chapter concludes with an outline
of how the validity, reliability and trustworthiness of the research were obtained
(3.6).

3.1. Research Methodology

A mixed methods approach was used in this study. As defined by Creswell and Plano
Clark (2007), this is an explanatory sequential research design where collection and
analysis of data are guided by philosophical assumptions and methods that mix both
quantitative and qualitative approaches sequentially. Such an approach was deemed
appropriate as it enabled comprehensive and nuanced analysis of quantitative test
data (Wheeldon, 2010) supplemented by thick and rich qualitative data.

The quantitative part of the study was undertaken in the first stage of the study and
involved data collection by way of a questionnaire containing demographic
questions; Likert scales to assess pre-service and in-service teacher perceptions and
beliefs about grammar and the NCE; and a multiple-choice test on both grammar
terminology derived from the NCE and primary level grammar concepts derived
from NAPLAN test materials (also see Materials 3.3 below).

The second stage involved the qualitative data collection and included in-depth semi-
structured interviews, as defined by Robson’s (2002) categorisation of interviews,
undertaken with a sample of pre-service and in-service teachers. The open-ended
questions allowed the interviewer to focus on potential areas of interest, omit
irrelevant questions during the interviews, while also providing respondents with the
time and scope to talk about their opinions.

31
3.2. Participants and Ethical Issues

The participants in the first stage of the study included 69 pre-service teachers and 47
in-service teachers. The participants in the second stage of the study involved 12
participants (6 pre-service and 6 in-service teachers) who agreed to be interviewed.
All the research participants were recruited via non-random convenience sampling
due to resourcing constraints. The main rationale for including pre-service and in-
service teachers was to provide the opportunity to compare and contrast their skills,
understandings and views with respect to grammar in the NCE and NAPLAN.
Depending on the quantitative and qualitative results, similarities or differences may
provide tertiary institutions with data to inform pre-teacher training.

Pre-service teachers for the first stage were recruited from a large university in
Western Australia (approximately 50 000 students across both national and
international campuses). Third and fourth year students enrolled in either a Bachelor
of Education Early Childhood or Primary, and Bachelor of Arts (Education) were
deemed to be an appropriate cohort from which to select the sample for two reasons.
Firstly, their qualification upon completion would enable them to teach primary aged
children. Secondly, students in their third and fourth years should have completed the
required units concerning the Australian NCE. These core units provide students
with an introduction to the Australian Curriculum and the Early Years Learning
Framework. These units also aim to develop students’ confidence in their own
academic and professional literacy, as well as comprehensive knowledge and
application of the skills, conventions, processes and strategies for teaching English in
primary schools.

During the first stage of data collection, there were a large number of third and fourth
year students enrolled in Bachelor studies (n=254) as shown in Table 3.1. However,
during the research period some students were enrolled in both 3rd and 4th year units.
Also, approximately 15 of the students enrolled in 3rd year Early Childhood
Education (ECE) units, were also enrolled in at least one 4th year Primary unit (2 of
these units are common to Primary and ECE).

32
Table 3.1. Approximate Number of Enrolled 3rd and 4th Year Students in Bachelor
Studies Related to Primary Years Education in 2013
Course Total Enrolled Enrolled in Enrolled in Enrolled Enrolled
3rd OR 4th year 3rd year 4th year in in
Primary units Primary Primary Internship 3rd year
units units 425 ECE units

BA, BEd 3 0 0 3 2

Bed (ECE) 70 0 30 40 88

BEd (Prim) 181 113 35 52 4

TOTALS 254 113 65 95 94

Of the 69 volunteer pre-service participants who fully completed the questionnaire

and who read the required Curtin Ethics information letter and then signed the
accompanying consent form (see Appendix 1), 15.9% were male and 84.1% were
female. This reflects the proportional make up and gender imbalance in primary
schools, in which eight out of ten teachers are female (ACER, 2015). The mean age
of participants was 22.46 years (SD = 7.75) with a range of 18 to 63 years of age. Of
these participants, 20.3% reported majoring in Early Childhood Education and
79.7% reported their major was in primary education. The majority of participants
completed their primary (91.9%) and secondary education (91.9%) in Australia. Of
these participants, 90.8% reported English was the primary language spoken at
home. With respect to teaching preferences, 81.2% of the participants reported that
they have a preference to teach in the early years up to Year 3 and 76.8% reported
they have a preference to teacher upper primary students (Years 4-7) once qualified.
Furthermore, 5.8% indicated that they would teach secondary school students (Years
8-12) once qualified.

In-service teachers for the first stage of the study were recruited using convenience
sampling from two independent primary schools in the northern suburbs of Perth,
Western Australia. The 47 in-service teachers read the required Curtin Ethics
information letter, provided signed consent and then fully completed the
questionnaire.

33
Of these, 17% were male and 83% were female. The mean age of participants was
39.48 (SD = 10.30) years with a range from 22 to 69 years of age. Of the in-service
teachers, 10.6% of participating in-service teachers reported majoring only in Early
Childhood Education and 70.2% reported their major was only in primary education.
The remaining 19.2% reported majoring in either secondary or a combination of both
ECE and Primary. The majority of participants completed their primary (56.8%) and
secondary education (61.4%) in Australia. Of these participants, 93.5% reported
English was the primary language spoken at home. With respect to teacher
preference, 80.9% of the participants reported they have taught or have a preference
to teach in the early years up to Year 3 and 87.2% reported they have taught or have
a preference to teacher upper primary students (Years 4-7). Furthermore, 17.0% of
participants reported they have taught or have a preference to teach secondary school
students (Years 8-12).

The second stage of the study involved 12 participants. These participants had
completed the first stage of the research and had not ticked “I do not wish to be
contacted for the purposes of a short interview” on the consent form. Six of the
participants were pre-service teachers and six were in-service teachers at the time of
the first stage of the research. All of the participants were teaching in Western
Australian Primary Schools except for one, who was now teaching in tertiary
education by the time the second stage of the data collection commenced (i.e., 18
months after the first stage). Please note that pre-service teachers participating in the
interviews had begun teaching and now had up to two years teaching experience.
This enabled questioning that explored differences between their university
experience and actual teaching experience in primary schools as qualified teachers.
Demographic information on each of the participants is listed in Table 3.2 below:

34
Table 3.2. The Demographic Information of the Interview Participants
Participant Demographics
Code Gender Age in Years of Teaching Teacher Major
Years Experience
PS1 Female 30 2 Bachelor of Education
PS2 Female 45 2 Bachelor of Education
PS3 Female 26 2 Bachelor of Education
(Early Childhood)
PS4 Female 23 2 Bachelor of Education
(Primary)
PS5 Female 24 1 Bachelor of Education
PS6 Female 24 1 Bachelor of Education
IS1 Female 68 48 Teacher’s Diploma with
Distinction
IS2 Female 46 24 Bachelor of Arts
(PGCE)
IS3 Female 40 18 Bachelor of Education
(Primary)
IS4 Female 44 17 English (Primary and
Secondary)
IS5 Female 43 13 Bachelor of Education
(Primary)
IS6 Female 39 18 Bachelor of Education
(Early Childhood)

The Ethics Committee of Curtin University approved the research study under Form
C, as it does not pose an emotional or physical threat to any of the participants. All
participants were in control of their level of participation in the study at all times. As
stated, participants were provided with an information sheet and consent form, which
clearly described the purpose of the study and stated that participants could withdraw
from the study at any time. For pre-service teachers, it was made particularly clear
they could do this without subjecting themselves to any disadvantage, penalty or
adverse consequence. There were no issues concerning deception as all preparation
adhered to Curtin University Ethical requirements. All results and survey answers
remain confidential. All participants were de-identified in data analysis to ensure
confidentiality. Further, access to data was restricted with only the researcher and

35
supervisor having access to the data during and after the study. The data were
retained in password-protected files and were transferred, on completion of the
thesis, from the researcher’s computer to a portable hard-drive, which would be kept
confidential in a locked area at the School of Education, Curtin University, for a
minimum of five years.

3.3. Materials

The materials for this research consisted of a questionnaire, a schedule for the
interviews and resources needed for data analysis as described below.

The questionnaire was made up of three sections: demographic information, a Likert

scale, and a multiple-choice test (Appendix 2). The first section of the questionnaire
was designed to determine demographic information from the participants such as
gender, date and country of birth, qualifications, teaching focus, primary / secondary
schooling, English proficiency, special needs, and languages spoken other than
English. All these sections provided to pre-service and in-service teachers were
identical to enable comparison of the results of the two groups. However, in
recognition of their differences in years of experience, the demographic sections
provided to the pre-service teachers asked which years they hoped to teach once
qualified, while the in-service teachers were asked to indicate the year groups they
taught, both currently and historically.

The second section included a series of six Likert scale items (1 = Strongly Disagree
to 5 = Strongly Agree), which were used to examine the participants’ perceptions and
beliefs about the value of teaching grammar and perceptions of their competency to
teach grammar in accordance with the NCE.

The third section consisted of multiple-choice questions testing participants’

knowledge of grammar terms, as derived from the Year 3, 5 and 7 Language
Convention questions extracted from the 2012 NAPLAN test papers. The
questionnaire was thus based on the following propositions: 1) Language
conventions (grammar terminology) now exist in the Australian NCE; 2) In order to
teach language conventions (grammar), teachers must understand the terminology at
a curriculum level including those used in NAPLAN testing, as well as be able to

36
apply these language conventions and concepts in order to teach to primary aged
school children.

Specifically, the grammar terminology section contained 20 multiple-choice

questions relating to terms used in the NCE. The purpose of this section was to
determine whether pre-service and in-service teachers were able to correctly identify
definitions of grammar terminology (as derived from Content Descriptions and the
Glossary in the NCE). Question One and Question two were definitions taken
directly from the Glossary; the remaining eighteen questions were based on concepts
described in Content Descriptions with the correct answer derived from the Glossary.
See Table 3.3. below for the origins of each Grammar Terminology question.

Table 3.3. Origins of Grammar Terminology Questions

Question Origin of Correct and False Stem Answers (NCE: Version 7.1)

1 The definition in the Glossary.

2 The definition in the Glossary.

3 Foundation Description.

4 Year 3 Content Description.

5 Year 1 Description and the definition of a simple sentence in the

Glossary.

6 Year 2 Description. Definition from the Glossary. False answers derived

from complex and simple definitions in the Glossary.

7 Year 2 Description. False answers derived from noun group and the
“opposite” to the definition included in the Glossary.

8 Correct answer from the Glossary. False answers from various words in
the Glossary.

9 Correct answer from both the Glossary and Year 3 Description.

10 Correct answer is specifically from Modal Verb in the Glossary. False

answers derived from definitions of other verb types in the Glossary.

11 Derived from Year 3 Description and correct response taken from the
Glossary.

37
12 Year 4 Description. Correct answer derived from noun definition in the
Glossary. False answers derived from proper and common noun
definitions.

13 Year 4 Description and the correct answer derived from the Glossary.
False answers are definitions of prefix, possessive and semi-colon.

14 Year 4 Description. The answer is from the Glossary. The false

definitions are taken from clause and apposition.

15 Year 5 Description. The answer comes from the Glossary under the
heading Clause.

16 Year 4 Description. The correct answer is from the Glossary and the
false responses from conjunction and comprehension.

17 Conjunction is not taken from a Description. However, a familiar term

used in primary classrooms. The correct answer is derived from the
Glossary.

18 Year 6 Description. Correct answer from the Glossary.

19 Year 7 Description. Correct answer from the Glossary.

20 Year 7 Description. Correct answer from the Glossary. False answer

derived from mode.

The rationale for focusing on the Glossary is that it is included in the documentation
as a way to assist teachers in acquiring a common language and common
understanding of terms used in the NCE. The rationale for drawing the multiple-
choice questions from the Content Descriptions is that these provide teachers with
specific knowledge, skills and attributes that children should learn throughout their
primary school years. It should be noted that subsequent versions of the curriculum,
such as the Western Australian Curriculum, must still correspond to the National
framework. Therefore, teachers need to be able to recognise the meaning of
terminology used in these descriptions so as to provide learning opportunities that
will assist children in achieving these clearly stated learning goals.

Resources for the interviews included an iPhone5 and the Application TapeACall
Pro, which enabled phone calls to be merged and recorded with the participants’
consent. Data analysis required the use of IBM SPSS (22.0) statistics software.

38
3.4. Procedure

As a first step in this research, an ethics application was made to Curtin University’s
ethics committee. After approval was granted the study commenced. As indicated
above, this study involved two stages involving quantitative and then qualitative
methods. The procedure followed in each of these stages is described below.

3.4.1. Stage 1 Development of Grammar and NAPLAN Test Questions for the
Questionnaire

As indicated above, the first step in undertaking this research was the development of
the questionnaire to test the participants’ grammatical knowledge. To do this it was
necessary to first identify the Content Descriptions from the NCE that related to
grammar. While there are identified categories for writing, reading, speaking and
listening, there is no specific identification that any Content Descriptions relate to
grammar. Therefore, to identify whether or not a description pertained to grammar, it
was first necessary to decide upon a definition of grammar. Initially, this was done
using that provided in the Glossary of the Curriculum Version 4.0, namely that
grammar is:
The language we use and the description of language as a system. In
describing language, attention is paid to both structure (form) and meaning
(function) at the level of the word, the sentence and the text. (ACARA,
Version 4.0, 2012)

In the current version (8.2) the definition remains substantively the same:
A description of a language as a system. In describing a language, attention is
paid to both structure (form) and meaning (function) at the level of a word, a
sentence and a text.
(http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/english/glossary#G)

However, this is a relatively broad definition of grammar and, although conducting a

search of grammar on the Content Descriptions provided some guidance, more
specific terminology was needed to address the scope of the research. To do this,
three experienced teachers were asked to read each of the Content Descriptions using
a binomial response to determine whether each descriptor related to grammar or not.
This analytic protocol ensured a high degree of objectivity as only Content
Descriptions receiving 100% agreement on “Yes” responses were used as a source
for the terminology included in the questionnaire (Fearn & Farnan, 2007). This
process, and using teachers more familiar with traditional grammar, did result in the

39
exclusion of some Content Descriptions that might be considered as derived from a
functional approach to language as described by Derewianka (2012). It also excluded
Content Descriptions relating to punctuation, spelling and editing. (The specific
results of this process are provided in Appendix 3).

Currently, the National English curriculum is Version 8.1 and there is now a Western
Australian Curriculum (also Version 8.1). It should be noted that the current versions
include changes to the grammar terminology that were used previously in Content
Descriptions from earlier versions (prior to Version 7.1) and, therefore, some of the
questions in the questionnaire use terminology that is no longer in the Content
Descriptions (which in a sense reflects the fluidity of the content of Grammar as
encapsulated in the curriculum). However, the terminology is still included in other
relevant sections of the Curriculum and the Glossary. For example, the word
adverbial has been deleted from the Year 4 Language Content Descriptions for
Version 8.1 and the Description is now written both in the NCE and in the Western
Australian Curriculum as:
Understand how adverb groups / phrases and prepositional phrases work in
different ways to provide circumstantial details about an activity (ACELA
1495).
In earlier versions the same description was written as:
Understand how adverbials (adverbs and prepositional phrases) work in
different ways to provide circumstantial details about an activity (ACELA
1495).

However, while adverbial is omitted from the Content Description, it still appears in
the Glossary, in the Curriculum website, and the Year 3 and Year 6 Elaborations (for
example Year 6 ACELA1523 referring to adverbials of time) and remains a Schools
Online Thesaurus (ScOT) catalogue term.

It should be noted that the purpose of ScOT is to collate and filter online resources
and provide relevant resources for teachers to plan lessons in order for students to
achieve outcomes reflected in the Content Descriptions. Therefore, while changes in
terminology such as this could indicate a subtle move by curriculum writers to
promote less traditional grammar terminology for student attainment, the eclectic
nature of grammar terminology used in the NCE remains relevant to teachers and
was included in the test.

40
While “Classroom assessment is changing” (Haladyna, Downing & Rodriguez, 2002,
p. 310) in attempt to measure higher-level learning, the multiple-choice format
continues to be important and is commonly used for educational and standardised
tests. This method also reflects the format of the Language Conventions section used
in the NAPLAN that, as indicated previously, are the annual standardised tests to be
completed by all students Australia-wide in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 in the four areas of
Reading, Writing, Language Conventions and Numeracy.

For the questionnaire, each question initially consisted of a stem in which there was
only one correct option and three distractors that were incorrect. When the first
iteration of the test was piloted with five experienced teachers, the length of time it
took to complete it was approximately 40 minutes. This was deemed too long as it
would be likely to discourage participation by some teachers. The pilot participants
also raised concerns that qualified teachers might be reluctant to complete the test
because the answers were either right or wrong. Therefore, the test was revised to
include a stem in which there was still only one correct response, the number of
incorrect distractors reduced to two, and the addition of an “I am unsure” response
choice included. This provided participants with a “safe” option that would
encourage participants to complete the whole questionnaire.

Participants who piloted this questionnaire also provided feedback that some
language used in the multiple-choice questions was overly convoluted. For example,
Question 8 in Grammar Terminology section is written as:

41
A noun group / phrase:

Consists of a noun as the major element, alone or accompanied by one or

more modifiers. The noun functioning as the major element may be a
common noun, proper noun or pronoun.

A clause that describes the noun using numerals, adjectives or auxiliary

determiners and are usually joined by a coordinating conjunction.

A collection of nouns separated from the object of the sentence by an

adjective modifier to maintain meaning.

I am unsure.

Although these answers are complex, the language used reflects the definitions found
in the Glossary and the distractor language was taken directly from words and
definitions used in other parts of the Glossary. Therefore, while some of the more
complex distractors were deleted or simplified, most were retained because this
language reflects the terminology used in the NCE.

Following the completion of the Grammar Terminology questions (labeled Section 1,

Questions 1 – 20), Test Questions Relating to Grammar Concepts (application of
primary language conventions) were developed based on the model taken from
NAPLAN test papers (labeled Section 2, Questions 21 – 52) and included 32
multiple-choice questions.

The section Language Conventions is defined broadly as spelling, grammar and

punctuation. According to the National Assessment Program website there are
minimum standards for spelling as well as minimum standards for grammar and
punctuation. These minimum standards can be found on the National Assessment
Program website (http://www.nap.edu.au/naplan/language-conventions/language-
conventions.html) and include features such as a simple sentence, the correct use of
conjunctions and verb forms, and correct use of relative pronouns and clauses.

42
For the purposes of this research, the NAPLAN questions were derived from the
2012 Year 3, Year 5 and Year 7 Language Conventions tests. The 2012 test
questions were chosen because they immediately preceded the data collection period.
While the majority of Year 7 children are now taught in secondary schools in
Western Australia, much of what children will be required to know is taught in the
primary years. Therefore, while this could be considered a limitation on the research,
the inclusion of these questions was deemed relevant to the scope of this research.
Year 9 tests were excluded, as the focus is on primary level content. Limitations
regarding NAPLAN, including suggestions that it encourages students and teachers
to consider grammar as prescriptive and in isolation to context are noted (Williams,
2009). However, it is not the purpose of this study to delve into the “lightning rod of
claim and counter-claim” of the “battleground for competing educational
philosophies” with respect to NAPLAN testing (Polesel, Dulfer & Turnbull, 2012, p.
3). Students are required to participate in testing in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 on a yearly
basis. Therefore, preparing students for these tests is now an expectation placed on
all schools.

The questions in the questionnaire mirrored the exact format found in the NAPLAN
tests and were initially selected if they satisfied the definition of grammar from the
Glossary and required participants to apply knowledge of grammar concepts. The
selection of these questions was reviewed and piloted by three independent English
teachers, each with over 25 years of primary teaching experience. The teachers
selected for this task were working in Western Australian Primary Schools and were
current or past members of the Australian Literacy Educators’ Association. After
pilot testing, the only amendments involved removal of questions that repeated
concepts already tested and this was done to reduce the time taken to complete this
section of the questionnaire.

Eleven questions were taken from the Year 3 NAPLAN test, four from Year 5 and
seventeen from the Year 7 NAPLAN test. Year 5 questions number the least due to
the overlap of questions from Year 3 and Year 7. Year 7 questions number the most
because pre-service and in-service teachers, who have completed tertiary study,
would be expected to successfully answer primary school aged questions irrespective
of whether they are trained in early years or primary years of teaching.

43
3.4.2. Administration of the Questionnaire for Pre-service and In-service Teachers

The questionnaire was administered to the pre-service and in-service participants

either under supervision of their tertiary lecturer or the researcher. Questionnaires
could only be completed during an allotted class time for pre-service teachers or on
the day of the professional development for in-service teachers. This was done to
avoid the possibility that the participants might use the Internet, or consult with
colleagues or other resources to assist them in answering test questions. There was
no time limitation placed on the participants for completion and only questionnaires
that contained answers in each of the three sections were included in the analysis. No
support or assistance was given to participants completing the questionnaire. A
detailed description of the procedure for pre-service and in-service teachers is
provided below:

Pre-service Teachers

To maximise the sample size of students, four lecturers who were teaching 3rd and 4th
year students were contacted. Of these, three lecturers responded to the invitation for
their students to participate voluntarily in the study. The researcher met with each
lecturer individually to explain the rationale for the research, providing the
information sheet, consent form and an example of the questionnaire. The lecturers
each verbally agreed to provide their students with the questionnaire to complete
voluntarily at the end of class time, thus meaning that there was no time restriction
for the completion of the instrument.

Once each lecturer had agreed to provide class time for students to voluntarily
complete the questionnaire under informal exam conditions, the questionnaires were
provided in individual envelopes. The available class times occurred at different
times of the day and at different times over a two-week period. The supervising
lecturer provided each participant with a consent form, information sheet and
questionnaire placed inside an envelope. The supervisor then explained the purpose
of the research using the consent form and information sheet, emphasising the
voluntary and confidential nature of their participation.

The participants were requested to read the information sheet individually, indicate
whether they did not wish to be contacted for an interview, write their name, contact

44
number, email and then sign and date the consent form. Once they had completed the
questionnaire, they were able to seal the test in an envelope and place it in a box at
the front of the room. Data from test scores were kept electronically and only
identifiable by a linked code kept secure and separate from test data in the
Supervisor’s Office.

In total, 73 responses were received. Of these 69 included the signed accompanying

consent form. The two unsigned questionnaires were not included in the data sample.
A further two were examples were excluded because the participants did not entirely
answer sections within the questionnaire.

In-service Teachers

The schools from which the in-service teacher participants were drawn had
principals and teaching staff known to the researcher. As a first step, the researcher
sent an email to both principals inviting their participation. Both principals agreed to
a meeting at their respective schools in which the rationale for the research and
procedure for the questionnaire were explained using the information sheet, consent
form and an example of the questionnaire. Both principals agreed to provide the
opportunity for their teachers to participate in the research. They suggested a time
during a shared professional development day at the start of Term 3, 2013 for
teachers to voluntarily complete the questionnaire, with the researcher overseeing
their participation. Again there was no time restriction for questionnaire completion,
and access to the Internet and the opportunity for discussion of answers between
participants was also limited.

Both schools are situated in suburbs where the socio-economic status is deemed to be
“middle class” with a School Index of Community Socio-Education Advantage
marginally above the median value of 1000 at the time of the research (myschool
edu.au, 2012). Each school had student populations of approximately 400 students
and attendance records of approximately 95% at the time of the data collection.
School A had 37 full-time equivalent teachers and School B had 31 full-time
equivalent teachers.

On the first day of Term 3, 2013, the researcher provided each teacher with a consent
form, information sheet and a questionnaire inside an envelope. The rationale and

45
procedure for the research were explained to the participants, once more emphasising
the voluntary and confidential nature of their participation. In-service teachers who
agreed to complete the questionnaire were requested to read the information sheet,
indicate whether they did not wish to be contacted for an interview, write their name,
contact number, email and then sign and date the consent form. Only questionnaires
in which responses were recorded in each of the three sections and were completed
during the allotted time were included in data analysis. Once they had completed the
questionnaire, the participants were able to seal the test in an envelope and place it in
a box at the front of the room.

Approximately twenty teachers were either absent on the day the test was conducted
or refused to complete the questionnaire. One partially completed questionnaire was
excluded from the analysis because of insufficient data.

3.4.3. Development of the Interview Protocol and Interviewing of Participants

An Interview Schedule was developed to further explore issues emerging from the
results of the stage one quantitative questionnaire. That is, the quantitative data were
tested using an inductive and qualitative approach. Specifically, the interview
schedule was open-ended and exploratory (see Appendix 4) and it enabled the
researcher to frame emerging themes within the context of the participants’
discussions (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). Similar to studies conducted in the UK
and the USA (Cajkler & Hislam, 2002; Petruzella, 1996; Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority, 1998; Watson, 2015), which explored meanings, associations
and conceptions of “grammar”, this study gathered similar data, but did so from
Western Australian teachers.

The semi-structured interviews took a holistic approach that was interactive and
iterative (Simons, 2009, p. 118). Participants were contacted prior to the interview by
phone to confirm their continued willingness to participate. This included reviewing
key items of informed consent such as confidentiality, anonymity of transcription,
the voluntary nature of the process, and that participants could withdraw at any time.
Once participants agreed to continue to participate, a date and time was organised for
the phone interview to be conducted.

46
The phone interviews were recorded using a software application (TapeACall Pro) in
which the calls could be recorded, downloaded and stored securely, including
password protection. Participants were reminded that their participation would
remain anonymous to encourage honest and fully detailed answers.

The interviews were structured around three thematic categories to ensure internal
consistency: Individual Perceptions of Grammar and the NCE (affective and beliefs);
Conceptions of Grammar; and Evaluation of Grammar Pedagogy in schools and pre-
service institutions. To address reflexivity and maintain focus on “validity as
reflexive accounting” (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998, p. 278) every participant was
informed that the questions would be deliberately open-ended.

3.5 Analysis

The analysis was undertaken in two stages reflecting the research design of this
study.

3.5.1. Stage One Analysis

The results for each Likert scale response were summed to provide a measure of
strength for the related perceptions. These results were later used to inform the
qualitative phase of the research and also to allow interrogation of the differences
between pre-service and in-service teacher results (Vogt, 1999).

The Grammar Terminology and NAPLAN questions were marked as either correct
or incorrect. The “I am unsure” responses provided in the Grammar Terminology
section were also marked as incorrect because teachers did not select the correct
answer. The marking scheme for the National Standardised Test Questions relating
to Grammar Concepts was taken from a website that provides answers to past
NAPLAN exams (pasthsc.com.au ). There was no requirement to crosscheck the
scoring process, as each item was clearly correct or incorrect (Fearn & Farnan,
2007).

Questionnaire data were then analysed using SPSS (22.0) for Windows. All
measured variables were described in terms of frequencies, means and standard

47
deviations. Analysis of the Likert scale items began with the conversion of the
responses to numerical values (e.g., 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree).
Independent samples t-tests compared pre-service and in-service teacher scores on
the Grammar Terminology test, NAPLAN and perceptions. All data were analysed at
the 0.05 level of significance. Correlational analysis occurred for demographic,
perceptual and competency items.

As the results were not normally distributed, non-parametric Mann-Whitney U tests

were used to determine if there were differences in analysis using non-transformed
data. Pre-service and in-service test results were then collated for the purpose of
providing correlation analysis of two selected demographic characteristics: age and
years since university graduation.

3.5.2. Stage Two Analysis

The interviews were transcribed using standard orthography as well as a process of

respondent checking, to avoid errors or omission. Interview data were then analysed
in three stages using “constant comparative methods” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to
ensure consistent coding (Flick, 2007) and establish analytic distinctions (Charmaz,
2006). Throughout the analysis, memos provided opportunities to compare and
explore ideas about the codes in order to show relationships with developed
theoretical categories (Charmaz, 2006).

The initial stage of the analysis of the discourses involved line-by-line coding to
separate, sort and synthesise the data (see Table 3.4. below). This included the use of
terms that reflected participant perspectives or innovative terms that captured
meanings or experiences such as “At-Point Teaching”, “Crowded Curriculum” and
“Grammar Talk”. The first level of coding was primarily descriptive in nature in
order to identify recurrent patterns, as well as to begin considering potential thematic
dimensions and analytical categories.

48
Table 3.4. Example of Line-by-Line Coding
Excerpt 1 Question: Where was your knowledge of grammar

IS4 In-Service derived?

Initial Coding Answer

School / self taught School mainly and then also some self-testing and self
Writing -improvement later on, especially when writing large
Knowledge gap documents and realising that a lot of, some things that
I assumed I knew, I didn’t know as well, so having to
Self taught
re-teach myself grammar.
Or just check in with grammar as an older person. I
think also getting to work with younger people kind of
Prescriptive grammar
seeing the patterns of what they do incorrectly and
Knowledge to model then also making sure that I’m modelling that well in
Prescriptive grammar my own work. So kind of seeing mistakes in other
Self taught people’s work, seeing mistakes in my own work, and
then kind of going away and doing further study. So I
would say those two areas; one more formal and one
more informal.

The second stage of coding required reviewing the data in order to develop open
codes. Open codes included data that shared properties in common and were labeled
and grouped into specific categories. This process enabled the grouping of examples
of participants’ words into categories such as “Perception of Grammar”;
“Perceptions of Grammar in the NCE” and “How Grammar Should be Taught”. This
process was conducted several times with the coding refined and regrouped as
properties of each code became evident. Pre-service and in-service teacher examples
of participants’ words were grouped together, but colour-coded so that similarities
and differences could be identified. Once again, this was an iterative process in
which the categories were built around responses from teachers, rather than teacher
responses placed into specific categories. An example of this analysis is provided in
Table 3.5. on page 51.

Finally, an interpretive phase was conducted that aimed to “discern and interpret”
themes, by identifying relationships among the open codes while guarding against
preconceptions in order to avoid “common sense theorizing” (Charmaz, 2006; Shutz,

49
1967). As shown in Table 3.6. (p. 53), the method used focused on coding statements
(i.e., axial codes) that illustrated themes and lessons derived from the relationships
between the categories (Lincoln & Guba, 1984; Patton, 2002). This provided
conceptual and theoretical development to illuminate the quantitative data analysis
and potentially provide “the grist for emergent hypothesis” for further research
(Charmaz, 2006, p. 101).

50
Table 3.5. Conceptualisations of Grammar – Open Coding Grouped into Categories
Open Code Properties Examples of Participants’ Words

Provides structure Non-colloquial So, for me it’s really looking at how language works, to dissect the structure.
its not just about writing, but how to structure a paragraph or how to write an essay, all of these ideas are
How language works linked up they are all micro macro – they are all connected;
– building blocks The ability to speak and write in a non-colloquial way, in more of a formal situation; in opposition to
casual talk that is required for interviews, job situations. So it’s speaking and writing.

Micro-macro – I will always use the terminology of Lego – these words are your Lego bricks, and you learn to use and
connected to speak the language fluently is Legoland, but you have to have the little bricks otherwise you can’t
build…so you have to learn those bricks and how they fit together.

Right words in the Word order and What a sentence is, what a sentence is made up of, how we punctuate a sentence using capital letters, full
right way punctuation stops, then some kids go onto speech marks, depending on where they’re at; For me, grammar is just
using the right words in the right order in the right way.

Sentence structure Sentence structure. When I think of grammar it’s more like the tenses, past tense, present tense and then
nouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, language features. That’s what I think of when I think of grammar.
I think, it is mainly punctuation and that isn’t it and stuff
Labeling parts of
speech And if you speak to a child about what is grammar, it would be a full stop at the end of a sentence, it is
not treated with great importance really.

It’s about the system of language…how everything its together to make meaning.

51
Communicating ideas Understanding I think grammar is just part of people’s speaking in a way, speaking clearly so that people can understand
clearly what you say and what you write. If it’s not grammatically correct people won’t understand you
correctly.
So it wasn’t until uni and I saw these people who wanted to be teachers and who for some reason are
Part of your
teachers had absolutely no idea about grammar whatsoever, because if you can, if you know it and
everyday
you’ve learnt it, then it just becomes part of your everyday and part of your literacy; speaking, writing,
reading.
Expressing ideas
I think grammar is part of all aspects of literacy, so what I want the kids to get out of it is to be able to
clearly
express their ideas clearly.
I just want the kids to have a really good understanding of grammar, so that they’ll be able to express
their ideas in whatever way: speaking, writing, clearly.

Lacking clarity on Limited knowledge You’re just trying to get those building blocks which grammar links to, but they’re just so….grammar is
concept of grammar of different types / basically…even defining grammar is tricky, but it is those understanding of the building blocks …
pedagogical theories The building blocks of language and correct use of language I guess.
I have touched on clauses and things but they get confused, so we do the subject of the sentence and
“Defining grammar everything…simple terminology, so describing the subject…yeah…sorry, loss of concentration.
is tricky” Yes I’m aware of that, but it’s not something I’ve focused on really strongly because I suppose I tend to
connect my own training; No, I wouldn’t be able to; I wouldn’t know it that well. I do know that we get
very confused.

Vague It’s based on teaching the National Curriculum.

In this way you’ve got to treat grammar likes it’s a completely different language because the way you
say things are not interpreted the same way on paper.
Complex / confusing
Grammar is important, because it’s how language fits together, but the concept of grammar, well the
terminology is just very complex and confusing.

52
Table 3.6. Example of Open Codes Grouped Providing a Statement (Axial Code) Leading to Theme
Open Codes Axial Codes Selective Code / Theme

Believe it is necessary and important to teach Believe a national standard and teaching grammar
children; Australian Benchmark; Provides are important.
structure; Rights words in the right way;
Communicating ideas clearly; Skills for
communication; Demonstrates intelligence

Supports 2nd language learning because of Mutual benefit to first and second language from
common grammar terminology; 2nd language use of common grammar terminology.
Explicit and meaningful teaching of a clear and
teaching promotes grammar knowledge and
shared grammar, empowers and provides
improves first language
individuals with the capacity to express
“Drilled” in school; In order to teach students Internal and external influences.
themselves.
more effectively; Self-improvement; Family
background supported grammar knowledge;
Student education; Student ability; Life experience

Direct teaching is important and requires Explicit and meaningful; An eclectic pedagogical
knowledge; Teaching should be functional; approach.
Grammar teaching should be contextual; Grammar
teaching should be rhetorical; Grammar teaching
should be playful; Grammar knowledge should
begin early and then increase in complexity

53
3.6. Validity, Reliability and Trustworthiness

This research employed a mixed methods approach to provide a more holistic point
of view (Patton, 1990) and did so by utilising varied sets of data and collection
methods. While convenience sampling was used at all stages of this research, the
variation in data minimised opportunities for error and for reaching erroneous
conclusions (Arksey & Knight, 1999). In addition, quality control mechanisms were
also employed to ensure the validity, reliability and trustworthiness of the research.
This was achieved by employing different mechanisms for triangulation (Long,
2005) because “Relying on one method of data collection may bias the research or
provide a different picture to the researcher of the phenomenon under investigation”
(Eisenhart, 2006, p. 568). Further, the inclusion of complementary quantitative and
qualitative data sources increased the likelihood of measuring what the research
intended to measure and to minimise bias.

Therefore, in this research credibilty was increased by using multiple sources of data
(Davis, 1995; Denzin & Lincoln, 1994), namely: pre-service teachers, in-service
teachers and curriculum documentation. In this way, the multiple methods used at the
data collection stage (document analysis, Likert scale, two multiple-choice tests,
interviews) were able to reveal “different aspects of teachers’ knowledge…to get a
fuller picture of teachers’ knowledge” (Bartels, 2005, p. 2). This also enhanced the
confidence of the overall data set, and in the way it could be analysed and interpreted
(Arksey & Knight, 1999; Swanborn, 2010).

For the questionnaire, a Likert scale was used to measure pre-service and in-service
attitudes and beliefs about grammar and the NCE. Participants were asked to respond
to statements using fixed choice response formats in order to measure their beliefs on
an ordinal scale of agreement / disagreement (Bowling, 1997; Burns & Grove, 1997).
The strength of this approach is that it allowed for teacher attitudes about these
statements to be measured. However, limitations should also be acknowledged.
These included the use of unnecessarily subjective language such as “an excellent
understanding” in two of the statements and also social desirability bias which, with
this population and context, could have resulted in teachers taking into account

54
media pressures about the value of grammar teaching and concepts. However, as the
questionnaire was anonymous, this factor may have been reduced (Paulhus, 1984).

The second stage of the questionnaire was used to ascertain whether teachers could
correctly identify grammar terminology used in the NCE. The obvious limitation is
that the grammar terminology test lacked standardised performance benchmarks
against which participant scores could be measured. Also, that the test format tested
skills in isolation and out of context (Moon, 2014). However, the strength of the
multiple-choice test is that it allows for impartial, reliable and valid diagnostic
information. However, as a new procedure, several steps were required to ensure its
quality (Seliger & Shohamy 1989).

The first step was to overcome the challenge of determining a definition for
“grammar” for the purposes of this research. This required document analysis of
relevant materials including curriculum documents and specifically the ACARA
papers and the NCE Descriptions. Thus, the definition of the NCE Grammar was
extended to include the teaching of grammar concepts and the use of grammar
terminology, but excluded spelling, editing and phonics. To ensure the reliability of
the grammar descriptions, independent checks were undertaken of the material from
Foundation to Year 7 by three experienced teachers, and only those descriptors
receiving 100% agreement were included in the test.

The rationale for choosing a multiple-choice test was that answers were fixed and
could be drawn directly from the NCE Glossary or Descriptions. Each stem was a
direct question with participants able to select from four options: the correct
response, two incorrect responses (distractors) and the statement “I Am Unsure”. As
all of the terminology was derived from the mandated NCE - the document from
which teachers must teach and assess their students - as noted peviously, the “I Am
Unsure” response was also deemed incorrect. The items were expressed as clearly as
possible, within a curriculum context, included words with precise meanings and
avoided unnecessarily complex or awkward word arrangements. One criticism raised
in the pilot phases was that the answers were overly convoluted. Whilst efforts were
made to address this concern, it was not possible to shorten and simplify many of the
options as the wording needed to reflect the style of language used in the NCE.

55
Content validity of each test item was achieved by way of three pilot trials. To do
this, practicing teachers were asked to provide feedback to ensure that the grammar
terminology test measured what it purported to measure (Newman & Benz, 1998;
Seliger & Shohamy, 1989), namely, the grammar terminology used in the NCE.
Participants in the pilot phase were also requested to provide item analysis, assessing
whether each item was too easy or too difficult, well phrased and easily understood
(Seliger & Shohamy, 1989). Limitations of the Grammar Terminology test include
the difficulty in providing a continuum from novice to expert and that the
participants could potentially guess the correct answers (Haldyna, 1996; Haldyna &
Rodriguez, 2013). To address this, an unsure answer was included and designed to
provide teachers with an opt-out option, rather than creating a situation where they
were encouraged to guess. Additionally, as the NCE, on which the test was based, is
the primary document from which teachers teach and measure success of student
learning, it seems reasonable that a teacher should be able to answer questions as an
“expert”.

The third stage of the questionnaire was the inclusion of NAPLAN test items.
NAPLAN tests have been subjected to “well-established methods for estimating the
reliability of tests. These methods indicate that the reliability of NAPLAN tests is
high and that they can be used with confidence and are fit for purpose” (ACARA,
2013, p. 2). However, a limitation on the use of the NAPLAN test in this context is
that it had to be modified for the purposes of this research. This limitation was
negated by following a process of independent checks, by three experienced
teachers, with only test items from Year 3, 5 and 7 being included if they received
100% agreement that they pertained to grammar as defined for the purposes of this
study. Once the questions were selected, formatting was constructed in the same way
as they were presented to primary students in 2012. Another obvious limitation is
that teachers may have been familiar with the NAPLAN test if they had reviewed
these questions or conducted these tests with students, which may have given an
advantage to in-service teachers over the pre-service teachers. However, once again,
as these test items are provided to primary aged pupils, the purpose of giving this test
was to assess whether teachers could apply concepts they are expected to teach.
Similarly, a continuum of novice to expert was not the issue assessed here, as,

56
arguably, all teachers should be at an expert level when applying grammar
knowledge required of their primary aged students.

SPSS (22.0) was used for all statistical analysis of the 116 participant responses to
the questionnaire. Incomplete returns of the questionnaire or partial returns were
excluded. Validity of data was strengthened because participants completed the
questionnaire under supervision as opposed to other methods such as computer
completion that can undermine the ability of the researcher to evaluate the sincerity
of responses (Hewson, Yule, Laurent & Vogel, 2003). However, this did result in
sample bias and a reduction in generalisability due to the use of non-random
convenience sampling (i.e., only teachers from two schools and one university were
able to complete the questionnaire). Therefore, the samples cannot be considered
representative. While attempts have been made to include information on
demographic characteristics to provide detailed descriptions of the sample, all of the
teachers were drawn from two schools which according to the Index of Community
Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA) had similar populations of students: 0%
indigenous students, 6% of children with a language background other than English
and a 95% student attendance rate (myschool.edu.au, 2012). Similarly, different
universities providing primary teacher training in Western Australia may not share
the same characteristics and therefore the extent to which the findings from this
study can be viewed as representative of the experiences of all pre-service teachers
and in-service teachers across the state is limited. However, it should be noted that
the in-service teachers were drawn from teacher training institutions from all over the
World and thus their responses may be considered to provide a wider range of
participant observations.

The final phase of the research was a series of interviews with individual pre-service
and in-service teachers. The purpose of the interviews was to allow the researcher to
“focus on specific questions and to elicit attitudes and espoused conceptions”
(Bartels, 2005, p. 5). This allowed for triangulation in terms of data collection and,
further, a clear audit trail has been provided to enhance the reliability of the
qualitative analysis (Zohrabi, 2013). Mason (1996) notes the importance of trust and
so participants were assured and reminded of methods, such as the changing of any
identifiable information and coding to maintain anonymity, to ensure confidentiality
and privacy prior to obtaining informed consent. Independent checking of the

57
interview schedule was conducted three times to narrow the focus of interview
questions and avoid repetition, with pilot interviews designed and conducted to
improve the reliability and consistency of the procedure. Interviewer effects were
minimised by asking similar questions of each respondent by the same interviewer
(Patton, 1990). However, the use of a mobile application called TapeACall (Teltech,
2016) permitted the researcher to be attentive to interviewees (Patton, 1990) as notes
did not need to be taken simultaneously and the interviews could be listened to
repeatedly. This also enabled the researcher to listen carefully to what was being said
and ask pertinent questions (Rubin & Rubin, 2005), balancing consistency of
procedure with an iterative approach. The researcher was cautious to maintain
objectivity during the interviews and when conducting data analysis. Specifically,
member checking was utilised to maintain the integrity of teacher responses
(Bryman, 2008; Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011; Creswell, 2007; Lincoln & Guba,
1985) and, similarly, inductive reasoning (Merriam, 1988) during data analysis to
reduce opportunities for researcher subjectivity.

58
 Chapter 4: Findings

This chapter consists of four sections. Section One (4.1) provides a description of
Western Australian teacher perceptions about the value of teaching grammar to
students; their conceptions of grammar as it relates to the NCE; and, their confidence
in teaching grammar concepts according to the NCE. Section Two (4.2) concerns the
capability of primary school pre-service and in-service teachers to teach the grammar
components of NCE by presenting the quantitative data analysis about grammar
terminology and NAPLAN test items. In this section, there is also a description of
the relationships that exist between demographic characteristics, such as age and
years since graduation, speaking a language other than English or gender, and
grammar terminology and NAPLAN test results. Section Three (4.3) explores in
more detail teachers’ beliefs about the role of the NCE and grammar teaching. This
section illustrates the tension that exists between teacher perceptions of grammar
teaching, and systemic issues affecting their capacity to deliver effective pedagogy.
Section Four (4.4) provides commentary about the effectiveness of teacher education
programs to prepare teachers to teach this content.

4.1. Section One

This section begins by presenting the qualitative analysis describing whether and to
what extent pre-service and in-service teachers value grammar teaching. Descriptive
statistics are presented illustrating pre-service and in-service teacher perceptions
about the value of teaching grammar as well as teacher qualitative reflections on the
origins of their own beliefs and knowledge of grammar. Following this, the focus
shifts to teachers’ understanding and confidence in teaching grammar concepts to
students based on the NCE. Correlational analysis and independent samples t-test
findings are presented to explore similarities, differences and the relationships
between pre-service and in-service teacher responses.

59
4.1.1. The Value of Teaching Grammar

The first analytical theme derived from the qualitative analysis concerns pre-service
and in-service teachers’ beliefs that “Explicit and meaningful teaching of a clear and
shared grammar, empowers and provides individuals with the capacity to express
themselves”. For example, the importance pre-service teachers place on the value of
teaching grammar is illustrated by comments obtained from the interviews such as “I
personally feel like grammar is really such an important part of our very complicated
language” (PS5) and “Yes, it is important, and it definitely does help their writing”
(PS2). In-service teachers also agreed that, “It’s necessary” (IS4) and “Kids are at
school to learn, we teach them grammar, so that they can write, we teach them
grammar, so that they understand what they’re reading” (IS5). However, unlike the
pre-service teachers, the in-service teachers indicated reticence in teaching grammar,
explaining their concerns that the way grammar is taught in schools can be boring:
IS3: I mean my grammar is probably a hate / love relationship.

IS4: It was very boring the way the school taught it.

IS2: I blocked out all the explicit teaching of grammar because it was
boring…which it is (laughs).

IS6: I think the teaching of it can be boring.

These findings are further supported by the quantitative results. Specifically, Table
4.1. shows the descriptive statistics for two Likert scale Teacher Perception Items.
The items required the teachers to rate two statements concerning the value of
teaching grammar (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree).

In the first instance, the pre-service teacher scores for the item “I think teaching
grammar to students is important” and “I think teaching grammar helps students to
become better writers” ranged from a score of 3 (neutral) to five (strongly agree)
with a mean of 4.47 for the former and 4.46 for the latter. Although achieving a
slightly lower average, the in-service teacher scores for these items ranged from a
score of 2 (disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) with mean scores of 4.11 and 4.15
respectively, still demonstrating considerable support for the notion that grammar
teaching is valuable.

60
Table 4.1. Description of Pre-service (N = 68) and In-service (N = 47) Teachers’
Perceptions of the Value of Teaching Grammar
Teacher Perception Items Lowest Highest Mean SD

The value of teaching grammar (Pre-service)

I think teaching grammar to students is important. 3 5 4.47 0.63

I think teaching grammar helps students to 3 5 4.46 0.68

become better writers.

The value of teaching grammar (In-service)

I think teaching grammar to students is important. 2 5 4.11 0.84

I think teaching grammar helps students to 2 5 4.15 0.83

become better writers.

Note. 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4= Agree; 5 = Strongly

Agree

However, in spite of concerns that grammar teaching can be boring, when correlation
analysis was undertaken a positive relationship was found to exist between all the
teacher perceptions (i.e., both pre- and in-service teachers) that teaching grammar to
students is important and teaching grammar helps students to become better writers
(r = .743, p = .000). (Note: These relationships between teacher perceptions about
teaching grammar and their knowledge of the NCE is explored in greater detail and
illustrated in Table 4.4.).

4.1.2. Beliefs and Understandings about Grammar and Confidence to Teach the
National Curriculum

Pre-service and in-service teachers described the origins of their beliefs and
understandings about grammar. Most of the pre-service teachers suggested that they
developed their understanding of grammar in school, “I remember covering it in
Year 4 of primary school, a lesson on verbs I think” (PS6) and “It would have been
more school than home, for learning it all through school” (PS1). However, one pre-
service teacher indicated it was her family background that cultivated her beliefs and
knowledge of grammar, “My Mum was a real ‘grammar Nazi’” (PS5).

61
Three in-service teachers also referred to how their knowledge of grammar was
predominantly derived from their own school experience. It is notable that each of
these three teachers was educated overseas. Another in-service teacher indicated she
began to focus on grammar only after she started teaching and she did so in order to
teach her students more effectively. However, she indicated that she did not recall
grammar being a focus in her own schooling:
IS5: I don’t know whether perhaps it is the fact that maybe I wasn’t ready to
learn that when I was at school, I don’t know, or maybe I understand it more
now, I don’t know...but there’s things that I teach kids today that I think, I
was not taught that, I was not taught how to do that.

Several pre-service and in-service teachers also illustrated how teaching students was
a catalyst for improving their own knowledge of grammar, for example:
PS4: So before teaching a skill, I have to read up on it to understand it to be
able to teach it.

PS6: I remember the first day a student asked me why the sentence was
incorrect. I knew it was wrong, but didn’t know how to explain why, so I ran
to my mentor teacher and asked her. That was when I knew I had to start
learning more about grammar to be an effective teacher.

IS4: I think also getting to work with younger people, kind of seeing the
patterns of what they do incorrectly, and then also making sure that I’m
modelling that well in my own work (Explaining why she was motivated to
learn about grammar).

The teachers’ understanding of grammar concepts, as encapsulated in the Australian

Curriculum, and their level of confidence when teaching these concepts to students
was also examined in the quantitative part of this study. Specifically, Likert scale
responses were sought from the pre-service and in-service teachers in this regard.
These results are shown in Table 4.2 below:

62
Table 4.2. Description of Pre-service (N = 68) and In-service (N = 47) Teachers’
Perceptions of their Competence to Teach Grammar in Accordance with the
Australian NCE
Teacher Perception Items

Pre-service Lowest Highest Mean SD

I have an excellent understanding of the 2 5 3.28 0.69

Australian Curriculum: English.

I have an excellent understanding of grammar 2 4 2.91 0.64

concepts as described in the Australian
Curriculum: English.

I feel confident when teaching my students 1 4 3.15 0.78

grammar concepts in accordance with the
Australian Curriculum.

In-service

I have an excellent understanding of the 1 5 3.02 0.94

Australian Curriculum: English.

I have an excellent understanding of grammar 1 5 2.78 0.96

concepts as described in the Australian
Curriculum: English.

I feel confident when teaching my students 1 5 3.15 0.97

grammar concepts in accordance with the
Australian Curriculum.

Note. 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4= Agree; 5 = Strongly

Agree

As can be seen in this table, the pre-service teachers’ perception of their

understanding of the NCE ranged from a score of 2 (Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree)
with a mean score of 3.28. This is slightly higher than the mean score of 2.91 and a
range of 2 (Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) for their perception of their
understanding of grammar concepts. One participant’s comments reflect the way pre-
service teachers grapple with the concepts related to grammar:
PS3: In this way you’ve got to treat grammar, like it’s a completely different
language, because the way you say things are not interpreted the same way on
paper.

63
In terms of their confidence to teach students grammar concepts in accordance with
the NCE, the pre-service teachers’ responses ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4
(Agree) with a mean score of 3.15. This lack of confidence is evidenced by the lack
of clarity several pre-service teachers showed when describing their concept of
grammar:
PS5: You’re just trying to get those building blocks which grammar links to,
but they’re just so, grammar is basically, even defining grammar is tricky…

PS6: Grammar is important, because it’s how language fits together, but the
concept of grammar, well the terminology is just very complex and
confusing.

In comparison, the in-service teacher perceptions for all three items ranged from a
score of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) as shown in Table 4.2. above.
The mean scores for their understanding of the NCE and their understanding of
grammar concepts were 3.02 and 2.78 respectively. The mean score for in-service
teacher perception of their confidence when teaching students grammar concepts in
accordance with the Australian Curriculum was 3.15. In this way, it can be seen that
the in-service and pre-service teacher perceptions of their understanding of the NCE
and grammar concepts appear to be quite similar. This is illustrated by comments
from in-service teachers that are not dissimilar to those made by pre-service teachers,
including:
IS2: I feel like it’s getting more complex and even I don’t understand what
they’re talking about, even for Year 7 and 8 kids.

IS1: I do know that we get very confused, certainly in the last year or two,
because when we were planning to use the language of the curriculum, when
we bought into a few different schemes and books and things like that to
guide us, they used different language. And then a lot of the staff have gone
on a PD and it’s through AISWA, but it’s a grammar PD, it’s a five-day
course throughout the year, they are coming back with different language as
well.

To compare the pre-service and in-service teacher perceptions, an independent

samples t-test was conducted with the mean scores of measured variables. The
results for this t-test analysis are presented in Table 4.3.

64
 Table 4.3. t-test Showing Differences between Pre-service Teachers (N = 68) and In-service Teachers (N = 47) in their Perceptions on the Value of
Teaching Grammar and on their Competence to Teach Grammar in Accordance with the National Curriculum

Likert Statements t-test for Equality of Means

t df Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of the

tailed) Difference Difference
Difference
Lower Upper

I think teaching grammar to students is

2.648 113 .009* .364 .138 .092 .637
important.

I think teaching grammar helps students

2.170 113 .032* .307 .141 .027 .587
to become better writers.

I have an excellent understanding of the

1.697 113 .092 .258 .152 -.043 .560
Australian Curriculum: English.

I have an excellent understanding of

grammar concepts as described in the
.797 71.582 .428 .129 .162 -.194 .452
Australian Curriculum: English.
(Welch’s t-test results)

I feel confident when teaching my

students grammar concepts in
-0.031 112 .975 -.005 .164 -.330 .319
accordance with the Australian
Curriculum.

Note. * p < .05.

65
As a first step for this analysis, an inspection of boxplots was made and this indicated
that there were outliers for all perception scale items except “I think teaching
grammar to students is important”. However, as they were neither data entry nor
measurement errors, the ratings were deemed genuinely unusual values. Therefore,
the Mann-Whitney U analysis has also been included. Rating scores were not
normally distributed, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk’s test (p >.05). However, non-
normality does not affect Type I error rate substantially and the independent samples
t-test can be considered robust. According to Levene’s test for equality of variances,
there was homogeneity of variances for all ratings (p > .05) with the exception of “I
have an excellent understanding of grammar concepts as described in the Australian
Curriculum: English” (p = .002) for which Welch’s t-test analysis is presented.

Pre-service teacher rating (M = 4.47, SD = .634) of teaching grammar to students as

being important was higher than in-service teachers (M = 4.11, SD = .840). This was
a statistically significant difference, M = 0.364, 95% CI [0.09, 0.64], t(113) = 2.648,
p = .009. Pre-service teachers also rated “I think teaching grammar helps students to
become better writers” (M = 4.46, SD = .679) higher than in-service teachers (M =
4.15, .834). This was also a statistically significant difference, M = 0.307, 95% CI
[0.03, 0.59], t(113) = 2.170, p = .032.

A Mann-Whitney U test was utilised to determine if there were differences in ratings

for each of the perception items. For, “I think teaching grammar to students is
important” and “I think teaching grammar helps students become better writers”,
distributions of the rating scores for pre-service and in-service teachers were similar,
as assessed by visual inspection. However, median rating scores were found to be
statistically significantly higher for pre-service teachers (5.00) than in-service
teachers (4.00), U = 1 224.5, z = -2.324, p = .002 for “I think teaching grammar to
students is important”. Similarly, median rating scores were significantly higher for
pre-service teachers (5.0) than in-service teachers (4.00), U = 1 280.5, z = -1.979, p =
.048. However, no other comparisons were statistically significantly different.

The relationships between the teachers’ perceptions were then examined using
correlational analysis. The results for this are shown in Table 4.4 below:

66
Table 4.4. Correlations between Perceptions of the Value of Teaching Grammar and Teacher Competence to Teach Grammar (N = 115)
Teacher Perception Items I think teaching I think teaching I have an excellent I have an excellent I feel confident when
grammar to students grammar helps understanding of the understanding of teaching my students
is important. students to become Australian grammar concepts as grammar concepts in
better writers. Curriculum: English. described in the accordance with the
Australian Australian
Curriculum: English. Curriculum.

I think teaching grammar to - .743** .081 .243** .078

students is important.

I think teaching grammar helps - .177 .257** .184**

students to become better
writers.

I have an excellent - .615** .434**

understanding of the Australian
Curriculum: English.

I have an excellent - .612**

understanding of grammar
concepts as described in the
Australian Curriculum: English.

I feel confident when teaching -

my students grammar concepts
in accordance with the
Australian Curriculum.

Note. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

67
Not surprisingly correlation analysis revealed a strong relationship between the
teacher perceptions of having an excellent understanding of the NCE and having an
excellent understanding of grammar concepts as described in the NCE (r = .615, p =
.000). In terms of teaching, again it is not surprising to find a positive relationship
between an excellent understanding of the NCE and feeling confident to teach
grammar concepts in accordance with the NCE (r = .434, p = .000). Similarly, a
significant relationship was also found between teachers having an excellent
understanding of grammar concepts as described in the Australian Curriculum
(English) and teachers feeling confident to teach students grammar concepts in
accordance with the Australian Curriculum (r = .612, p = .000), and the more
teachers perceive they have a comprehensive understanding of grammar concepts,
the more they feel teaching grammar helps students to become better writers (r =
.257, p = .006). Similarly, a positive relationship exists between the perception that
teaching grammar helps students to become better writers with their perception of
greater confidence with teaching grammar concepts (r = .184, p = .050).

In terms of the value of teaching grammar, a positive relationship was found between
teacher perceptions that teaching grammar to students is important and their having
an (excellent) understanding of grammar concepts as described in the NCE (r = .243,
p = .009). That is, the greater understanding teachers believe they have of grammar
concepts, the more important they believe it is to teach students grammar.

4.1.3. Summary

The findings for Section 1 suggest that pre-service teachers view teaching grammar
to students as important and that grammar helps students to become better writers
more so than in-service teachers (as demonstrated by their ratings of these items). It
does seem that teacher beliefs are predominantly derived from their own school
experiences, but that becoming a teacher heightened their awareness of the value of
grammar and it was a catalyst for wanting to improve their own knowledge. The data
presented in Section 1 also illustrates that there is a relationship between teachers
who rated grammar as helping students to become better writers and their perceived
understanding of the NCE, grammar concepts within the NCE, and their confidence
in teaching such concepts. The more teachers perceive they understand the NCE and

68
the grammar concepts contained within it, the more important they value the
teaching of grammar to students. This provides important contextual information for
the test results presented later, as data shows that while such relationships exist,
some pre-service teachers lacked clarity in their understanding of grammar as
described in the NCE. Additionally, in-service teachers had concerns over the
increasing complexity of grammar terminology and that this was causing confusion.
Following the analysis of teacher knowledge presented next, Section Three further
explores their perceptions about the pedagogical practices pertaining to the
curriculum and grammar teaching.

4.2. Section Two

This section provides the findings of the data analysis concerning teacher knowledge
of grammar terminology and NAPLAN concepts, and whether key demographic
characteristics influenced test scores.

4.2.1. Grammar Terminology Test Descriptive Statistics

Pre-service and in-service teacher knowledge of grammar terminology was measured

with 20 multiple-choice items derived from the NCE Content Descriptions and
Glossary. Table 4.5. provides a descriptive summary of results of the participating
teachers. As can be seen, considerable variability between teachers was apparent. For
example, pre-service teacher raw scores range from a low of 0 to a high of 12 out of
the possible 20. In-service teacher raw scores ranged from 1 to 18 out of the possible
20.

69
Table 4.5. Description of Pre-service Teachers’ (N = 68) and In-service Teachers’
(N = 47) Scores on the Grammar Terminology Test
Scales and subscales Lowest Highest Mean SD

Pre-service and In-service Teachers

Grammar Terminology (maximum 20) 0 18 7.31 3.78

Grammar Terminology (% correct) 0 90 36.55 18.91

Pre-service Teachers

Grammar Terminology (maximum 20) 0 13 6.54 2.95

Grammar Terminology (% correct) 0 65 32.68 14.74

In-service Teachers

Grammar Terminology (maximum 20) 1 18 8.45 4.55

Grammar Terminology (% correct) 5 90 42.23 22.74

14 PS Teacher

12
IS Teacher
10
Number of Teachers

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Number of Correct Responses

Figure 4.1. Number of pre-service (N = 68) and in-service (N = 47) teachers

achieving raw scores on Grammar Terminology test.

70
A graphical representation of the participating pre-service and in-service total scores
on the Grammar Terminology test (out of possible score of 20) is presented in Figure
4.1. As can be seen, one pre-service teacher scored zero and 88% of pre-service
teachers achieved a score of ten or below. The highest achievement score for a pre-
service teacher was 13/20. This contrasts to in-service teachers, eight of whom
scored between 14 and 18 out of the possible 20. Regardless of teaching experience
(pre- or in-service) no participant achieved the maximum score of 20 on the grammar
terminology questionnaire items.

71
Table 4.6. Percentage of Correct Responses for the Groups of Pre-service (N = 68)
and In-service (N = 47) Teachers on Individual Grammar Terminology Test
Questions
Grammar Terminology Question Pre-service In-service

(Grammar term requiring definition / identification) % Correct % Correct

1. Grammar 53.6 51.1

2. Metalanguage 40.6 42.6

3. Sentences 21.7 38.3

4. Clause 39.1 45.7

5. A simple sentence 60.3 59.6

6. A compound sentence 61.2 74.5

7. Noun 65.7 72.3

8. A noun group / phrase 33.3 32.6

9. A verb 14.5 40.4

10. A modal verb 2.9 23.9

11. Adverb 23.2 23.4

12. Pronoun 47.8 42.6

13. Preposition 35.8 58.7

14. Adverbials 19.1 25.5

15. Difference between a main and subordinate clause 25.8 45.7

16. Connective 31.3 38.3

17. Conjunction 37.7 45.7

18. Tense 18.8 30.4

19. Prepositional phrases 26.1 29.8

20. Modality 4.3 29.8

The percentage of pre-service and in-service teacher correct responses on individual

grammar terminology test questions is presented in Table 4.6. Differences between
the group of pre-service teachers and the group of in-service teachers are apparent.
The lowest percentage of correct responses for the group of pre-service teachers was

72
for the questionnaire item that required defining a modal verb (2.9%) and the highest
was for the definition of a noun (65.7%). In-service teachers scored lowest on the
definition of the term adverb (23.4%) and modal verb (23.9%), and highest on the
definition of a compound sentence (74.5%).

80 PS Teacher

70 IS Teacher
Percentage of Correct Responses

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Grammar Terminology Question

Figure 4.2. Percentage of correct responses for pre-service (N = 68) and in-
service (N = 47) teachers on individual grammar terminology questions.

Figure 4.2. is a graphical representation of the percentage of correct responses for

each question on grammar terminology for each group of teachers. As can be seen
the pre-service teachers scored a higher percentage of correct responses on only four
question items: definition of grammar, a simple sentence, a noun group / phrase and
pronoun.

This data appears to support concerns the teachers expressed over the increasing
complexity of grammar terminology. Specifically, while 53.6% of pre-service
teachers and 51.1% of in-service teachers were able to define the term grammar, the
highest percentage of correct responses for both pre-service and in-service teachers
were for those questions concerned with the definitions of a simple sentence,
compound sentence and a noun. Outside of these examples, the percentage correct
dropped to 50% or below for all other items.

73
 4.2.2. NAPLAN Test Descriptive Statistics

The measure of pre-service and in-service teachers’ ability to apply grammar

concepts used in the NCE (i.e., student skills) was adapted from the 2012 Year 3, 5
and 7 NAPLAN standardised tests. Table 4.7. provides a descriptive summary of the
range of raw NAPLAN scores and mean percentage scores for the teacher
participants. As can be seen the lowest achievement scores for pre-service and in-
service teachers were 8 and 11, respectively, with the highest achievement scores for
both categories being the maximum possible score of 32 out of 32. The mean
percentage achievement score for pre-service teachers was 85.16% with the in-
service teacher mean percentage achievement score marginally higher at 86.10%.

Table 4.7. Description of Pre-service (N = 68) and In-service (N = 47) Teacher

Scores on the NAPLAN Questions (Student Skills)
Scales and subscales Lowest Highest Mean SD

Pre-service and In-service Teachers

NAPLAN (maximum 32) 8 32 27.37 4.19

NAPLAN (% correct) 25 100 85.54 13.09

Pre-service Teachers

NAPLAN (maximum 32) 11 32 27.25 3.89

NAPLAN (% correct) 34.38 100 85.16 12.15

In-service Teachers

NAPLAN (maximum 32) 8 32 27.55 4.63

NAPLAN (% correct) 25 100 86.10 14.47

Figure 4.3. presents a graphic depiction of the number of pre-service and in-service
teachers’ raw scores in relation to the NAPLAN Questions. As can be seen the most
frequent score for pre-service teachers was 28 out of a possible 32, and for in-service
teachers the most frequent score was 29 out of 32. Pre-service and in-service
teachers’ results are similarly distributed. Specifically, 3 pre-service and 5 in-service
teachers scored the maximum achievement with 32 correct responses. One in-service
teacher achieved a raw score of 8 out of 32 (25%), which was deemed to be valid as

74
every question was attempted with a response provided. The lowest achievement
score for pre-service teachers was 11 out of 32 (43.38%).

14
PS Teacher
12

10 IS Teacher
Number of Teachers

0
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Number of Correct Reponses

Figure 4.3. Number of pre-service (N = 68) and in-service (N = 47) teachers

achieving raw scores on the selected NAPLAN test items.

The percentage of pre-service and in-service teacher performance on individual

NAPLAN test questions (Year 3) measured as total number of correct responses is
presented in Table 4.8. As can be seen, percentages of correct responses for pre-
service teachers range from 83.8% to 100% and in-service teacher percentages of
responses range from 87.2% to 100%. The only question that all teachers scored
correctly was in response to a preposition question (Question 21). The lowest
percentage correct score for pre-service teachers was for identifying the word in a
sentence that tells us “how an action is done” (adverb). The question with the lowest
frequency for in-service teachers was completing the sentence correctly by inserting
the past simple verb “were” to match the correct subject.

75
Table 4.8. Percentage of Correct Responses for Pre-service and In-service Teachers
on Individual NAPLAN Questions for Year 3 (N = 115)
Year 3 NAPLAN Questions % Correct

Question on Test Pre-service In-service

21. I went for a ride on my bike. (preposition) 100 100

22. When my dog Ned has a bone he tries to keep 98.5 91.5
it to himself. (pronoun)

23. My friend sent me a get-well card because I 98.5 100

broke my arm. (subordinating conjunction)

24. John will be coming with us. (plural personal 100 95.7
pronoun - objective)

25. The girls ran up the steep hill, keen to beat 97.1 95.7
their brother home. (action verb)

26. I found a torn packet of coloured pencils at the 100 95.7

bottom of my schoolbag. (adjective)

27. I saw Pat. (Which one of these is a sentence?) 92.6 95.7

28. They were camping near a river. (Subject – 92.6 87.2

verb agreement past simple)

29. The first thing we learned at our swimming 83.8 91.5

lessons was to get into the pool safely. (adverb)

30. Let’s ride our bikes down to the river to see if 86.2 97.8
there are any pelicans. (apostrophe contraction)

31. I am worried that I might of lost my pencil 93.9 93.5

case. (might have)

The percentage of pre-service and in-service teacher performance on individual

NAPLAN test questions (Year 5) measured as total number of correct responses is
presented in Table 4.9. As can be seen, percentage of correct responses for pre-
service teachers ranges from 73.1% to 98.5%. In-service teacher percentages range
from 82.6% to 100%. The highest frequency of correct responses for pre-service and
in-service teachers was the question relating to separating items on a list using
commas with all in-service teachers scoring 100%. The lowest percentage correct for

76
pre-service teachers was the correct use of “it’s” and “its”. The lowest percentage
correct for in-service teachers was for the question relating to the conjunction
“while” used to mean “whereas”.

Table 4.9. Frequency of Correct Responses for Pre-service and In-service Teachers
on Individual NAPLAN Questions for Year 5 (N = 115)
Year 5 NAPLAN Questions % Correct

Question on Test Pre-service In-service

32. I love picture books about horses, dolphins and 98.5 100
other animals. (commas to separate a list)

33. When I arrived at school today, I went straight 92.5 97.8

to meet my friends. (verb past tense)

34. Clams live in the ocean and have two shells, 89.6 82.6
while snails have only one shell and live on land.
(conjunction “while” used to mean “whereas”)

35. It’s exciting to see the sailing boat flying 73.1 89.1
across the lake with its sails billowing in the wind.
(apostrophe – contraction v ownership and
exception for “its” no apostrophe for ownership)

The teachers’ performance on individual NAPLAN test questions (Year 7) as

measured by a percentage of the total number of correct responses is presented in
Table 4.10. As can be seen, the percentage of correct responses for pre-service
teachers is more variable. The lowest percentage was for responses to the question on
nominalisation (43.8%) and the highest percentage correct was for the correct use of
the pronoun (100%). In-service teacher percentages range from 53.3% (complex
sentence) to 100% (apostrophe for possession). Pre-service and in-service teachers
percentage correct scores were lowest for two questions; one relating to complex
sentences and the other to nominalisation.

77
Table 4.10. Frequency of Correct Responses for Pre-service and In-service Teachers
on Individual NAPLAN Questions for Year 7 (N = 115)
Year 7 NAPLAN Questions % Correct

Question on Test Pre-service In-service

36. My sister and I ride our bikes to school every 100 91.3
morning. (pronoun)

37. After school Mum is picking us up and we 94.0 91.3

might go to the pool for a swim. (modal verb-
possibility)

38. Raj has forgotten his key and he can’t open the 89.6 95.7
door. (past participle)

39. The cave was cool and enticing. The team 95.5 93.5
entered through the archway framing its inviting
interior. (determiner)

40. They ventured further in, finally emerging into 92.5 88.9
a large dim cavern. At first they had difficulty
seeing their surroundings. (time adverbial)

41. Not only is Jane coming first in English, but 94.0 93.5
she is also in line for the top place in Science.
(verb present continuous)

42. The most popular flavours of ice-cream are 88.1 93.5

vanilla and chocolate. (subject verb agreement) Do
you know that both flavours come from beans?
(auxiliary verb – question form)

43. Paul’s phone was lost at school. (apostrophe 92.5 100

possession)

44. Numerous species of animals live in rainforests 82.1 82.6

all over Earth. Millions of insects, reptiles, birds
and mammals call them home. (pronoun-them)

45. Two years later, John returned from 49.3 53.3

Charleville and started university. (complex
sentence)

78
46. We used the white bread when we ran out of 82.1 78.3
the brown bread. (tautology)

47. A soccer ball is round in shape. (adjective) 79.1 75.6

48. A new 100m breastroke record was set by 74.6 63

Australian swimmer Leisel Jones at the Beijing
Olympic Games. (capitalisation)

49. Lee conducted his science experiment 73.8 86.7

confidently. (adverb)

50. The pottery dish was fired in the kiln. 65.2 73.9
(sequencing)

51. Cleverness (making a noun from an adjective – 43.8 55.8

nominalisation)

52. The racquets for the tennis match are in the 71.9 77.8
locker. (correct sentence grammar and meaning)

4.2.3. Comparing Pre-service and In-service Teacher Grammar Terminology Test

Scores

Before the analysis was undertaken, comparing pre-service and in-service teachers
Grammar Terminology Test Scores, an inspection of a boxplot revealed two outliers
in the pre-service teacher data. However, as they were neither data entry or
measurement errors, they were deemed genuinely unusual values. Further, there was
homogeneity of variances as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variances (p =
0.06). Therefore, while the non-normality may create a Type 1 error, it was deemed
that the independent samples t-test could be considered robust, even so
nonparametric analysis was also undertaken. The in-service teachers scored M =
42.23, SD = 22.74 compared by way of independent samples t-tests with pre-service
teachers M = 32.68, SD = 14.74 (including outliers) and this indicates a statistically
significant difference M = 9.55, 95% CI [2.66, 16.44], t 114 = 2.746, p = .007.
Excluding outliers, pre-service teachers scored M = 32.69, SD = 13.85 which also
indicates a statically significant difference M = 9.55, 95% CI [2.75, 16.35], t 112 =
2.781, p = .006.

79
A Mann-Whitney U test also determined there were significant differences in
grammar terminology test scores between pre-service and in-service teachers.
Although the distributions of the test scores for pre-service and in-service teachers
were similar, as assessed by visual inspection, percentage achievement score was
statistically significantly higher for in-service teachers (Mdn = 40.0) than pre-service
teachers (Mdn = 35), U = 2 002.5, z = 2.153, p = .031.

Overall, even when taking into account these differences, neither the pre-service nor
the in-service teachers’ scores appear to demonstrate a high degree of competency
with grammar terminology as described in the NCE.

4.2.4. Comparing Pre-service and In-service Teacher NAPLAN Test Scores

An analysis was undertaken comparing pre-service and in-service scores on the

NAPLAN test items. Only 3 pre-service and 5 in-service teachers were able to
correctly answer all of the questions taken from primary school NAPLAN questions
in that year.

Further, an inspection of the boxplot revealed five outliers identified in the pre-
service teacher data and two outliers in the in-service teacher data. Data entry and
measurement errors were checked and the values were deemed to be genuinely
unusual. Shapiro-Wilk’s test indicated that the test data were not normally distributed
(p < .05), and the similarly skewed distribution was likely due to the elementary level
of the NAPLAN questions. Thus, there was homogeneity of variances, as assessed
by Levene’s test for equality of variances (p = .417). However, while non-normality
can lead to a Type 1 error, once more the independent samples t-tests were
considered robust. However, once more a nonparametric analysis was also
undertaken.

The analysis showed the in-service teachers scored M = 86.10, SD = 14.46 compared
with pre-service teachers M = 85.15, SD = 12.15 (including outliers) and using an
independent samples t-test this indicated no statistically significant difference M =
.947, 95% CI [3.99, 5.87], t 113 = .380, p = .417. By excluding outliers, the
assumption of variances was violated, as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of
variance (p = .047). Therefore, Welch’s t-test was performed. In-service teacher

80
 scored M = 88.61, SD = 8.16 and pre-service scored M = 88.10, SD = 6.55, but once
more no statistically significant difference was found M = .506, 95% CI [3.44, 2.43],
t(81.798) = .343, p = .732.

A Mann-Whitney U test was then run to determine if there were differences in

analysis of test results using non-transformed data (NAPLAN test scores) between
pre-service and in-service teachers. Distributions of the test scores for pre-service
and in-service teachers were similar, as assessed by visual inspection. Although the
median percentage test score between pre-service (Mdn = 87.5) and in-service
teachers (Mdn = 90.625) on the NAPLAN test appeared different, this was not
statistically significant, U = 1 770, z = .986, p = .324.

Table 4.11. provides a descriptive summary of mean percentage scores for the
teacher participants separated and grouped according to Year 3, Year 5 and Year 7
questions. This is also illustrated in diagrammatically in Figure 4.4.

Table 4.11. Descriptive Summary of Mean Percentage Scores (t-test group statistics)
Separated According to Year 3, Year 5 and Year 7 NAPLAN Questions
Scales and subscales Mean SD

Percentage Correct Year 3 NAPLAN

Pre-service (N = 68) 94.25 9.01

In-service (N = 47) 94.78 10.85

Percentage Correct Year 5 NAPLAN

Pre-service (N = 68) 87.13 19.55

In-service (N = 46) 91.85 19.76

Percentage Correct Year 7 NAPLAN

Pre-service (N = 68) 79.98 13.63

In-service (N = 46) 81.33 15.15

81
 100
PS Teacher

95 IS Teacher

90
Mean Percentage Correct

85

80

75

70
Year 3 Year 5 Year 7

Level of NAPLAN Question

Figure 4.4. Pre-service and in-service mean percentage correct scores (t-test
group statistics) grouped according to Year 3, Year 5 and Year 7 questions.

As stated, the NAPLAN tests were not normally distributed; so parametric (t-test) and non-
parametric (Mann-Whitney U test) tests were undertaken to determine differences between
pre-service and in-service percentage scores. Using Levene’s test for equality of variances, t-
tests indicated no statistical difference (see Table 4.11). However, Mann-Whitney U test
indicated that the Year 5 tests results were significantly greater for in-service teachers (Mdn
= 63.68%) than pre-service teachers (Mdn = 53.32%), U = 1279.50, z = -2.013, p = .044.

A repeated measures ANOVA and, due to the normality issue as indicated above, a non-
parametric Friedman’s test were conducted to determine whether teacher performance was
affected by the increasing complexity from Year 3 to Year 7 questions. Mauchly’s test of
sphericity indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X2(2) = 23.837, p =
.000. Episilon (ε) was 0.765, as calculated according to Greenhouse and Geisser (1959), and
was used to correct the one-way repeated measures ANOVA. It was then found that
percentage of correct NAPLAN scores were statistically different at the different levels of
questions F(1.530, 100.005) = 29.113, p < .001.

To explore the possible reasons for such difference, the following section explores
whether relationships exist between demographic features (age and years since
graduation, speaking a language other than English, and gender) and grammar

82
terminology and NAPLAN test results. It also presents analysis that explores pre-
service and in-service commentary on teacher education programs.

4.2.5. Relationships Between Age and Years since University Graduation,

Grammar Terminology Scores and NAPLAN Test Results

One of the key justifications for a more explicit approach to grammar teaching, as
contained in the NCE, is that for many decades grammar teaching in a more
traditional manner had been absent from mainstream curricula and schools. This may
well be problematic, in that those who are charged with teaching grammar may not
have been taught it. Whether or not this is the case was examined in the current
study. To do this, the key demographic characteristics of age of participants and
years since their university graduation were examined to see if they had any
relationship to their knowledge of grammar terminology and their NAPLAN test
results. Pre-service and in-service teacher demographic characteristics were collated
and correlated with the participants’ test score results. Grammar terminology scores
were normally distributed, but NAPLAN test scores were negatively skewed, which
may be due to the elementary nature of the NAPLAN questions, aimed for Year 3, 5
and 7 primary aged students, and therefore the high frequency of correct responses
from all teachers.

The correlation analysis shows that years of experience since graduation (r = .250, p
= .007) as well as age (r = .316, p = .001) are significantly related to the Grammar
Terminology test results, with those having a lengthier period of time since finishing
university and being older obtaining better scores. However, years since graduation
(r = .246, p = n.s.) and age (r = .123, n.s.) were not significantly correlated with the
NAPLAN results.

4.2.6. Comparing Languages other than English for Pre-service and In-service
Teachers with Grammar Terminology and NAPLAN Test Scores

The test score results for the participants were also compared based on their language
background. Of the participants 26.72% (n = 116) spoke at least one other language
in addition to English. Inspection of a boxplot according to this variable revealed one
outlier for the grammar terminology test and five outliers for the NAPLAN tests.

83
However, these were neither data entry or measurement errors and were deemed
genuinely unusual values. Scores for the grammar terminology were normally
distributed as assessed by the Shaprio-Wilk’s test (p = 0.156) for the “no” (i.e., not a
second language speaker) response, but not for the “yes” (i.e., am a second language
speaker) scores p = 0.033. Scores for the NAPLAN test were not normally
distributed for “no” (p = n.s.) or “yes” (p = 0.001). Therefore, nonparametric analysis
was also undertaken.

Assumption of homogeneity of variances, as assessed by Levene’s test for equality

of variances, was violated for both grammar terminology (p = n.s.) and NAPLAN (p
= 0.038) test results. Teachers who did not have at least one second language, scored
a lower percentage on the grammar terminology test (M = 35, SD = 15.81) in
contrast to teachers who did have at least one second language scoring a percentage
M = 40.82, SD = 25.4. However, Welch’s t-test determined that there was no
statistically significant difference in grammar terminology test scores based on the
participants’ language background M = [5.81, 95% CI (15.67, 4.05); t(38.80) =
1.191, p = 0.241]. A Mann-Whitney U test was also undertaken to determine if there
were differences in the grammar terminology scores of the teachers who have a
second language and those who do not.

Again the distributions of achievement scores for teachers were not similar, as
assessed by visual inspection. Specifically the scores for teachers who do not speak a
second language had a mean rank of 57.21 whereas those who do have at least one
second language had a mean rank of 62.05. However, the analysis showed these were
not statistically significantly different, (U = 1 427.5, z = .690, p = 0.490).

In contrast, the teachers on the NAPLAN assessment test, those who did not have at
least one second language, actually scored a statistically significantly higher
percentage score (M = 87.39, SD = 11.58) than those participants who did (M =
80.54, SD = 15.66), [M = 6.84, 95% CI (0.625, 13.06); t(42.69) = 2.22, p = 0.032]. A
Mann-Whitney U test was also conducted and again this showed a statistically
significantly higher result in teachers without a second language (Mdn = 90.625)
than teachers who did have at least one second language (Mdn = 84.375, U = 896.5, z
= -2.574, p = 0.01).

84
4.2.7. Comparing Gender for Pre-service and In-service Teachers with Grammar
Terminology and NAPLAN Test Scores

Next a comparison was made of the participants’ scores for the grammar terminology
test and NAPLAN results according to gender.

Of the participants (n = 116), 97 were female (83.6%) and 19 were male (16.4%)
reflecting the lower number of male teachers in primary schools. Inspection of a
boxplot identified outliers for both females and males for both the grammar
terminology and NAPLAN tests. Normality, as assessed by the Shapiro-Wilk’s test,
indicated normal distribution for grammar terminology scores for male participants
(p = 0.40), but not female participants (p = 0.002). With respect to NAPLAN scores,
neither male nor female scores are normally distributed (p = n.s.). The grammar
terminology test had homogeneity of variances, as assessed by Levene’s test for
equality of variances (p = 0.324). However, for NAPLAN test scores homogeneity of
variances was violated, as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variances (p =
0.029) and therefore non-parametric analysis was used.

Using an independent samples t-test for the grammar terminology test, there was no
statistically significant difference in the percentage number of correct scores between
male (M = 36.05, SD = 16.46) and female (M = 36.65, SD = 19.43) participants, [M
= 4.76, 95%; CI (10.04, 8.84), t (114) = 0.125, p = 0.901]. A Mann-Whitney U test
was also run to determine if there were differences in grammar test achievement
scores between males and females. Although the distributions of the achievement
scores for males (mean rank = 58.26) and females (mean rank = 58.55) did not
appear to be similar, as assessed by visual inspection, they were not statistically
significantly different, (U = 926, z = .034, p = n.s.).

Welch’s t-test indicated there was also no significant difference between percentage
number of correct scores in the NAPLAN test for males (M = 80.56, SD = 19.84)
and female (86.37, SD = 11.33) participants, [M = 5.91, 95%; CI (15.99, 4.16),
t(19.107) = 1.228, p = 0.234]. Similarly a Mann-Whitney U test found no statistically
significantly difference (U = 1 013, z = 1.085, p = 0.278) for male teachers (mean
rank = 50.22) and female teachers (mean rank = 59.44).

85
4.2.8. Summary

This section provided evidence that in-service teachers generally performed better on
the grammar terminology test than did the pre-service teachers. However, there was
no statistical difference in NAPLAN scores. Even so, no participant scored 100% on
the grammar terminology test and only eight participants (N = 116) scored 100% on
the NAPLAN test questions. While there was no statistical evidence that gender was
a factor on mean test scores for either test, correlation analysis showed a relationship
between years of experience since graduation and an improved performance on the
grammar terminology test. Teachers who spoke only English, and did not speak a
second language of any kind, performed statistically higher on the NAPLAN test
questions, yet not the grammar terminology test.

4.3. Section Three

This section explores teacher beliefs and conceptions of effective grammar teaching
that emerged from the qualitative data. Specifically, pre-service and in-service
beliefs are examined, exploring whether or not, and if so how, an “Explicit and
meaningful teaching of a clear and shared grammar, empowers and provides
individuals with the capacity to express themselves” (See Table 3.6. for the Open
and Axial codes from which this theme was derived). Using thematic analysis (see
Section 3.6.2) a number of categories of beliefs emerged from the data. These are
outlined in detail next.

The first belief centres on the importance of national standards and teaching
grammar. The second category of belief concerns the mutual benefit to first and
second language development of the use of common grammar terminology. The third
category focuses on teachers’ beliefs about methods for grammar teaching. The next
category relates to the teachers’ perceptions about the failures of the NCE to
adequately support grammar teaching and learning. The final category concerns
those external factors that influence a preferred grammar pedagogy and how these
can prevent effective pedagogical practices in schools.

86
4.3.1. A National Standard and Teaching Grammar are Important

Pre-service teachers and in-service teachers commented that the NCE was a helpful
resource and provided clear and articulated benchmarks that are applied across
Australia. As such, it is a resource that facilitates lesson planning. For example, some
participants expressed it this way:
PS5: I think it covers all the bases; it’s pretty comprehensive and relatively
simple to plan to.

PS2: It is a good thing because it’s more specific. Now it is easier for them
(teachers)…this child should be doing exactly this in Grade 4.

IS4: I think owning an Australian version of what is sort of received

grammar, what is the accepted, what’s the recommended, what are we aiming
for, and I think having it outlined in a curriculum statement is a good idea
because I think it does help everyone to have a go to position in a way…a
way of benchmarking yourself.

IS2: I guess they are putting a focus on grammar to try and lift the literacy
levels, which are falling; I think they’ve tried to break it down…I don’t
remember grammar being this clear and explicit.

Both the pre-service and in-service teachers connected the concept of an Australian
standard with their belief that grammar provides structure, allowing students to put
“the right words in the right way” and to communicate their ideas clearly. One
teacher explained this using the analogy of “Legoland”:
IS3: These words are your Lego bricks…and you have to learn those bricks
and how they fit together.

The importance of word order and sentence structure, including labeling parts of
speech, was described by the majority of the participants – both pre-service and in-
service teachers (n=9). For example:
PS2: The ability to speak and write in a non-colloquial way, in more of a
formal situation; in opposition to casual talk that is required for interviews,
job situations. So it’s speaking and writing.

PS4: Sentence structure. When I think of grammar it’s more like the tenses,
past tense, present tense and then nouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, language
features. That’s what I think of when I think of grammar.

PS6: Grammar provides students and teachers with the opportunity to discuss
language. Once there is a common language, teachers and students can
discuss word, sentence and text structures in a playful way, analyse the work
of others, and reflect on the best way to communicate…whatever it is they’re
trying to communicate!

87
 IS1: Grammar is the overall structure of the language. It is everything that
holds it together – the punctuation, the correct parts of speech, subject / verb
agreement, spelling etc.

IS2: I think grammar is just part of people’s speaking in a way, speaking

clearly so that people can understand what you say and what you write. If it’s
not grammatically correct, people won’t understand you correctly.

IS6: It’s about the system of language…how everything fits together to make
meaning.

4.3.2. It is Beneficial for both First and Second Language Development to use a
Common Grammar Terminology

Several pre-service and in-service teachers (N = 5) also described their belief that
second language teaching promotes grammar knowledge and improved
understanding of the first language, so long as the language teaching is more than
just a “language experience” (e.g., as might occur in cultural studies programs).
Additionally, since the introduction of the NCE, language teachers had noticed a
shift in students’ knowledge of grammar terminology:
PS5: I’ve been in a class where the teacher was German and she spoke fluent
German, and she would get her mum in every week, and they would say and
write sentences every week and they would break it down, translate it, and
talk about the grammar in relation to that. And they would talk about how
German was different to English, and that was so powerful… it is a powerful
thing to be able to compare languages.

IS4: …because your awareness of different tenses and different sentence

structures is a transferable thing, and I think that if you learn a second
language and you haven’t encountered grammar in your own language, then it
can be much more threatening and it can become a barrier to learning.

IS2: Then the language teachers that worked here said they noticed a dramatic
difference in language classes because obviously when they’re teaching
language they are constantly talking about sentence structure because it is
different in different languages. And, prior to these last few years, the
children hadn’t got a clue what they were talking about.

IS3: It works both ways; but then when you learn a new language, which is
not your mother tongue, it is going to be beneficial to learn grammar, because
you almost need it to learn another language, and it becomes fun, because it’s
an extra thing…when I started teaching French in Australia over a decade
ago, if I was teaching high school students, if I was talking about verbs and
things, I would get blank stares, and, not from all the students, but mainly.
But now I can go into a Year 2 classroom and talk about verbs and they know

88
 exactly what I mean; I had to adjust my teaching when the new curriculum
came out and so I revised what that these students knew.

Therefore, the results of the qualitative analysis suggested that both pre-service and
in-service teachers believe that learning a second language in a meaningful way
could be a rich experience, and that grammar knowledge used in this second
language-learning context would be transferable to the first language. However, this
belief was not universal, and one in-service teacher raised concerns that pre-service
teachers, who had not experienced an English-based primary and secondary
education, may not have the literacy skills required to teach primary school aged
children English as their first language.
IS4: Well sometimes they actually can’t write English and they haven’t been
to Perth in Australia so they haven’t necessarily got that, they haven’t had
that…what the NCE has offered even on a basic level…(that is important)
Especially, if they are going to go and teach students to read and write.

4.3.3. Grammar Teaching should be an Explicit, Eclectic and Meaningful

Pedagogical Approach

One of the experienced in-service teachers (IS1), jokingly stated, in response to the
question about the most effective way to teach grammar, that “You beat it into the
little bastards.” The implication of this is that the teachers believed many students
would not want to learn grammar, but that it was important to do so. However, the
content was such that teachers have to work hard to make sure their students develop
understanding. To achieve this, explicit teaching was needed.

Both the pre-service and in-service teachers in this study, in general, agreed that
explicit grammar teaching supported children’s learning. This was achieved through
an eclectic, but meaningful approach, whereby correct usage is modelled, issues
discussed in class as they arose, and where specific skill development occurs by
teaching children directly about aspects of grammar. These are then applied in their
own writing or discussed in context.

Overall, the idea of explicit teaching of grammar was well supported by both pre-
service and in-service teachers who acknowledged that “knowing grammar” was
integral to effective teaching and that, sometimes, opportunities for learning were not
maximised.

89
 PS5: Teaching philosophy is “I do, we do, you do”, so you have to have it
down pat…all our writing is modelled. If you can’t get that right, when
you’re showing them in Year 1 or Year 4, or whenever, how are they
expected to know that, you know?

PS3: So those children are still busy in mastering something, while the
teacher is delivering something new to the small group. And then, whilst that
small group is sent to do their follow-up experiences, then the next group is
then taught again, whatever their stage is of English or grammar, the language
that it is, whatever the lesson is… because they are separated in that way.

PS4: Well, you have to know your content. Sometimes, I probably don’t do it
enough, to be honest…The simple things I teach in Year 3, so the simple
things I can correct, but if I’m reading a piece of my student’s writing in
class, it’s not something that comes to mind at first, I don’t think about it,
because you understand the gist of what the student is trying to say even if it
is grammatically incorrect, and so you can just keep going on with it, the
lesson, even though you probably should have stopped it and say, look, this is
probably a better way of saying it…. I’d love to be able to (discuss grammar)
more frequently throughout all lessons.

PS1: So many kids have no idea how to actually start a sentence, or how to
write a paragraph, because they haven’t had the time to have the dedicated
lesson on how to do it properly.

IS3: Oh yes, absolutely, model correct grammar.

IS5: For sure, teachers need to know what they’re teaching… and our school
has a very big drive on direct instruction. So wherever the kids are at, we will
directly teach them, explicitly teach them the next skill.

IS5: I do think you’ve got to explicitly teach things but it’s only of value once
they are using it independently within their writing or comprehension.

IS6: An explicit lesson provides the opportunity to teach a shared language to

enable students and teachers to talk about language. It’s like the platform on
which teachers and students, over their school careers, can analyse and
discuss strengths and weaknesses in the communication of others, and reflect
on how they can improve their own communication skills whether it be
writing or speaking or whatever…of course to do that, the teacher needs to
understand it in the first place and I’m not sure many know it well enough.

However, while teachers agreed that teaching should be explicit, there was also a
majority consensus that grammar lessons alone were insufficient. Pre-service and in-
service teachers described “functional exercises” (IS5), “Contextual exercises” (IS4)
integrating grammar lessons and giving feedback as key components of grammar
teaching.

90
 PS2: You don’t teach grammar in isolation, “Right, kids, get out your
grammar book” which they actually do at the moment. Grammar should be
taught in context with their writing…The children need to see at the time
what they are doing wrong and how to do it better.

PS5: …you don’t have a lesson on grammar per se, its more built into
modelled writing or modelled reading.

PS4: Yeah, I think grammar is in everything and that the way you should
teach it is within everything, it’s not just a standalone thing.

IS5: Functional exercises; they need to understand what words are and what
words to put where; you’re talking about kids being able to form a sentence,
use correct punctuation, make sure they’ve got every part to a sentence.

IS3: A bit like IT, you don’t want to teach computer you want to integrate it
and grammar is the same… it is integrated and not taught as a single standing
subject and that is a good way to go.

IS4: I think teaching all of those things in relationship is really important as

well, because that’s what you have to do when you write…functional
exercises, contextual exercises, and feedback...looking at someone’s work
and highlighting aspects that could be improved or helping them re-write
something, so you’re actually showing them what they can change and how
that can affect their communication skills.

IS2: I do think you’ve got to explicitly teach things but it’s only of value once
they are using it independently within their writing or comprehension.

Pre-service and in-service teachers also commented that grammar teaching should be
fun, should begin early and then increase in complexity as children progress through
their years of schooling.
PS3: Grammar is an abstract concept that requires hands-on materials to be
taught from an early age, so that when they’re older they can understand it
deeper…There’s so many contradictions to the rules that the earlier we
expose children to, even the most simplest concepts of grammar, is very
important, I think, for their further understanding of it in their later years.

PS5: They’ve got to have quite a strong understanding of the really, really
basics, some children are already there but there are so many that need that
real foundation to be able to make any sense of that.

PS1: Start from the lower years, when you’re actually teaching them to read
and write, when you’re writing a sentence or a paragraph, you’re telling them
how you write a sentence or a paragraph, you need to be telling them why
that’s how you write a sentence or a paragraph and why that is right over one
of their simple sentences. Then put together with the words all over the place
or punctuation anywhere or that sort of thing, and then if that happened and
more emphasis was put on teaching grammar, then once kids got to Year 6

91
 they wouldn’t be confused by simple concepts, really, because they’ve been
taught that from the start.

IS3: I say the words in “grammar talk”…really it should be playful, so you

need to start playing with the language…So making it playful, a game, to put
this language together…So you really start as early as they can read. You
start to name the words, it’s a verb, it’s a doing word. So if you start that
really early it becomes second nature and they don’t really think of it.

IS5: I was thinking: they can do that, it’s easy, preprimary can learn that. I
came across several teachers that thought it was cruel to be teaching
preprimary students how to read and cruel to make them write…It’s quite
interesting, it’s fun, and now I’m starting to see it in their writing.

Therefore, while pre-service and in-service teachers appear to value grammar

teaching, think it is important, and that it should be taught explicitly, they also
indicated that it should be applied in a contextual and integrated manner.

4.3.4. Perceived Failures of the National Curriculum: English to Adequately

Support Grammar Teaching and Learning

Pre-service and in-service teachers expressed a range of views on the effectiveness of

the NCE with respect to improving grammar teaching and learning. While some
teachers, as stated previously, suggested that it was well-articulated, specific and
provided an Australian standard that assisted with quality planning, this was not a
view shared by all. Critics of the NCE suggested that it lacked specificity which
allowed it to be too open to interpretation and that the grammar terminology was not
accompanied by a clear pedagogical approach. Others described their belief that it is
confusing and not “kid-friendly”, and that grammar should be given a separate and
dedicated section. For example:
PS1: So there does need to be more in the curriculum, more specification, that
it is its own thing and needs to be dealt with on its own… so it does have the
time and emphasis on its importance anyway, to be able to be literate.

PS4: I think that the National Curriculum doesn’t really have its own…it’s
like grammar is in everything, it doesn’t stand on it’s own. It’s not like
explicitly mentioned.

PS6: It’s like they’ve tried to incorporate grammar into the National
Curriculum, but they haven’t worked out a clear type of grammar, so the
terminology is quite complex and confusing. They’ve tried to make it
explicit, but they’ve failed to make the system of grammar to be taught clear
so that teachers across Australia can teach it consistently.

92
 IS5: The National Curriculum, I don’t think gives you enough detail to know
exactly what to teach in each of the year groups; because every school has a
different take on it, so if they’ve got a National Curriculum for everyone to
follow then I don’t think that the National Curriculum has enough detail
about which year group is taught what skill…some of the writings under Year
1 and Preprimary I think…what the hell? How do you interpret some of
them? Some of it is just ridiculous; sometimes when we’re planning, we’re
actually nutting out what the damn things says, what does it mean, so then we
have to go searching to find out what they are talking about. Some of the
language they use is like, what?

IS6: It’s a bit airy-fairy; quite broad, can be interpreted in different ways and
different schools, different teachers…It’s vague; it can be taken in so many
different ways.

Although, two of the participants had noticed changes in student knowledge of

grammar concepts (as described above), many of the other participants raised
concerns that the NCE has not resulted in a change in student knowledge of
grammar. Nor has it affected how teachers deliver grammar teaching in classrooms.
Several pre-service and in-service teachers suggested that while the NCE had
resulted in conceptual change, it had also impacted on their levels of confidence, as
the language used in the document was confusing to teachers and students. In fact,
there appeared to be an inverse relationship. As the language became increasingly
complex, teachers’ levels of confidence in teaching grammar decreased.
PS1: …even Year 6s they don’t know that’s why a sentence is written that
way that it should be. So they can make up a sentence and know that it makes
sense but they don’t know that’s why it makes sense.

PS3: I feel confident that now that I’ve gone through some Montessori
training that I can teach it in a way that I know the child will understand it
and work through it and won’t have the same level of confusion.

PS4: That’s it; I don’t think it’s a big focus in the Australian Curriculum…I
don’t think the National Curriculum has impacted my teaching of grammar or
how I value the teaching of grammar.

IS2: …when I went to school I didn’t learn the level of grammar that I’m
having to learn now in order to teach it now, to this level. PD I’ve been on in
the last year or two makes me lack confidence in teaching grammar…They’re
saying the level, the level of the kids I’m teaching, they are saying they
should know this, this, this, this and this…and yet I’m finding they don’t
know a lot of the stuff that’s required way prior to that. Therefore I can’t
teach them the stuff that they’re saying they should be being taught so you
go, oh shit, we must be doing it wrong or something…it’s the more complex
ones that I’ve had to really think about…like nominalisation. Like, in the first

93
 15 years of teaching I didn’t know anything about nominalisation…and yet I
still think I could get kids to write reasonable sentences and I didn’t even
know that.

IS6: I’ve had to spend time teaching myself the terminology first, and then
figuring out how that will actually help to improve student learning. The
more I learn the more I realise I don’t know and so sometimes I actually
worry that I’m not teaching it right or certainly not well enough.

In addition to concerns raised on grammar contained within the NCE, both pre-
service and in-service teachers indicated that grammar teaching was not always
taught well or regularly in schools.

4.3.5. Perceived External Interference with “Preferred” Grammar Pedagogy

As indicated above (Section 4.1.1) in-service teachers raised concerns that the
teaching of grammar could be boring and that pre-service teachers had the perception
that grammar teaching was not a priority or a focus in schools. Three of the pre-
service teachers interviewed were also critical of pedagogical approaches that had
been adapted in schools, specifically, the use of worksheets and grammar programs:
PS2: Somebody up there is saying: this is how we have done our school
development plans, and we have these books and do grammar once a
day…which is not the right approach and the teachers know it and the
hierarchy don’t know it and that’s because they’re teaching to a test.

PS3: I don’t think worksheets are appropriate; I definitely see too much of
that. There are a lot of methods that are being applied these days that are not
developmentally appropriate. For what the child’s learning abilities are and
their needs.

In addition, all the pre-service and in-service teacher participants commented about
their concerns regarding the impact of a “standards focus” and the “crowded
curriculum” on grammar pedagogy in schools.
PS2: The only thing in regards to grammar is that I see teachers teaching to
national standardised tests, that’s the major thing I think about. It’s not even
about the curriculum, it’s about teaching to the test…the hierarchy won’t trust
that the teachers will do it and they want evidence that the teachers are doing
it, by saying, right, this is the book, this is the page…I think teachers are
trying to survive. Trying to get through the day-to-day.

PS5: Oh my gosh, there’s so much to fit in, and the days just go, and
especially with the Year 1s they have such short attention spans and you
don’t want to do anything serious in the afternoons because they’re just
hopeless.

94
PS1: It’s right down the bottom of the hierarchy I would think and it’s left
down the bottom. When you’re trying to fit everything into the day, half hour
grammar lesson, it will be shortened or skipped to try and get what is
necessary…what you want to do but what you have to have to get done,
because you’re told you have to do all these other things, so it is put to the
back, but really it does need more time so children understand their language.

PS3: I found myself doing the worksheets and…um…it wasn’t just that, but
time was so rushed and content had to be put in, that I could very easily
identify the children that needed more time and assistance in understanding,
but I couldn’t give them that. That was because of the pressure that was put
on me as a teacher to deliver the curriculum and all that I needed to do as well
as the assessment in order to move onto the next stage.

PS4: Like I said before, sometimes when the kids say something incorrectly,
or if there was a teaching moment, I don’t take advantage of that enough
because you have so much content that you want to cover. And time is not
your friend at that stage, so you just skim over it. You’ve got to keep going
with whatever it is you want to say. I feel like there are so many other
subjects, maybe we feel pressured that we need to focus on more. I feel like
the subjects that I can easily skip over are the teaching of grammar and
handwriting...I feel that those are the two subjects that kind of get lost. I think
the timeframe is the biggest factor, not the National Curriculum itself.

IS2: We have about 5 periods of English a week. Two of those periods are
now explicit skills English lessons where we do spelling, grammar,
punctuation and so on…because apparently from NAPLAN results, and
things like that, we had these massive gaps that, things that we were weak in.
So, we’re putting in skills lessons where we’re following different programs
and this and that…Well, apparently, certainly from a grammar perspective,
the last year’s NAPLAN were all getting better and better, but I just wonder if
that’s because we’re teaching them to answer the questions…I think the fact
that there is such a crowded curriculum we just don’t have time for kids to
write, edit and rewrite, and all of that.

IS5: There’s lots of jargon in teaching in as you know and unless you
understand what the jargon is it’s difficult to get your head around it… No, I
don’t have the time. Sometimes I will look at samples of work to figure out
what they are talking about and then I can go, right, I can apply it this
way…and actually do that.

IS6: It’s a combination of issues. There is so much that has to be taught

across so many subjects that there really isn’t the time to do things well.
Grammar, especially, is something that you try and insert when you can, but
there just isn’t the time to make it rich and meaningful. I hate to say it, but
I’ve basically sold out because so much time is spent providing evidence of
teaching rather than actually having the time to teach concepts well. So, in the
end, you have to teach to the test to make sure they do well on NAPLAN

95
 questions, but whether that means they can apply grammar concepts to
improve their writing is dubious to say the least.

4.3.6. Section Three Summary

Section Three of the Findings provides a description of pre-service and in-service

views on the adaptation of a national standard, benefits and challenges for grammar
teaching and about the NCE more generally, but also suggestions that second
language teaching supports grammar development in the first language. Teachers
also provided suggestions about how grammar teaching should occur in schools and
criticisms on how it is currently being done.

4.4. Section Four

This section contains two further categories of findings emanating from the
qualitative data. The first category concerns the belief articulated by teachers that
“Pre-service Teachers are Unprepared for Grammar Teaching”. Also encapsulated in
this category of beliefs is the sentiment that “Pre-service Teacher Grammar
Knowledge is Too Low” and that “Institutions are Failing to Prepare Pre-service
Teachers adequately for Grammar Teaching in Classrooms”. Finally, the remaining
category of findings includes pre-service and in-service teachers commentary on
their perceptions of how pre-service institutions could better prepare beginner
teachers to teach grammar in Western Australian classrooms.

4.4.1. Pre-service Teacher Grammar Knowledge is Too Low

As stated previously, four of the six beginner teachers found articulating their
conceptions of grammar difficult, while several in-service teachers indicated that the
level of grammar they are having to teach students is increasing in complexity, that it
“…isn’t kid friendly” (IS2) and “I do know that we get very confused…” (IS2).
Teachers were also quite critical of colleagues: “I mean there has been plenty of
teachers I’ve worked with that have had to go and teach themselves about
grammar…I know that at one school that I worked at they had somebody in as the
English Literacy Co-ordinator who actually had never done writing on her own in
front of the class” (IS5). The concern of these teachers appears to be that literacy

96
standards are low and that this has been exacerbated by language pertaining to
grammar in the NCE being too complex for use in the classroom. A perception that
this would particularly affect beginner teachers who lack the experience to distil
concepts appropriately for primary years teaching and learning is illustrated in the
exchange below:
IS5: There’s too much (in the National Curriculum), and it goes beyond, I
think, you start reading some of the contextual understandings and you go,
you know what, stuff all that crap, what do I actually need to teach them.
Some of the writings under Year 1 and Preprimary I think…what the hell?
How do you interpret some of them? Some of it is just ridiculous.

Interviewer: So your concern is that the concepts are such broad concepts,
that the problem is how do you nail that down to a lesson?

IS5: Yes! For a five year old. I think that is half the problem…if I’m
struggling to understand what is it they want me to do, what is a 19 year old
who has not had a huge amount of life experience going to take on that? I
don’t know.

In addition to “life experience”, one in-service teacher who had recent experience
teaching education students at university, observed that a student’s background
(including international students recently arriving in Western Australia to study
education, schooling and / or aptitude) directly related to their literacy levels and
concomitantly their capacity to teach children:
IS4: …someone who has a background in a higher school like one of our
academic schools or a private school, they will be able to write at a certain
level that content wise the work will be richer; but students who haven’t been
to one of those schools may not yet have the capacity to write down their
ideas let alone form the sentence correctly around that idea…(So), One is the
school that they’ve been to and the training they have received and two is that
particular students, either their aptitude or their effort level…someone
coming from a non-English speaking background, it becomes even more
complex. Especially, if they are going to go and teach students to read and
write.

With respect to teachers’ knowledge of grammar terminology and concepts, one in-
service teacher noted that she “…was a bit taken aback when I first started, that, to
realise, that what I was thinking was a given, was actually not a given…” with
respect to teachers’ knowledge of grammar terminology and concepts. However,
with the inception of the NCE, she explained that, “I can definitely talk to teachers
now and their knowledge has increased” (IS3). However, the majority of the in-
service teachers raised concerns either that entry requirements into pre-service

97
education courses are too low and/or that skill levels were insufficiently improved
upon by the time beginner teachers left tertiary institutions. For example:
IS1: Beginner teachers and students on prac., in my experience, have woeful
literacy levels. I’ve often had to edit reports written by new teachers and it is
a perennial concern that some teachers don’t appear to have even the slightest
understanding of basic sentence structure or when to use a comma. This
includes English teachers. It is a genuine concern of mine that I spend a lot
time having to teach new teachers how to write a sentence correctly let alone
teach their students how to.

IS5: I know that teaching is one of the least, the lowest, grades entrance to get
in at university, and do people choose that because it is easy to get into?
…And she (a relative) got in (to pre-service education) and she was going to
be teaching kids and I thought...that’s wrong. It’s really wrong.

IS2: I’m not sure people need to understand the terminology but people’s
literacy levels need to be a lot higher. Like I know some people, reasonably
new graduates that have worked at ******* in the last few years, some of
them can’t even write or spell…It’s a concern that they’ve managed to get
through.

IS4: If someone is not able to write an essay and not able to communicate and
not able to spell and not able to punctuate and not able to construct sentences
that needs to be addressed…because what they were putting on paper was not
English. And, um, they were headed for primary school teaching and I just
think that is a major, major issue.

IS6: I remember at university one of my colleagues said that compared to

other degrees, primary school degrees were as easy to obtain as finding one
inside a cereal packet. What worries me is that it appears as though secondary
students can effectively fail English requirements and then still train to
become teachers. It is crazy to me that these people are teaching children and,
I think, undoubtedly has a knock-on effect of lowering community
expectations of what teachers are capable.

One pre-service teacher also raised concerns over literacy levels of her peers:
PS1: I would never even have thought of it as an issue or how it should and
why it should be taught until I got to uni and I met all these people in my
class who were, actually, I think quite illiterate, can’t speak properly, write
properly or spell, but also have no idea where an apostrophe belongs or how
to form a sensible sentence.

However, most pre-service responses focused on providing examples as to why

English tests conducted to ensure a minimum benchmark of literary levels among
beginner teachers by institutions were ineffective, inadequate or unhelpful in
preparing them for literacy teaching:

98
 PS5: I mean we need to know how to use grammar correctly…but we don’t
need to be experts…it felt like it was really extraneous to the needs of
teachers, but also it didn’t make much sense. It was a bit of a farce, we were
sharing answers because some of the answers weren’t worded well…it didn’t
really contribute anything or demonstrate that we were particularly
competent.

PS4: We did have to sit an English and Mathematics test and you had to get a
minimum to pass that test. But I don’t know how useful that was because
after you finish the test you sort of walk away with nothing. You don’t really
remember anything or get anything out of it.

PS6: I remember I sat a Literacy and Mathematics test at university, which

was relatively easy to pass. However, what never happened was a situation in
which I had to explain to a student how to improve their writing…that didn’t
happen till I hit the classroom and I was responsible for the learning of 26
children and that’s when I realised, shit, I don’t know anything, what did I
actually gain from literacy units at uni?

These descriptions show the concerns of both pre-service and in-service teachers
about the inadequacy of beginner teacher knowledge of grammar terminology and
grammar concepts.

4.4.2. Pre-service and In-Service Teacher Perceptions of Pre-service Education

and Grammar

Several key concerns were raised by pre-service and in-service teachers with respect
to how beginner teachers were prepared for grammar teaching in classrooms. One
pre-service teacher commented that there was “really very well little focus on correct
grammar and that wasn’t a real high priority in university. It didn’t seem to be a
strong priority in people’s writing and speaking” (PS5). This was supported by IS4
who suggested that universities needed to take a greater responsibility in preparing
beginner teachers for teaching grammar to primary children:
IS4: I think once you let somebody into a training course, the result of which
will be them teaching young people to read and write, I think there is a
responsibility on the institution to make sure that those people go out of there
with a certain set of skills and I think that needs to be integrated at all levels.

One in-service teacher suggested that universities are “doing a good job at telling
you how to teach and showing you, modelling, how it’s done…” but that, in contrast,
“it’s the reality of when you go into the classroom that it’s sad. I think universities
are way ahead of the schools” (PS2). However, five of the six pre-service teachers

99
were highly critical of the grammar pedagogy and grammar knowledge experienced
and presented by lecturers at university:
PS5: I think the literacy units I had were so weak, and very disjointed, and
didn’t flow, and a big focus on reading, but very little focus on writing on
grammar or modelling…there were three literacy units and I found them
extremely unhelpful and I have learnt way more in my first term of the
classroom about teaching writing, reading, speaking…English in general,
than I would have possibly in university.

PS1: I would have to teach my lecturers for instance where an ownership

apostrophe and such would go and how the sentence they wrote didn’t make
sense or how they say, no it needs to be written this way, I would say no it
doesn’t, it goes this way. So even the lecturers weren’t great.

PS3: We have literacy units when we’re studying in university, and within
those literacy units you have to write an assignment about the importance of
literacy and how children learn best and all sorts of things. And, in the books
they will give you examples of activities you can do with children to teach a
particular concept. But, something they fail to do, which ultimately they
design their teacher practices for…or teaching placements, is that so the
students can learn how to teach to the students of that age that particular
concept - just giving the activity isn’t enough.

PS4: Yeah, I don’t remember having a grammatical component discussed at

all at university. It was more like spelling, reading, writing…we did speaking
and listening, we followed the First Steps as a textbook at university and all
of our assignments were based on those textbooks, and there was nothing
really about grammar.

PS6: I remember there being a focus on reading and a little on spelling. But
the literacy units left me wholly unprepared for actual literacy teaching and I
don’t particularly recall any focus on grammar. Certainly not on explaining to
a child the “why” and “how” to improve, for example, their writing. I just
didn’t gain any knowledge on grammar from university at all.

Pre-service and in-service teachers also suggested that short-comings in pre-service

education were in part due to perceived systemic issues including low entry
requirements and the change in the way universities work with students, for example:
“because it’s about people passing, people completing, you get money from the
government when people complete degrees” (IS4). It was the perception of some that
it was also the result of tertiary institutions having a “crowded curriculum” – an
experience they share with schools. One pre-service teacher suggested that bridging
the divide between academic studies and preparing beginner teachers for the reality
of classrooms could be achieved by selecting lecturers who were still teaching in
primary schools:

100
 PS5: …they need to have teachers teaching the units instead of academics
teaching the units…they knew their stuff, obviously, and could do great
research, but they didn’t seem to be able…we needed it modelled to us, how
to teach these things…it was so evident when you had somebody who had
recently been in the classroom as a lecturer or as a teacher rather than
someone who had been doing fantastic research.

Several pre-service and in-service teachers commented on this issue, describing a

divide between tertiary education and the classroom:
PS2: When I get into the school no one is going to care what I’ve learnt from
that book, they’re only going to care that I do exactly what I’m told.

PS3: I found that when I was doing my pracs I was…all the theories…and
this is what is very unfortunate, all the theories that we learn at university,
you know your Reggio Emilia, project based learning, how Gardner’s
multiple intelligence theories…they’re all very inspiring and when you go out
into a school on your placements, you want to apply them and see how you
can make learning more exciting and fun, and also more meaningful for the
child. But, unfortunately, you find yourself just perpetuating the system as it
was, because the mentor teachers that you find yourself under, as a teacher,
have the final say and will often criticise the way that you do things…and I
found myself becoming the teacher that I didn’t want to be.

PS5: That is where you learn things and apply them, but I’ve been with the
literacy specialist in the school and I have learnt so much more than I did in
university. It’s hands-on; you really need to get in there to learn how to do it.

PS4: To be completely honest, what I feel that I’ve taken from uni is very
little. I’ve taken a lot more from going on practical experiences, like to
different schools, sitting in on lessons, looking at how teachers teach. I’ve
taken away more valuable things from those experiences rather than my
actual classes that I sat in uni.

PS6: Of course entering the classroom for the first time as an independent
teacher there will still be learning and growth. However, I feel strongly that
expectations of the content knowledge a teacher should have need to be
considerably higher so that it’s one less thing we have to worry about when
we’re standing in front of our own class for the first time.

IS5: To be perfectly honest, when I first started teaching, I learnt a lot about
grammar that I wasn’t taught at school. I went on courses about language and
how language is developed and so we needed to…you know, the
underpinnings of language itself we weren’t taught. If that was taught better
than actually applying the grammatical skills to it would have been better. So
there were lots of things that I learnt as a student teacher, or even as a
graduate teacher with the school putting you on courses, which I think our
kids aren’t being taught.

101
However, while pre-service and in-service teachers described concerns over pre-
service education, there were also suggestions for how some of these issues might be
addressed. For example, IS4 suggested the idea of a mentor, someone’s “job to make
sure that the people who get into teaching degrees go out not replicating bad patterns,
not replicating their problematic language skills” (IS4).

Other suggestions for improvement focused on the way assessments are structured.
For example, “Some units, if you haven’t completed one piece of work, even if you
get 50%, you still fail” (IS4). Another assessment structure this teacher thought
might provide a good safeguard included limiting group assignments. The reason is
that an individual working in a group might be able to lean on their colleagues rather
than have to rely on their own aptitude and abilities.

PS5 suggested that when at university she “Needed to see these things (methods for
grammar teaching) in action…then question why it does / doesn’t work” (PS5) in the
classroom. Whereas PS3 suggested that the problem was not what was being taught
at university, but how. She indicated that pre-service teachers needed to be taught
how to manage tensions such as testing expectations and the “crowded curriculum”
by thinking about how a school day can be structured to relieve some of those
pressures:
PS3: Grammar is an abstract concept that requires hands-on materials to be
taught from an early age so that when they’re older they can understand it
deeper. But in order for that to be done effectively time needs to be given in a
way that isn’t an extra an hour in the day for language but the whole system
and the way the day is structured and the pressures that are being put on both
teachers and students. I think it’s the whole system unfortunately, not so
much necessarily what’s being taught but how.

PS4 noted that at the very least grammar knowledge should be “…incorporated in
their literacy units…Just having a brainstorm, a recap of all the grammatical
knowledge that children should know in primary school would be really handy.”
Developing this further, IS4 suggested a much more deliberate, wide-reaching
approach:
IS4: It needs to be systemic, worked into the system and needs to be seen as
something important that each student walks out with these skills and if they
don’t then something is done about it.

102
4.4.3. Section Four Summary

Section Four of the Findings presents pre-service and in-service concerns that
beginner teachers lack the requisite knowledge of grammar terminology and
concepts when entering classrooms as beginner teachers. Teachers referred to
perceptions including entry requirements into pre-service education may be too low,
literacy tests to ensure minimum standards of literacy for pre-service teachers
ineffective, and that skill levels were insufficiently improved by the conclusion of
pre-service teacher tertiary experiences. This section concludes with suggestions
from teachers on how pre-service institutions might better prepare beginner teachers.

103
 Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion

There is little doubt that the NCE (and subsequent state curriculums) and the
curricular reform process in general have focused attention on grammar and
grammar teaching. However, as noted by Fontich and Camps (2014), “the place held
by grammar teaching has been, and continues to be, a source of controversy” (p.
599). The aim of this research was to determine what is necessary in terms of pre-
service teacher education regarding “grammar knowledge” and “grammar teaching”.
The discussion below explores similarities and differences between pre-service and
in-service teacher perspectives including the value of teaching grammar, how it is
conceptualised, and preferred pedagogical approaches. It outlines concerns by pre-
service and in-service teachers that tension still remains between pedagogical theory
and practice in classrooms. This includes potential gaps in teacher knowledge of
grammar terminology and concepts derived from the NCE, with implications for
policy-makers and curriculum writers. Finally, pre-service institutions are challenged
to consider changes required to provide beginner teachers with the knowledge and
confidence to enter the profession well equipped to teach grammar according to the
NCE or, alternatively, lead change toward providing beginner teachers with
opportunities to study, strengthen and broaden metalinguistic knowledge.

5.1. Teachers Value Grammar and NCE Limitations

Qualitative analysis confirmed that both groups of teachers support “Explicit and
meaningful teaching of a clear and shared grammar” based, it seems, on the belief
that it “empowers and provides individuals with the capacity to express themselves.”
However, when their perceptions were examined quantitatively, the results showed
that the pre-service teachers placed a statistically greater importance on teaching
grammar to students than in-service teachers (M = 0.364, 95% CI [0.09, 0.64], t(113)
= 2.648, p = .009) connecting it with the role that they believe it plays in developing
writing. Similar studies have found that pre-service teachers at primary and
secondary level value grammar teaching (Cajkler & Hislam, 2002; Turvey, 2000).
Correlational analysis also supported this, showing a positive relationship between
the idea that teaching grammar to students is important and teaching grammar helps
students to become better writers (r = .743, p = .000). While these findings indicate

104
that in-service teachers did not deem it as important as pre-service teachers, the
overall results show that both pre-service and in-service teachers agree that there is
value to teaching grammar. These responses might indicate a shift in teacher beliefs
and understanding about the role of grammar and, consequently, could affect how
grammar is enacted in classrooms (Clark, 2010).

While there is general agreement by teachers that teaching grammar is of value, the
findings also suggest that the NCE may have fallen short in achieving an Australian
standard. That is, although the Australian curriculum writers may have had a clearer
rationale, when introducing grammar into the NCE than other Anglophone countries
(Myhill & Watson, 2014), the decision to include a fusion of traditional Latinate and
functional terminology to bridge a gap between experienced teachers and beginner
teacher knowledge of different systems (Exley & Mills, 2012; Mulder, 2011), may
have caused unnecessary complexity and confusion for teachers across the spectrum
of teaching experience.

These layers of difficulty were exemplified in the current study with both pre-service
and in-service teachers expressing concerns over the increasing levels of complexity
of grammar required by NCE and also their confusion over different grammar books,
methods and practices appearing in schools (PS1; PS3; PS4; IS2; IS6). Pre-service
teachers and in-service teachers (PS2; PS3; PS5; PS1; IS5; IS6) expressed concerns
that this resulted in teachers turning to worksheets and schools turning to “quick fix”
approaches in order to meet test requirements (PS2; IS6), a suggestion supported in
the literature by Dunn and Lindblom (2003). Furthermore, similar to studies showing
a lack of confidence in defining grammar in the UK and USA (Hislam & Cajkler,
2005; Petruzella, 1996; Pomphrey & Moger, 1999; Qualifications & Curriculum
Authority, 1998; Watson, 2012), four of the six beginner teachers found it difficult to
articulate their conceptions of grammar with any clarity. Research in Western
Australia has also suggested teachers do not feel confident about teaching grammar
when they complete their training, similar to findings in this study (Louden & Edith
Cowan University, Department of Education, Science and Training, National
Literacy and Numeracy Strategies and Projects Programme, 2005). Also, with
respect to traditional grammar, primary teachers felt less confident in contrast to their
knowledge of genre and text types (Hammon & Macken-Horarik, 2001). Five
teachers expressed that the level of grammar they are having to teach is increasing in

105
complexity and affecting their confidence in teaching these concepts well (PS1; PS3;
PS4; IS2; IS6). Teachers also criticised the NCE, suggesting it lacked specificity and
was too open to interpretation (PS1; PS4; PS6; IS5; IS6) resulting in inconsistency
with different concepts and approaches taught in different schools. They also
indicated that it contains confusing and “excessive jargon” (IS5) that the “The Shape
of the Australian Curriculum: English” (2009a) suggested should be avoided.

The idea that the Curriculum is an evolving document and that “Good teachers will
look at it as an opportunity to refresh their classroom practices and deepen their
professional knowledge” has merit (Derewianka, 2012, p. 144). However,
considering the general perception that, up until the NCE, there had been an absence
of grammar instruction in Australian schools for many years (Hudson & Walmsley,
2005; Jones & Chen, 2012), it might have been more effective for policy-makers and
curriculum writers to introduce a comprehensive, single theorised approach to
grammar, with a clear and consistent supporting metalanguage. Studies have
suggested building upon traditional grammar rather than replacing the metalanguage
for another completely (Collins, Hollo & Mar, 1997; Horan, 2002; Huddleston,
1989; Mulder & Thomas, 2009). However, this study, similar to the findings of
Clandinin (1986), showed that all the participants suggested that their understanding
of grammar was primarily obtained from personal experiences, be this learning at
school (as with Anning, 1988; Britzman, 1991; Knowles, 1992), from their home
environment, or once teaching in classrooms and acquiring knowledge in an ad-hoc
manner necessitated by a requirement to meet the needs of student learning in their
classrooms. Therefore, the lack of a consistent approach for so many years (Fontich
& Camps, 2014; Hudson & Walmsley, 2005; Myhill & Watson, 2014) appears to
have created concern amongst teachers about their knowledge of grammar. As such,
a number of participants share beliefs that there is a need for a well-theorised,
consistent and useful metalanguage (as currently attempted in the NCE) – one
supported by clear pedagogical approaches. There is less agreement that this has
been achieved in the current curriculum. At the same time, bringing together more
than one method has, unsurprisingly, led to further confusion, rather than providing
clarity of terminology, method and utility.

A majority of the experienced in-service teachers were clear that they did not want a
return to grammar if it was taught in the “boring” way they had experienced in

106
school (IS2; IS3, IS4; IS6), nor did they wish to return to the “traditional” and
“handbook rules” of schools that is also believed to be counter-productive to student
learning (Dunn & Lindblom, 2003). As stated, pre-service teachers also shared their
concerns. They indicated that teachers should not rely on worksheets and grammar
books as a way of “ticking the box” of teaching grammar to students (PS2; PS3;
PS5), without actually teaching it in a pedagogically meaningful way for students.
Thus it seems, that pre-service and in-service teachers share the idea that grammar
teaching needs to be purposeful and provide students with the “overall structure”, to
understand the systems of language and “everything that holds [it] (literacy)
together” (IS4). In this way both groups of teachers also appear to reject the
traditional grammar approach that focuses on prescriptive rules and mastering those
rules in an environment of “rote learning…devoid of context…” (Mulder & Thomas,
2009, p. 18).

While findings in this study showed that teachers generally support the idea that
grammar should be taught explicitly (Hammon & Macken-Horarik, 2001), a number
also indicated that it should not be done in isolation. Therefore, with regard to the
current research, the question and challenge for educators was not that as described
by Beers (2001, p. 4) one of “Do we teach grammar?”, but “How do we teacher
grammar in context?” Pre-service and in-service teachers articulated a shared belief
that the challenge of grammar teaching was to make it explicit, yet eclectic in
approach and meaningful (Section 4.1.1). In fact, two participants suggested that
grammar teaching should be fun and playful (PS5; IS3) for the pupils and should
begin simply and then increase with complexity as students make their way through
school (PS1; PS3; PS5; IS3; IS5). One pre-service teacher described in detail the
importance of making grammar teaching a concrete experience for early learners
(PS3), which corresponded with an in-service teacher who would often use small
groups to teach specific grammar concepts at different levels for students in early
primary including pre-primary (IS5). Pre-service and in-service teachers articulated a
combination of explicit teaching of grammar. While IS2, expressly articulated that
too much focus on isolated grammar, in light of time constraints faced by schools,
would sometimes not allow students time to “write…just write” (IS2).

Further, while both pre-service and in-service teachers discussed direct grammar
instruction and starting from an early age, neither group of teachers felt it should

107
interfere with children writing or communicating. In this way, this aligns with the
analogy used by Dunn and Lindblom (2003) that when children are learning to walk,
they crawl first, but that parents applaud and “don’t lecture their babies on bad
crawling form or make them perform leg exercises before they start across the room”
(p. 44). If the focus is communication, then the purpose of text is critical and
“Prioritizing ‘the rules’ of grammar is not the path to success in the world” (Dunn &
Lindblom, 2003, p. 45), nor in classrooms.

Not all the findings were critical and support for the NCE was given by the
participants, with the in-service teachers noting that a consistent metalanguage had,
and could further, support students in meaningful second language studies instead of
a mere language “experience” (IS2; IS3; IS4; IS6). One pre-service teacher
expressed admiration for language teaching in a Year 2 class that supported both
English and German, using grammar to expand students’ knowledge of both
languages (PS5).

In this way, the participants of the current study support the ideas put forward by
Cajkler and Hislam (2002) that teaching grammar in such a way can develop
thinking skills, support foreign-language learning and that it “helps children to
expand their competence to include the many grammatical patterns which are needed
in adult life but not found in children’s casual conversation” (Hudson & Walmsley,
2005, p. 594).

In addition, the two groups of teachers supported the notion that there is a need to
“know grammar” to model usage, teach grammar directly and give detailed feedback
to students at the point of need. Grammatical concepts could then be applied in
students’ language use, not in isolation, but by integrating and contextualising its use
in a functional way (see Section 4.3.3). However, teachers also acknowledge that
external factors could often interfere with their pedagogical ideals. In particular, that
the “standards focus” and NCE had created a “crowded curriculum” and that
NAPLAN was forcing some teachers to teach to the test, or drop grammar down the
hierarchy of literacy skills, or teach it in a disconnected, isolated way (Section 4.3.5).

In summary, the NCE was created to provide an Australian standard with an

intention to include explicit grammar concepts. It is possible that this initiative has

108
resulted in pre-service and in-service teachers placing greater value on grammar
teaching. Coupled with this, is the significance they give to contextual and functional
models of pedagogical grammar. The participants also highlighted a number of
challenges pertaining to the curriculum and to pedagogy. First, the NCE does not
appear to have provided the consistent and shared metalanguage that enables
teachers “to construct and deconstruct texts” (Jeurissen, 2010, p. 78). Secondly, that
the NCE has not resulted in pre-service teachers, in particular, knowing how best to
define and conceptualise grammar. Thirdly, emerging from the qualitative data, pre-
service and in-service teachers admitted that with the perception of an increase in
complexity of grammar terminology and concepts, they recognise their own
limitations with respect to their grammatical content knowledge and, as a
consequence, their confidence to teach grammar (Myhill et al., 2013).

5.2. Pre-service and In-service Teacher Grammar Knowledge

The quantitative findings provided further support for this, revealing a number of
limitations for both pre-service and in-service teachers regarding their own
grammatical content knowledge of terminology and concepts within the NCE. For
example, only 53.6% of pre-service and 51.1% of in-service teachers were able to
identify the correct definition, as outlined in the glossary of the NCE, of the term
“grammar” and the mean achievement scores in the grammar terminology test for
both the in-service and pre-service teachers were less than 50%. This is a similar
result to that of Harper and Rennie (2009), who found limited understanding
amongst teachers about parts and structure of sentences and metalinguistic
knowledge of terms that extended beyond “noun”, “verb” and “adjective” (p. 27).
The findings in this research also indicate that both groups of teachers were only able
to recognise comparatively basic definitions of a “simple sentence”, “compound
sentence” and “noun”. All the teachers scored less than half correct for all other
terminology questions contained in the multiple-choice test.

This study suggests that there is a difference between pre-service and in-service
teachers in terms of grammar terminology knowledge, with the latter statistically
outperforming the former (M = 9.55, 95% CI [2.66, 16.44], t 114 = 2.746, p = .007).
Even so, neither pre-service nor in-service teachers demonstrated competency with

109
the NCE terminology (Pre-service M = 32.68% SD = 14.74% and in-service M =
42.23% SD = 22.74%). Considering it was grammar derived directly from the NCE
Glossary and a multiple-choice test, this provides a clear challenge to policy-makers,
schools and pre-service institutions to address either the type of grammar and
terminology in the NCE, to consider providing a more accessible and useful
grammatical approach, or to ensure a focus on ensuring teachers have a better
knowledge about and understanding of the NCE in its current form.

Interestingly, the Likert responses suggested a trend (not a statistical significant

difference) showing that pre-service teachers rated their own understanding of the
NCE more highly than in-service teachers (Pre-service M= 3.28 SD 0.69; In-service
M = 3.02 SD 0.94). It is a result similar to previous research showing that the less a
teacher knows or understands grammar, the more they tend to over-estimate what
they think they know (Moats, 2009). This is concerning because teachers may
confidently pass on misconceptions to their students. The potential for this was
further supported by the correlation analysis that revealed a strong relationship
between teacher perceptions of having an excellent understanding of the NCE and
having an excellent understanding of grammar concepts described within it (r = .615,
p = .0001), and also that the more teachers believe they understand concepts the
more confident they feel in teaching it (r = .612, p = .000). Therefore, exposing
teachers to greater metalinguistic awareness at university or through PD might
enable teachers to better assess their level of knowledge and teach accordingly.

The quantitative analysis also appears to support the qualitative findings that pre-
service and in-service teachers share concerns over the increasing complexity of
grammar concepts. Pre-service percentage correct scores ranged from 83.8% to
100% in response to Year 3 NAPLAN questions, increasing to a range of 43.8% to
100% for Year 7 concepts. For in-service teachers, the percentage correct scores for
individual questions ranged from 87.2% to 100% for Year 3 questions, increasing to
53.3% to 100% for Year 7 questions. These findings might also suggest that, as
interview participants suggested, teachers learn grammar concepts out of necessity
and only to the level required by the year of students that they teach. Nevertheless,
that only 8 teachers of 116 participants were able to achieve 100% in NAPLAN test
items given to primary students is concerning, particularly as weak subject
knowledge can generate student misunderstanding (Myhill et al., 2013). This also

110
supports findings that secondary teachers graduating from Bachelor of Education
courses in Western Australia lack personal literacy, including grammar, raising
concerns over appropriate admission standards into teaching university programs
(Moon, 2014, p. 127-128).

Clearly, what teachers need to know about language and what they need to teach
with respect to subject knowledge needs to be carefully considered, with Leech
(1994) and Perera (1987) agreeing that “teachers’ grammatical knowledge needs to
be richer and more substantive than the grammar they may need to teach to students”
(Myhill et al., 2013 p. 79). There remains the sense that there is a tendency for pre-
service and in-service teachers to associate grammar with rules and accuracy and that
external pressures restrict them in terms of the pedagogical approach they can take.
Despite this, when the participants discussed the value of grammar, their language
would shift to meaning-making, the need for contextualisation and playful or
rhetorical approaches. As in other recent research, teachers appear to value
metalinguistic awareness to provide students with conscious choices (Watson, 2012),
but worry that grammar teaching, due to their own knowledge or external factors,
may also be “antipathetic to freedom and creativity” (Wilson & Myhill, 2012, p. 11).

Therefore, while findings in this study support other research that raise concerns over
beginning teachers’ lack of preparedness to teach literacy in schools (Harper &
Rennie, 2009; Louden et al., 2005) and support the idea that linguists could
contribute more to the study of English teaching, particularly in Western Australian
primary classrooms. Notably, since this research was conducted, attempts have been
made to improve confidence in the skills of graduating teachers through The Literacy
and Numeracy Test for Initial Teacher Education Students (LANTITE). The purpose
of this test is to assess teacher education students’ personal literacy and numeracy
skills as a requirement prior to graduation. However, while this test may attempt to
address personal literacy levels of graduating teachers, still, linguistic “expertise is
urgently needed” (Hudson & Walmsley, 2005, p. 618) to provide a clearer rationale,
terminology and method that teachers can use in classrooms. For even though there
is now a “branch of research devoted specifically to educational linguistics”
(Derewianka, 2012, p. 140), it does not appear to be filtering into primary schools
and providing a clear and consistent framework for teachers and, as a consequence,
their students. Even if this recommendation cannot be enacted, it is clear that pre-

111
service institutions in Western Australia must act to provide their students with a
much richer metalinguistic understanding so that they can be empowered and feel
confident in moving beyond their implicit knowledge and realise the aim of the NCE
to foster a “coherent, dynamic, and evolving body of knowledge about the English
language and how it works” (ACARA, 2009a, p. 6).

Overall, if “the Language Strand of The Australian Curriculum: English is informed

by an approach that sees language as a system of resources for making meaning”
(Derewianka, 2012, p. 139) and teachers struggle to “simultaneously understand the
linguistic terminology themselves and teach it effectively” (Myhill, 2005, p. 90),
then there is much more work needed on raising linguistic awareness, both for novice
and more experienced teachers. In particular, the findings of the current study show
that beginner teachers are feeling the impact of the increasing complexity of
grammar terminology and concepts. This reflects the concerns that have been raised
in a number of studies in the UK (Andrews, 1994, 1999; Bloor, 1986; Burgess,
Turvey & Quarshie, 2000; Chandler, Robinson & Noyes, 1988; Hislam & Cajkler,
2005; Williamson & Hardman, 1995; Wray, 1993) and in the USA (Kolln &
Hancock, 2005). However, it should be acknowledged that pre-service teachers in
this study were only drawn from one university in Western Australia. Therefore,
more research into what is offered in other pre-service teacher training institutions
and pre-service experiences also needs to be investigated to provide greater
generalisability.

5.3. Implications for Pre-service Education in Western Australia

The gap between the knowledge requirements of students in primary classrooms and
what the tertiary environment is providing needs to be bridged. Thus, there are clear
implications for pre-service education at the university level with respect to the
teaching of grammar pedagogy and grammar knowledge. How this is best achieved
is still open to debate, but what is clear is the need for beginner primary school
teachers to have the required subject knowledge so that they may support their
students to develop a common understanding of how language works (Myhill &
Watson, 2014). Irrespective of the utility or otherwise of the NCE, a concern
emerging from the findings of the current study is that beginner teachers appear to

112
lack understanding of grammar terminology and concepts as defined by the NCE. As
such, pre-service institutions may need to enhance the language component of their
teacher training programs (Kolln, 1996).

Participants in this study provided suggestions including the use of dedicated

mentors throughout their studies, responsible for ensuring the development of
literacy and pedagogic skills so they can adequately teach grammar. Some suggested
teachers still in classrooms would be useful for this role. Others indicated that
literacy units needed to be structured differently to better develop individual
knowledge and that this should be then tested in fair and accurate ways (see Sections
4.4.1 and 4.4.2). In addition, there appears to be a desire from teachers, coupled with
an apparent need (as demonstrated by the test results) for more grammar to be
incorporated into literacy units.

The literature also provides suggestions for how grammar teaching can be better
developed. For example, Dunn and Lindblom (2003) suggest immersing students in
the controversies that surround grammar, holding public grammar debates to
juxtapose usage conflicts so that students can “make difficult but informed choices
regarding each rhetorical situation: level and type of formality needed, possibilities
for changes in active or passive voice, point of view, vocabulary, sentence structure,
formatting, copy editing conventions, etc.” (p. 47-49). As suggested by participant
PS5, pre-service institutions could use an inductive approach, exploring the breadth
of theories and pedagogical approaches for teaching grammar. They could also
encourage teachers to actively explore language use in context, so that they can then
model this to their students.

Discursive dialogue from the interviews provides universities with the opportunity
for introspection and to review their own pedagogical practices. For example, some
participants suggested that university level entry requirements for teaching
qualifications are too low and literacy levels of beginner teachers are of concern. Pre-
service teachers also suggested that benchmark English tests were conducted in a
manner that was ineffective and inadequate in testing knowledge of grammar
terminology and concepts, while simultaneously unhelpful in preparing beginner
teachers for literacy teaching. Additionally, that there was little focus in the literacy
units on preparing beginner teachers for grammar teaching in classrooms. More

113
broadly, one in-service teacher suggested that a heavy reliance on group work
assessments provided opportunities for individuals to avoid their knowledge and
understanding being tested effectively, until (ultimately) they might be alone in a
classroom. All of these issues highlight the challenge for universities in bridging the
gap between theoretical studies and the reality of classroom practice in schools with
competing priorities.

There may also be a role for staff at pre-service institutions to further debate
grammar terminology used in the NCE, with some suggesting it has “serious
deficits” (Mulder, 2011, p. 835). This is particularly urgent given the argument that
the glossary contains inaccuracies and inconsistencies, likely to cause confusion, and
in need of informed insight by research-based linguistics to support teachers in
“furthering their skills in language and grammar teaching pedagogy” relevant to the
needs of students (Mulder, 2011, p. 844); a position certainly reflected in the current
findings. There is also need for a dialogue about how to prepare beginner teachers
for the rigors of programming within an imperfect system and how to be “creative
and resourceful ‘adapters’ of published materials” (Myhill et al., 2011, p. 10). This
may include the use of a model suggested by Fontich and Camps (2014, p. 599)
about using metalinguistic activity for reflection about language and “an approach to
classroom activities based on interaction, and focused both on the use of language
and on the students’ metalinguistic capacities.” Regardless of how this is done, pre-
service institutions must continue to work hard to bridge the gap between theoretical
and academic discourse at the university level, to better prepare novice teachers for
the practical realities of the classroom. As Bigelow and Ranney suggest:
Reflections lend doubt to the assumption that it is enough to provide separate
instruction on grammar and instruction on pedagogy with the expectation that
pre-service teachers will then be able to put the two together. Even with a
grammar course that was especially designed to make these connections, the
issue of how to apply the knowledge to teaching was the major concern that
participants expressed. (2005, p. 194)

5.4. Conclusion

There is little doubt that the NCE and the decision to provide a “traditional grammar
with an overlay of function grammar terminology” (Mulder, 2011, p. 840) has
provided pre-service and in-service teachers with a sometimes confusing and

114
complex metalanguage on which to plan and teach. Nevertheless, grammar and
grammar teaching in Australia continues to develop, although, as this research
indicates, there is still more to be done to ensure that teachers have a useful
framework, requisite subject and pedagogical knowledge, and school environments
that ensure it is meaningfully taught in schools. External pressures, some believe, are
preventing teachers from teaching grammar how they believe it should be taught, and
this problem is further exacerbated by policy-makers, curriculum writers and
academics who, with best intentions, have fallen short in providing a grammar that is
well-theorised, consistent, purposeful and meaningful for Western Australian
teachers and students. In the meantime, pre-service institutions can assist by making
grammar and metalinguistic knowledge a priority for beginner teachers inspiring
further, well-informed debate so that teachers may realise their goal of providing
students with a repertoire of knowledge about language that empowers and provides
individuals with the capacity to express.

115
 References

Alderson, J.C., Clapham, C., & Steel, D. (1997). Metalinguistic Knowledge,

Language Aptitude and Language Proficiency. Language Teaching Research,
1(2), 93-121.

Alderson, J.C., & Horak, T. (2011). Metalinguistic knowledge of undergraduate

students of English language and linguistics. Lancaster: Subject Centre for
Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies in Higher Education.

Allen, R. (Ed.). (2008). Pocket Fowlers Modern English Usage. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Allen, J.P.B., & Widdowson, H.G. (1975). Grammar and Language Teaching. In
J.P.B. Allen & S.P. Corder (Eds.), The Edinburgh Course in Applied
Linguistics. Papers in Applied Linguistics Volume 2 (pp. 45-98). London:
Oxford University Press.

Andrews, R. (2005). Knowledge about the teaching of sentence grammar: The state
of Play. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 4, 69-76.

Andrews, S. (1994). The grammatical knowledge and awareness of Hong Kong

teachers of English. In N. Bird, P. Falvey, ABM Tsui, D. Allison, & A.
McNeill (Eds.), Language and learning (pp. 508-520). Hong Kong: Institute
of Language in Education.

Andrews, S. (1999). Why do L2 teachers need to ‘know about language’? Teacher

metalinguistic awareness and input for learning. Language and Education,
13(3), 161-177.

Andrews, S., & McNeill, A. (2005). Knowledge about Language and the ‘Good
Language Teacher’. In N. Bartels (Ed.), Researching Applied Linguistics in
Language Teacher Education (pp. 159-178). Boston: Springer Science +
Business Media, Inc.

Anning, A. (1988). Teachers’ theories about children’s learning. In J. Calderhead

(Ed.), Teachers’ professional learning (pp. 128-145). London: Falmer.

116
Arksey, H., & P. T. Knight (1999). Interviewing for social scientists: An introductory
resource with examples. London: Sage Publications.

Armstrong, K. (2004). Sexing up the dossier: A semantic analysis of phrasal verbs

for language teachers. Language Awareness, 14, 213-224.

Australian Association for the Teaching of English (AATE). (2009). Response to the
National English Curriculum: Framing Paper from AATE Council.
Retrieved from
https://www.aate.org.au/documents/item/75

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), (formerly

National Curriculum Board). (2008). National English Curriculum: Framing
paper. Retrieved from
http://www.acara.edu.au/_resources/FramingEnglishFINAL_300109.pdf

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), (formerly

National Curriculum Board). (2009a). The Shape of the Australian
Curriculum: English. Retrieved from
http://www.acara.edu.au/_resources/Australian_Curriculum_-_English.pdf

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), (formerly

National Curriculum Board). (2009b). Framing Paper Consultation Report:
English. Retrieved from
http://www.acara.edu.au/_resources/consultation_report_-_english.pdf

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), (formerly

National Curriculum Board). (2009c). The Shape of the Australian
Curriculum. Retrieved from
http://www.acara.edu.au/_resources/The_Shape_of_the_Australian_Curriculu
m_May_2009_file.pdf

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2010).

Australian Curriculum: English. Retrieved from
http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au.

117
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2011). The
Australian Curriculum Version 1.2. Retrieved from
http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Static/docs/history/2.0/Australian%2
0Curriculum%20v1.2.pdf

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2013). My

School Fact Sheet. Retrieved from
www.myschool.edu.au

Baron, D. (2003, May 16). Teaching grammar doesn’t lead to better writing. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(36), 1-8.

Balzarolo, K. (2010). Getting Started with Functional Grammar in an Upper Primary

Classroom. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 18(3), 20.

Bartels, N. (2002). Professional preparation and action research: Only for language
teachers? TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), 71-79.

Bartels, N. (2005). Applied Linguistics and Language Teacher Education. Boston,

USA: Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.

Beers, K. (2001). Contextualising Grammar. Voices from the Middle, 8(3), 4.

Berger, J. (2001). A Systematic Approach to Grammar Instruction. Voices from the

Middle, 8(3), 43-49.

Bigelow, M.H., & Ranney, S.E. (2005). Pre-Service ESL Teachers’ Knowledge
about Language and its Transfer to Lesson Planning. In N. Bartels (Ed.),
Researching Applied Linguistics in Language Teacher Education (pp. 179-
200). Boston: Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.

Bloor, T. (1986). What do language students know about grammar? British Journal
of Language Teaching, 24(3), 157-160.

Board of Education. (1921). The teaching of English in England (The Newbold

Report). London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office. [Later edition 1938].

118
Borg, S. (1998). Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative
study. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 9-38.

Borg, S. (1999a). Studying teacher cognition in second language grammar teaching.

System, 27(1), 19-31.

Borg, S. (1999b). The use of grammatical terminology in the second language

classroom: A qualitative study of teachers’ practices and cognitions. Applied
Linguistics, 20(1), 95-126.

Borg, S., & Burns, A. (2008). Integrating Grammar in Adult TESOL Classrooms.
Applied Linguistics, 29, 456-482.

Bos, C., Mather, N., Dickson, S., Podhajski, B., & Chard, D. (2001). Perceptions and
knowledge of preservice and inservice educators about early reading
instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 97-120.

Bowling, A. (1997). Research Methods in Health. Buckingham: Open University

Press.

Braddock, R., Lloyd-Jones, R., & Schoer, L. (1963). Research in written

composition. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Britzman, D. (1991). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach.

Albany: State University of New York Press.

Brophy,J. (1991). Advances in Research on Teaching, Vol.2. Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

Brumfit, C. (1997). The teacher as educational linguist. In L. van Lier & D. Corson
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Volume 7: Knowledge
about language (pp. 163-172). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Burgess, T., Turvey, A., & Quarshie, R. (2000). Teaching grammar: Working with
student teachers. Changing English, 7, 7-21.

119
Burner, T. (2005). A Study of the Teaching and Learning of English Grammar with
Special Reference to the Foundation Course in the Norwegian Senior High
School. (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from
https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/25413/1/TONY_
THESIS.pdf

Burns, N., & Grove, S. K. (1997). The Practice of Nursing Research Conduct,
Critique, & Utilization. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders and Co.

Cajkler, W., & Hislam, J. (2002). Trainee teachers’ grammatical knowledge: The
tension between public expectations and individual competence. Language
Awareness, 11, 161–177.

Cameron, D. (1994). Dr Syntax and Mrs Grundy: Grammar, myths and morals.
Changing English: studies in reading and culture, 2, 34-43.

Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal Hygiene (The Politics of Language). London:

Routledge.

Carter, R. (Ed.). (1990). Knowledge about Language. London: Hodder and

Stoughton.

Carter, R. (1994). English teaching in England and Wales: Key reports. In R.E.
Asher (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 1137-1138).
Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Chandler, P., Robinson, W., & Noyes, P. (1988). The level of linguistic knowledge
and awareness amongst student teachers training to be primary teachers.
Language and Education, 2, 161-174.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through

Qualitative Analysis. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE
Publications.

Chen, H., & Derewianka, B. (2009). Binaries and beyond: a Bernsteinian perspective
on change in literacy education. Research Papers in Education, 24(2), 223-
245.

120
Christie, F., Devlin, B., Freebody, P., Luke, A., Martin, J., Threadgold, T., &
Walton, C. (1991). Teaching English literacy: A project of national
significance on the preservice preparation of teachers for teaching English
literacy. Darwin, NT: Centre for Studies of Language in Education.

Christie, F. & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the
years of schooling. London and New York: Continuum.

Christie, F., & Unsworth, L. (2006). Developing dimensions of an educational

linguistics. In J. Webster, C. Matthiessen, & R. Hasan (Eds.), Continuing
discourse on language: A functional perspective (pp. 217-250). London:
Equinox.

Clandinin, D.J. (1986). Classroom practice: Teacher images in action. Philadelphia:

Falmer.

Clark, U. (2010). Grammar in the curriculum for English: What next? Changing
English, 17(2), 189-200.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th
ed.). New York: Routledge.

Collins, P., Hollo, C., & Mar, J. (1997). English grammar in school textbooks: A
critical survey. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 33-50.

Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). (2016). Common Core State
Standards for Language Arts. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy

Cots, J.M., & Arnó, E. (2005). Integrating Language Teachers’ Discipline

Knowledge in a Language Course. In N. Bartels (Ed.), Researching Applied
Linguistics in Language Teacher Education (pp. 59-78). Boston: Springer
Science + Business Media, Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among

five approaches (2nd ed.). London & New Delhi: Sage Publications.

121
Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed
methods Research. California: Sage.

Culioli, A. (1990). Pour une linguistique de l’enonciation: Tome 1 [Towards a

linguistic enunciation: Volume 1]. Paris: Ophrys.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education. San Francisco: John

Wiley.

Davis, K. (1995). Qualitative theory and methods in applied linguistics research.

TESOL Quarterly, 29(3), 427-452.

Dawkins, J. (1995). Teaching punctuation as a rhetorical tool. College Composition

and Communication, 46, 533-548.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand

Oaks (Calif): Sage.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (1998) The Landscape of Qualitative Research:
Theories and Issues. Thousand Oaks (Calif): Sage.

Department for Education. (2011). Review of the National Curriculum in England:

Report on subject breadth in international jurisdictions Research Report
DFE-RR178a. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil
e/197636/DFE-RR178a.pdf

Department of Education, Science and Training. (2005). Benchmarking Australian

Primary School Curricula. Retrieved from
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/53666/20051107-
0000/www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profi
les/benchmarking_curricula_report2.pdf

122
Department of Education, Science and Training prepared by Matters, G., & Masters,
G. for Australian Council for Education Research. (2007). Year 12
curriculum content and achievement standards. Retrieved from
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/67832/20070212-
0000/www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/BEBED234-E6F9-43C0-AF0F-
0975DCFEE39B/15412/curriculum_content_achivement_standards1.pdf

Derewianka, B.M. (2012). Knowledge about language in the Australian curriculum:

English. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35(1), 127-146.
Retrieved from
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1128&context=sspapers

Donnelly, K. (2008, October 17) Opinion: English goes back to basics. The
Australian. Retrieved from
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/english-goes-back-to-
basics/story-e6frg7ef-1111117774605

Dunn P.A., & Lindblom, K. (2003). Why Revitalize Grammar? The English Journal,
92(3), 43-50.

Eisenhart, M. (2006). Representing qualitative data. Handbook of complementary

methods in education research, 34, 567-581.

Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process.
New York: Oxford.

Elliott, T. (2014, March 22). Opinion: Time to get back to basics in teaching
grammar and maths at schools. Herald Sun. Retrieved from
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/time-to-get-back-to-basics-in-
teaching-grammar-and-maths-at-schools/story-fni0ffsx-1226861591633

English Association. (1923). The problem of grammar. [English Association

Pamphlet 56]. English Association.

Exley, B.E., & Mills, K.A. (2012). Parsing the Australian curriculum English:
grammar, multimodality and cross-cultural texts. Australian Journal of
Language and Literacy, 35(2), 1-24.

123
Fearn, L., & Farnan, L. (2007). When Is a Verb? Using Functional Grammar to
Teach Writing. Journal of Basic Writing, 26(1), 63-87.

Flick, U. (2007). Managing Quality in Qualitative Research (Book 8 of The SAGE

Qualitative Research Kit). London: Sage.

Folkeryd, J.W. (2006). Writing with an Attitude: Appraisal and student texts in the
school subject of Swedish. Studia Linguistica Upsaliensia 5. Uppsala: Acta
Universitatis Upsaliensis.

Fontich, X., & Camps, A. (2014). Towards a rationale for research into grammar
teaching in schools. Research Papers in Education, 29(5), 598-625.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2013.813579

Gess-Newsom, J., & Lederman, N.G. (Eds.). (1999). Examining Pedagogical

Content Knowledge. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago:
Aldine.

Gombert, E.J. (1992). Metalinguistic development. Hemel Hempstead: Harvest

Wheatsheaf.

Gordon, E. (2005). Grammar in New Zealand schools: Two case studies. English
Teacher: Practice and Critique, 4, 48-68.

Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and Children at work. London: Heinemann.

Greenhouse, S.W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data.
Psychometrika, 24, 95-112.

Grisham, D.L. (2000). Connecting theoretical conceptions of reading to practice: A

longitudinal study of elementary school teachers. Reading Psychology, 21,
145-170.

Haldyna, T. M. (1996). Writing Test Items to Evaluate Higher Order Thinking. New
York: Routledge.

124
Haladyna, T.M., Downing, S.M., & Rodriguez, M.C. (2002). A Review of Multiple-
Choice Item-Writing Guidelines for Classroom Assessment. Applied
Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309-334. Retrieved from
http://cmapspublic3.ihmc.us/rid=1P2XTLCSS-11K09T9-
BD5/Haladyna_2002_-Appl_Meas_Educ.pdf

Haldyna, T. M., & Rodriguez, M.C. (2013). Developing and Validating Test Items.
New York: Routledge.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of

language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1993). Towards a Language-Based Theory of Learning.

Linguistics and Education, (5), 93-116.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Hodder.

Halliday, M.A.K. (2003). Introduction: On the ‘architecture’ of human language. In

J. Webster (Ed.), On language and linguistics: Volume 3 in the collected
works of M.A.K Halliday (pp. 1-29). London and New York: Continuum.

Hammon, J., & Macken-Horarik, M. (2001). Teachers’ voices, teachers’ practices.

Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 24(2), 112-132.

Hancock, C. (2009). How Linguistics can Inform the Teaching of Writing. In R.

Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M Nystrand (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of
writing development (pp. 194-208). London: Sage.

Harper, H., & Rennie, J. (2009). I had to go out and get myself a book on grammar:
A study of pre-service teachers’ knowledge about language. Australian
Journal of Language and Literacy 32(1), 22-37.

Hasan, R. (2002). Ways of meaning, ways of learning: Code as an explanatory

concept. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23, 537-548.

Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. (1975). Language for life (The Bullock Report).
Retrieved from
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/bullock/bullock1975.html

125
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. (1984). English from 5 to 16: curriculum matters 1.
Retrieved from
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/hmi-
curricmatters/english.html

Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. (1988). Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the
Teaching of English Language (The Kingman Report). Retrieved from
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/kingman/kingman1988.html

Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. (1989). English for ages 5 to 16 (The Cox Report).
Retrieved from
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/cox1989/cox89.html

Hewson, C., Yule, P., Laurent, D., & Vogel, C. (2003). Internet Research Methods:
A Practical Guide for the Social and Behavioural Sciences. London: Sage.

Hillocks, G. (1984). What works in teaching composition: A meta-analysis of

experimental treatment studies. American Journal of Education, 93(1), 133-
170.

Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on Written Composition: New directions for
teaching. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Hislam, J., & Cajkler, W. (2005). Teacher trainees’ explicit knowledge of grammar
and primary curriculum requirements in England. In N. Bartels (Ed.),
Researching Applied Linguistics in Language Teacher Education (pp. 295-
312). Boston: Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.

Horan, A. (2002). English grammar in schools. In P. Collins & M. Amberber (Eds.),

Proceedings of the 2002 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society
(pp. 1-9). Retrieved from
http://www.als.asn.au

Huddleston, R. (1989). English grammar in school textbooks: towards a consistent

linguistic alternative (Occasional Papers Number 11). Mt Gravatt, Old:
Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.

126
Hudson, D. (2001). Grammar Teaching and Writing Skills: The Research Evidence.
Syntax in the Schools, 17, 1-6.

Hudson, R. (2004). Why education needs linguistics. Journal of Linguistics, 40, 105-
130.

Hudson, D., & Walmsley, J. (2005). The English patient: English grammar and
teaching in the twentieth century. Journal of Linguistics, 41, 593–622.

James, C. (2002). La conciencia sobre el lenguaje: orígenes, problemas y

orientaciones [Language Awareness: Origins, Problems, and Orientations]. In
J.M. Cots & L. Nussbaum (Eds.), Pensar lo dicho. La reflex- ión sobre la
lengua y la comunicación en el aprendizaje de lenguas [Thinking about what
we say. Reflection on Language and Communication in Language Learning]
(pp. 19–32). Lleida: Milenio.

Jensen, M., & Harrington, J. (2008). Developing the language awareness of second
language teachers. In P. Jeffrey (Ed.), AARE 2007 International Education
Research conference-Fremantle. Retrieved from
http://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2007/jen07290.pdf

Jeurissen, M. (2010). Grammar in the New Zealand English Curriculum:

Implications for primary school teachers and teacher educators. Curriculum
Matters, 6, 66-81. Retrieved from
http://www.nzcer.org.nz/research/implementing-new-zealand-curriculum

Joshi, R.M., Binks, E., Hougen, M., Dahlgren. M.E., Ocker-Dean, E., & Smith, D.L.
(2009). Why Elementary Teachers Might Be Inadequately Prepared to Teach
Reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 392 – 402.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022219409338736

Jones, P.T., & Chen, H. (2012). Teachers’ knowledge about language: issues of
pedagogy and expertise. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35(2),
147-168.

127
Jones, S.S., Myhill, D.A., & Bailey, T.C. (2013). Grammar for writing? An
investigation into the effect of contextualised grammar teaching on student
writing. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties,
26(8), 1241-1263.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9416-1

Kamler, B. (1995). The grammar wars or what do teachers need to know about
grammar? English in Australia, 114, 3-15.

Karmiloff-Smith, A., Grant, J., Sims, K., Jones, M.C., & Cuckle, P. (1996).
Rethinking metalinguistic awareness: Representing and accessing knowledge
about what counts as a word. Cognition, 58, 197-219.

Knowles, J.G. (1992). Professional growth among pre-service and beginning

teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129-169.

Kolln, M. (1996). Rhetorical Grammar: A Modification Lesson. English Journal,

85(7), 25-31.

Kolln, M. (2006). Rhetorical grammar: Grammatical choices, rhetorical effects.

New York: Longman.

Kolln, M., & Hancock, C. (2005). The Story of English Grammar in US Schools.
English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 4, 11-31.

Leech, G.N. (1994). Students’ grammar – teachers’ grammar – learners’ grammar. In

M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn, & E. Williams (Eds.), Grammar and the language
teacher (pp. 17-30). New York: Prentice Hall.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.

Locke, T. (2005). Grammar wars: Beyond a truce. English Teaching: Practice and
Critique, 4, 1-10.

Locke, T. (2009). Grammar and Writing. The International Debate. In R. Beard, D.

Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Writing
Development (pp. 182-193). London: SAGE.

128
Locke, T. (2010). Discovering a Metalanguage for All Seasons: Bringing Literary
Language in from the Cold. In T. Locke (Ed.), Beyond the Grammar Wars: A
Resource for Teachers and Students on Developing Language Knowledge in
the English/Literacy Classroom (pp. 170 – 184). New York: Routledge.

Long, M. H. (2005). Methodological issues in learner needs analysis. In M. H. Long

(Ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 19-76). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Louden, W., Edith Cowan University, Department of Education, Science and

Training, National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies and Projects
Programme. (2005). Prepared to teach: an investigation into the preparation
of teachers to teach literacy and numeracy. WA: Edith Cowan University.

Louden, W., & Rohl, M. (2006). “Too many theories and not enough instruction”:
perceptions of preservice teacher preparation for literacy teaching in
Australian schools. Literacy, 40(2), 66-78.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9345.2006.00440.x

Love, K. (2009). Literacy pedagogical content knowledge in secondary teacher

education: reflecting on oral language and learning across the disciplines.
Language and Education, 23(6), 541-600.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500780902822942

Macken-Horarik, M., Love, K., & Unsworth, L. (2011). A grammatics ‘good

enough’ for school English in the 21st century: Four challenges in realising
the potential. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 34, 9-23.

Martin, J.R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective.
Linguistics and Education, 20, 10-21.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.003

Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage.

Masters, G. (2006). Australian Certificate of Education: Exploring a Way Forward.

Research Developments, 16, Art. 2. Retrieved from
http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=resdev

129
Masters, G.N., & Forster, M. (1997). Literacy standards in Australia. Canberra:
Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved from
http://research.acer.edu.au/monitoring_learning/6

May, S., & Smyth, J. (2007). Addressing Literacy in Secondary Schools:

Introduction. Language and Education, 21(5), 365-369.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/le796.0

McCardle, P., & Chhabra, V. (Eds.). (2004). The voice of evidence in reading
research. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: a qualitative approach.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Micciche, L. (2004). Making a case for rhetorical grammar. College Composition

and Communication, 55, 716–37.

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (2008).

Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians.
Melbourne: Author.

Moats, L. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the

structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81-102.

Moats, L. (2009). Still Wanted: teachers with knowledge of language. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 387-91.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022219409338735

Moon, B. (2014). The Literacy Skills of Secondary Teaching Undergraduates:

Results of Diagnostic Testing and a Discussion of Findings. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 39 (12), 111-30.
http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n12.8

Mulder, J. (2011). Grammar in English Curricula: Why Should Linguists Care?

Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(12), 835-847.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00316.x

130
Mulder, J., & Thomas, C. (2009). Accessing Grammar in Secondary English: A
Victorian Exemplar. English in Australia, 44(2), 17-24.

Myhill, D.A. (2004). Making connections: Grammar and meaning. Secondary

English Magazine, 8, 23–26.

Myhill, D.A. (2005). Ways of knowing: Writing with grammar in mind. English
Teaching: Practice and Critique, 4(3), 77-96.

Myhill, D.A. (2006). Designs on writing 2: Sentences. Secondary English Magazine,

10, 25–28.

Myhill, D.A., Jones, S.M., Lines, H., & Watson, A. (2012). Re-thinking grammar:
The impact of embedded grammar teaching on students’ writing and students’
metalinguistic understanding. Research Papers in Education, 27, 1–28.

Myhill, D., Jones, S., & Watson, A. (2013). Grammar matters: How teachers’
grammatical knowledge impacts on the teaching of writing. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 36, 77-91.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.005

Myhill, D.A., Lines, H.E., & Watson, A. (2011). Making meaning with grammar: A
repertoire of possibilities. mETAphor, 2, 1-10.

Myhill, D., & Watson, A. (2014). The role of grammar in the writing curriculum: A
review of the literature, Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 30, 41-62.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265659013514070

O’Brien, K. (Host). (2010). The 7:30 Report [Television Series]. Retrieved from
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2833597.htm

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based

assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its
implications for reading instruction: Report of the subgroups. Bethesda, MD:
Author.

Nespor, J. (1987). The Role of Beliefs in the Practice of Teaching. Journal of

Curriculum Studies, 19, 317-328.

131
Newman, I., & Benz, C.R. (1998). Qualitative-Quantitative Research Methodology:
Exploring the Interactive Continuum. Carbondale: Southern University of
Illinois Press.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding.

Journal of personality and social psychology, 46(3), 598.

Perera, K. (1987). Understanding language. Sheffield: NAAE.

Petit, A. (2003). The stylish semicolon: Teaching punctuation as rhetorical choice.

English Journal, 92, 77-72.

Petruzella, B.A. (1996). Grammar instruction: What teachers say. English Journal,
85, 68-72.

Polesel, J., Dulfer, N., & Turnbull, M. (2012). The Experience of Education: The
impacts of high stakes testing on school students and their families.
University of Western Sydney: Whitlam Institute. Retrieved from
https://www.whitlam.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/276191/High_Stakes_T
esting_Literature_Review.pdf

Pomphrey, C., & Moger, R. (1999). Cross-subject dialogue about language: Attitudes
and perceptions of PGCE students of English and Modern Languages.
Language Awareness, 8, 233-236.

Poulin, D. (1980). Grammaire traditionnelle et grammaire nouvelle, ou De l’analyse

à l’analyse structural [Traditional grammar and new grammar, or From
analysis to structural analysis]. Quebec Français, 40, 29–32.

132
Poulson, L., Avramidis, E., Fox, R., Medwell, J., & Wray, D. (2001). The
Theoretical Beliefs of Effective Teachers of Literacy in Primary Schools: An
Exploratory Study of Orientations to Reading and Writing. Research Papers
in Education, 16, 271-292.

Pullman, P. (2005, January 22). UK Education, Schools: Common sense has much to
learn from moonshine. The Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2005/jan/22/schools.
wordsandlanguage

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (1998). The grammar papers: Perspectives

on the teaching of grammar in the national curriculum. Hayes: QCA.

Rimmer, W. (2008). Putting grammatical complexity in context. Literacy, 42(1), 9-

35.

Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research. (2nd ed). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Rose, D. (2004). Sequencing and pacing of the hidden curriculum: How indigenous
children are left out of the chain. In J. Muller, A. Morais, & B. Davies (Eds.),
Reading Bernstein, researching Bernstein (pp. 145-170). London: Routledge
Falmer.

Rose, D. (2005). Democratising the classroom: A literacy pedagogy for the new
generation. Journal of Education, 37, 127-164.

Rose, D. (2006). Literacy and equality in the classroom. In A. Simpson (Ed.),

Proceedings of the National Conference on Future Directions in Literacy (pp.
188-203). Sydney: University of Sydney.

Rose, D. (2007). A reading based model of schooling. Pesquisas em Discurso

Pedaógico, 4(2), 1-17. Retrieved from
https://www.readingtolearn.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/A-reading-
based-model.pdf

133
Rothery, J. (1996). Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics. In R.
Hasan, & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 86-123). London:
Longman.

Rothman, J. (2010). Theoretical Linguistics Meets Pedagogical Practice Pronominal

Subject Use in Spanish as a Second Language. Hispania, 93(1), 52-65.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing. The art of hearing data
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Schiff, P. (2004). Leading Beyond What We Know about Grammar Instruction.

English Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 3-7.

Schleppegrell, M.J. (2007). At Last: The Meaning in Grammar. Research in the

Teaching of English, 42(1), 121-128.

Schleppegrell, M., Achugar, M., & Oteiza, T. (2004). The grammar of history:
Enhancing content-based instruction through a functional focus on language.
TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 67-93.

School Curriculum and Standards Authority. (2014). General Capabilities-Literacy-

Introduction-Background. Retrieved from
http://k10outline.scsa.wa.edu.au/home/p-10-curriculum/general-capabilities-
over/literacy2/introduction/background

Seliger, H.W., & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second language research methods. Oxford:
OUP.

Shaw, D.M., & Dvorak, M.J., & Bates, K. (2007). Promise and Possibility – Hope
for Teacher Education: Pre-service Literacy Instruction Can Have an Impact.
Reading Research and Instruction, 46(3), 223 – 254.

Shayer, D. (1972). The teaching of English in schools 1900-1970. London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.

Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

134
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.

Shutz, A. (1967 [1932]). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press.

Simons, H. (2009). Case study research in practice. Los Angeles and London: Sage
Publications.

Smoot, W.S. (2001). An Experiment in teaching Grammar in Context. Voices from

the Middle, 8(3), 34-42.

Swanborn, P. (2010). Case study research. What, why and how? Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.

Thomas, A. (1987). Language teacher competence and language teacher education.

In R. Bowers (Ed.), Language Teacher Education: An Integrated Programme
for ELT Teacher Training. London: British Council, Modern English
Publications.

Thornbury, S. (1997). About Language: Tasks for Teachers of English. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Turner-Bisset, R. (2001). Expert Teaching. London: Fulton.

Turvey, A. (2000). Teaching grammar: Working with student teachers 2. Changing

English, 7, 139-152.

van Lier, L. (1998). The relationship between consciousness, interaction and

language learning. Language Awareness, 7, 128-145.

Vavra, E. (1996). On not teaching grammar. English Journal, 85, 32-37.

Vogt, W. P. (1999). Dictionary of statistics and methodology. Thousand Oaks

(Calif): Sage.

Wales, L. (2009). Reviving the dead butler? Towards a review of aspects of National
Literacy Strategy grammar advice. Language and Education, 23(6), 523-539.

135
Wang, E.L., Spalding, E., Odell, S.J., & Klecka, C.L. (2011). Understanding Teacher
Education in an Era of Globalization. Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 115-
120.

Watson, K. (2010). Grammar and Usage: History and Myth. English in Australia,
45(2), 31-37.

Watson, A.M. (2012). Navigating ‘the pit of doom’: Affective responses to teaching
‘grammar’. English in Education, 46(1), 22-37.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-8845.2011.01113.x

Watson, A. M. (2013). Conceptualisations of ‘grammar teaching’: L1 English

teachers’ beliefs about teaching grammar for writing. Language Awareness,
24(1), 1-14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.828736

Watson, A.M. (2015). The problem of grammar teaching: a case study of the
relationship between a teacher’s beliefs and pedagogical practice. Language
and Education, 29(4), 332-346.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2015.1016955

Weaver, C., McNally, C., & Moerman, S. (2001). To Grammar or Not to Grammar:
That is Not the Question. Voice from the Middle, 8(3), 17- 33.

Wheeldon, J. (2010). Mapping Mixed Methods Research: Methods, Measures, and

Meaning. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2), 82-102.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1558689809358755

Williams, G. (2005). Grammatics in schools. In J. Webster, C. Matthiessen, & R.

Hasan (Eds.). Continuing Discourse on Language, Vol. 1, (pp. 281-319).
London: Equinox.

Williams, P. (2009). Analytic Report: Factors contributing to and ways of improving

Australia’s educational performance, Submission to the Inquiry into the
Administration and Reporting of NAPLAN Testing. Canberra: Senate
References Committee on Education, Employment & Workplace Relations.

136
Williamson, J., & Hardman, F. (1995). Time for refilling the bath? A study of
primary student-teachers’ grammatical knowledge. Language and Education,
9, 23-45.

Wilson, A.C., & Myhill, D.A. (2012). Ways with words: teachers’ personal
epistemologies of the role of metalanguage in the teaching of poetry writing.
Language and Education, 26(6), 553-568.

Wray, D. (1993). Student-teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about language. In N.

Bennett & C. Carré C (Eds.), Learning to teach (pp. 51-72). London:
Routledge.

Wyse, D. (2001). Grammar. For writing? A Critical Review of Empirical Evidence.

British Journal of Educational Studies, 49(4), 411–27.

Zebroski, J.T. (1994). Thinking through Theory: Vygotskian Perspectives on the

Teaching of Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook-Heinemann.

Zohrabi, M. (2013). Mixed Method Research: Instruments, Validity, Reliability and

Reporting Findings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(2), 254-262.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.2.254-262

Every reasonable effort has been made to acknowledge the owners of copyright
material. I would be pleased to hear from any copyright owner who has been omitted
or incorrectly acknowledged.

137
 Appendices

Appendix 1

Information Sheet
Research Title

Primary Educators’ knowledge of grammatical concepts as mandated in the Australian Curriculum

(English): Comparison of Pre and Inservice Teachers.

Principal Researcher: Ross Mackenzie

Email: [email protected]
Contact: 0400862927

Supervisor: Rhonda Oliver

Email: [email protected]
Contact: 08 9266 2169

Assisting Supervisor: Genevieve Johnson

Email: [email protected]
Contact: 08 9266 2179

Purpose and Aim of Research

The purpose of this research is to ascertain what levels of knowledge pre and inservice teachers have
of grammatical concepts found in the National Curriculum: English (NCE). Data gathered from this
test will be analysed and provide a basis on which qualitative interviews will further explore any
significant differences in knowledge. The aim is to identify any weaknesses and provide
recommendations to improve preservice teacher knowledge of important grammatical concepts.

The new Australian Curriculum has reignited the media debate about whether teachers ‘know
grammar’ well enough to teach it to their students. As a primary teacher, I became tired of the
speculation and decided it would be useful to find out what pre and inservice teachers understand of
the grammatical concepts found in the NCE and explore reasons for any differences in that
understanding.

Therefore, the aim of this research is to answer decisively what pre and inservice teachers know
about grammatical concepts in the Australian Curriculum. Once the results of the grammar test
have been analysed, some participants will be asked to provide detailed, contextual information via
an interview process. The test data and qualitative interviews will be used to develop
recommendations for preservice teacher education to ensure graduates understand grammar
concepts as mandated by the Australian Curriculum.

Participation Procedures and Protection

All participation is on a strictly voluntary basis.

For ****** University students, the test will be conducted during a designated ‘coaching’ time for
their convenience. However, volunteers for the interviews will be asked to give up a short period of
their own time in order to participate (maximum of 30 minutes).

138
There are no significant risks to participants, other than the discomfort of having to give up some of
their time or feel concerned that they are unable to answer test questions. However, it is important
to remember that participation is entirely voluntary; preservice teachers are under no obligation
from ****** University to participate and all participants are able to withdraw at any time without
prejudice.

All of the tests will only be identifiable by a linked code that will be kept secure and separate from
test data in the Supervisor’s Office. All tests and interviews will be scanned onto a secure computer
at Curtin University and originals destroyed immediately. All electronic information will be kept for
five years and then destroyed. Only the researcher and supervisors will have access to the electronic
data.

Information gathered from the data collected will be used to form the basis of the Master of
Philosophy Thesis and any subsequent publications. Participants will be invited to review any
research material prior to publication.

Should participants want to make a complaint on ethical grounds they are invited to contact the
Human Research Ethics Committee (secretary) on (08) 9266 2784 or [email protected] or in
writing C/ -Office of Research and Development, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U1987,
Perth, WA, 6845).

Ethical Guidelines
HREC statement – awaiting approval by the HREC. Approval Number – awaiting approval.

139
 Consent Form

Test Number

Research Title

Primary Educators’ knowledge of grammatical concepts as mandated in the Australian Curriculum

(English): Comparison of Pre and Inservice Teachers.

Principal Researcher: Ross Mackenzie

Email: [email protected]
Contact: 0400862927

Supervisor: Rhonda Oliver

Email: [email protected]
Contact: 08 9266 2169

Assisting Supervisor: Genevieve Johnson

Email: [email protected]
Contact: 08 9266 2179

I have been informed of and understand the purposes of the study. I have been provided with the
opportunity to ask questions and I understand that I can withdraw at any time without prejudice.

Any information, which might potentially identify me, will not be used in published material.

I agree to participate in the study as outlined to me.

☐ I would like to be provided with draft material prior to any publication of the study.
☐ I do not wish to be contacted for the purposes of a short interview.

Full Name of Participant

Contact Number

Signature Date

This study has been approved by the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee (EDU-
126-13). The Committee is comprised of members of the public, academics, lawyers, doctors and
pastoral carers. If needed, verification of approval can be obtained either by writing to the Curtin
University Human Research Ethics Committee, c.-Office of Research and Development, Curtin
University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, 6845 or by telephoning 9266 2784 or by emailing
[email protected]

140
 Institutional Consent Form
Research Title

Primary Educators’ knowledge of grammatical concepts as mandated in the Australian Curriculum

(English): Comparison of Pre and Inservice Teachers.

Principal Researcher: Ross Mackenzie

Email: [email protected]
Contact: 0400862927

Supervisor: Rhonda Oliver

Email: [email protected]
Contact: 08 9266 2169

Assisting Supervisor: Genevieve Johnson

Email: [email protected]
Contact: 08 9266 2179

******* School has been informed of and understand the purposes of the study. I have authority on
behalf of ******* to provide consent for the research to be conducted, on a voluntary basis, utilising
staff at ******. I have been provided with the opportunity to ask questions and I understand that
the school can withdraw support for this research at any time without prejudice.

Any information, which might potentially identify the school, will not be used in published material.
The school will have the opportunity to review any research material prior to publication.

I give permission for ******* staff to participate in the research and the school agrees to participate
in the study as outlined.

Full Name of Agent _______________________________________________________

Position Title ________________________________________________________

Signature __________________________ Date _________________

141
 Appendix 2

Example of Questionnaire

Test Number

Sex Male Female

Date of Birth

Studying

Early Childhood Primary Secondary

Subject

I hope to teach (tick any areas that interest you)

Kindergarten Year 6

Preprimary Year 7

Year 1 Year 8

Year 2 Year 9

Year 3 Year 10

Year 4 Year 11

Year 5 Year 12

Specialist Teaching (e.g. Music, LOTE)

Learning Area Years Learning Area Years

142
What type of school did you predominantly attend?

Primary: Government Independent Catholic Other

Secondary: Government Independent Catholic Other

In what country were you primarily educated?

Primary years: ________________________

Secondary years: ________________________

English Language Proficiency*

GCE “O”
Australian Year 12 *UTE IELTS
Level

Pearson Test of English STAT TOEFL

Other (Please specify)

Do you have a learning disability? Yes No

If Yes, please provide details.

What was the primary language spoken at home?

What was the first language you learned?

What other languages do you speak?

143
 Please circle the number that represents how you feel.

I have an excellent understanding of the Australian Curriculum: English.

Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

I have an excellent understanding of grammar concepts as described in the Australian

Curriculum.

Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

I think teaching grammar to students is important.

Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

I think teaching grammar helps students to become better writers.

Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

I feel confident when teaching my students grammar concepts in accordance with the
Australian Curriculum.
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

I am a confident writer.

Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

144
Section 1

1. Grammar can be defined as:

The language used to describe metacognition and principles of letter – sound formation,
language development and writing.
Learning to write based on specific rules extracted from the Latinate System of
Grammar including the placement of nouns, verbs and adjectives in a paragraph and at
a whole text level. These rules have been adapted to visual texts.
The language we use and the description of language as a system. In describing
language, attention is paid to both structure (form) and meaning (function) at the level
of the word, the sentence and the text.
I am unsure.

2. Metalanguage

The theory of language cognition.

Vocabulary used to discuss language conventions and use.

Thinking about the use of Australian Standard English in education.

I am unsure.

3. Sentences

Express ideas using a subject, object and a pronoun.

Are key units for expressing ideas.

Are words that are punctuated correctly including a capital letter and a full stop.

I am unsure.

145
4. Clause

Includes a subject and an object and is often accompanied by a prepositional phrase.

Is a unit of grammar usually containing a subject and a verb and that these need to be in
agreement.
Are groups of words that commonly occur in close association with one another (For
example, “blonde” goes with “hair”).
I am unsure.

5. A simple sentence:

Has the form of a single clause.

Is always singular.

Is made up of a noun, verb and adjective.

I am unsure.

6. A compound sentence:

Has one or more subordinate clauses and is made up of a noun, verb and adjective.

Has two or more main clauses of equal grammatical status, usually marked by a
coordinating conjunction.
Has three or more main clauses of equal grammatical status, usually marked by at least
one coordinating conjunction.

I am unsure.

7. Noun

Consists of an idea, such as a person, as the major element and is accompanied by one
of more modifiers.
A word class that includes all words that denote physical and intangible ideas
expressed in either past, present or future tense. Nouns are only ever the subject of a
sentence.
A word class that includes all words denoting physical objects as well as intangibles. A
noun can function as a subject, an object or as part of a prepositional phrase.

I am unsure.

146
8. A noun group / phrase

Consists of a noun as the major element, alone or accompanied by one or more

modifiers. The noun functioning as the major element may be a common noun, proper
noun or pronoun.
A clause that describes the noun using numerals, adjectives or auxiliary determiners
and are usually joined by a coordinating conjunction.
A collection of nouns separated from the object of the sentence by an adjective modifier
to maintain meaning.

I am unsure.

9. A verb:

Is a “doing” word that that is normally found immediately before a noun or pronoun.
For example: “The running man”.
Is a class of word that describes a kind of situation as a happening or a state or an
emotion. For example: “The man ran happily”.
Is a word class that describes a kind of situation such as a happening or a state. For
example, “The man ran” or “The man is a runner”. Verbs are essential to clause
structure.
I am unsure.

10. A modal verb:

Expresses a degree of probability or a degree of obligation.

Is also described as a “helping” verb. They precede the main verb.

Is an irregular form of verb that signals a change in tense.

I am unsure.

11. Adverb

A word class that may modify a verb or an adjective.

A word class that may modify a verb or an adjective, but not another adverb.

A word class that may modify a verb, an adjective or another adverb.

I am unsure.

147
12. Pronoun

Is a form of common noun. Pronouns include words such as “I, “we”, “you”, “which”,
“are” and “they”. Pronouns do not name a particular person, place, thing or quality.
They can be concrete or abstract nouns.
Is one of the three major grammatical types of noun. Pronouns include words such as
“I”, “we”, “you”, which refer directly to the speaker or addressee (s), and “he”, “she”,
“it”, “they”, which refer to a previously mentioned noun group / phrase.
A pronoun is a form of proper noun that stops repetition of words such as “I”, “we”,
“you”, “which”, “are” and “they”. Pronouns also serve as the names of particular
persons, places, days / months and festivals.
I am unsure.

13. Preposition

A word class that usually describe the relationship between words in a sentence.

Is generally marked by the suffix “s”.

A meaningful element added to the beginning of a word to change its meaning.

I am unsure.

14. Adverbials

A group of words ending in “ly” that describe the verb. For example, “The boy ran
quickly.”
When one verb group / phrase immediately follows another with the same reference
and are said to be in apposition. For example, “Canberra, the capital of Australia.”
A word or group of words that contributes additional, but non-essential information,
about the various circumstances of the happening or state described in the main part of
the clause.
I am unsure.

15. The difference between a main and subordinate clause

A main clause is the object of the sentence and the subordinate clause is the subject of
the sentence. Typically, the object of the sentence is at the beginning but this does not
always have to be the case.
A main clause does not depend on or function with the structure of another clause. A
subordinate clause depends on or functions with the structure of another clause.
A main clause has a noun and a verb group. A subordinate clause is dependent on the
verb of the main clause to make sense.

I am unsure.

148
16. Connective

A word that joins other words, phrases or clauses together in logical relationships such
as addition, time, cause or comparison.
Words which link paragraphs and sentences in logical relationships of time, cause and
effect, comparison or addition.
Words that link words, groups / phrases and clauses in such a way that the elements
have equal grammatical status.
I am unsure.

17. Conjunction

A word that joins other words, phrases or clauses together in logical relationships such
as addition, time, cause or comparison.
Words which link paragraphs and sentences in logical relationships of time, cause and
effect, comparison or addition.
Words that link words, groups / phrases and clauses in such a way that the elements
have equal grammatical status.

I am unsure.

18. Tense

A grammatical category marked by an adjective in which the situation described in the

clause is located in time.
A grammatical category that places the noun in the past, present or future tense.

A grammatical category marked by a verb in which the situation described in the clause
is located in time.
I am unsure.

19. Prepositional phrases:

Are typically followed by a connective.

Typically consist of a preposition followed by a noun group / phrase.

Usually describe the possessive pronoun in relation to the modal verb.

I am unsure.

149
20. Modality

An area of meaning having to do with possibility, probability, obligation and

permission.
The genre of writing including recount, exposition, narrative and persuasive.

The various processes of communication – listening, speaking, reading / viewing and

writing / creating.
I am unsure.

150
Section 2

Year 3 questions

21. Which word completes this sentence correctly?

I went for a ride _________ my bike.

on

into

in

onto

22. Which word completes this sentence correctly?

When my dog Ned has a bone he tries to keep it to _________.

itself

himself

oneself

myself

23. Which word completes this sentence correctly?

My friend sent me a get-well card _________ I broke my arm.

but

then

because

although

151
24. Which word can be used instead of you and me in this sentence?

John will be coming with you and me.

we

ourselves

they

us

25. Which word in this sentence is an action verb?

The girls ran up the steep hill, keen to beat their brother home.

girls

ran

steep

keen

26. Which word in this sentence is used to describe the pencils?

I found a torn packet of coloured pencils at the bottom of my schoolbag.

torn

coloured

bottom

schoolbag

152
27. Which one of these is a sentence?

Up in a tree.

I saw Pat.

I wonder what he.

Was doing up there.

28. Which sentence can be completed correctly by using the word were?

Write the word in the correct sentence.

The girl __________ reading a book.

When we get home, we __________ going for a swim.

Yesterday I __________ at the park.

They __________ camping near a river.

29. Which word in this sentence tells us how an action is done?

The first thing we learned at our swimming lessons was to get into the pool safely.

first

swimming

into

safely

153
30. Where should the missing apostrophe (’) go in this sentence?

Lets ride our bikes down to the river to see if there are any pelicans.

31. In which sentence is the word of used incorrectly?

I searched through the mess at the bottom of my bag.

I am worried that I might of lost my pencil case.

It is full of my best pencils.

It is a pale shade of blue.

154
Section 3

Year 5 questions

32. Where should the missing comma go in this sentence? (Insert the comma correctly).

I love picture books about horses dolphins and other animals.

33. Which option completes this sentence correctly?

When I arrived at school today, I ______________ straight to meet my friends.

go

gone

went

had gone

34. Which sentence combines the information in the table correctly?

Type of animal Number of shells Where it lives

clam two ocean
snail one land

Snails and clams have one shell and two shells, and they live on land and in the ocean.

Clams live in the ocean and have two shells, while snails have only one shell and live on
land.
Snails have one shell when they live on land, but clams have two shells when they live
in the ocean.
Clams live in the ocean and snails live on land, while clams have two shells and snails
have one shell.

155
35. Which pair of words completes this sentence correctly?

______ exciting to see the sailing boat flying across the lake with ______ sails billowing in
the wind.

Its its

It’s it’s

It’s its

Its it’s

156
Year 7 Questions

36. Which word completes this sentence correctly?

My sister and ______ ride our bikes to school every morning.

me

myself

we

37. Which option completes this sentence correctly?

After school Mum is picking us up and we _________________ to the pool for a swim.

go

went

might go

could have gone

38. Which word completes this sentence correctly?

Raj has ___________ his key and he can’t open the door.

forget

forgets

forgot

forgotten

157
39. The cave was cool and enticing. The team entered through the archway framing
__________ inviting interior.

its

his

their

our

40. They ventured further in, finally emerging into a large dim cavern. ____________
they had difficulty seeing their surroundings.

Later

At first

Eventually

Previously

41. Which words complete this sentence correctly?

Not only __________________ first in English, but she is also in line for the top place in
Science.

Jane comes

is Jane coming

isn’t Jane coming

Jane will not come

158
42. Which pair of words completes this text correctly?

The most popular flavours of ice-cream _______ vanilla and chocolate. _______ you know
that both flavours come from beans?

are Do

is Did

are Does

Is Do

43. Which sentence includes an apostrophe of possession?

Paul’s phone was lost at school.

It’s a beautiful day for a walk.

Sarah’s going to town later.

She thinks that Jenny’s arriving soon.

44. Numerous species of animals live in rainforests all over Earth. Millions of insects,
reptiles, birds and mammals call them home.

In the second sentence, the pronoun them refer to

animals.

rainforests.

millions.

mammals.

159
45. Read these three sentences.

Two years went by. Then John returned from Charleville. Then John started university.

Which option accurately combines the information about John into a single sentence?

John started university two years after he returned from Charleville.

Two years after John returned from Charleville, he started university.

Two years later, John returned from Charleville and started university.

John returned from Charleville and two years later started university.

46. Which underlined word can be left out of this sentence, without losing any
information?

We used the white bread when we ran out of the brown bread.

used

white

we

bread

47. In which sentence is round used as an adjective?

She heard a bark and looked round for the dog.

On the weekend he played a round of golf.

You will need to round off those sharp corners on the table.

A soccer ball is round in shape.

160
48. Which sentence uses capital letters correctly?

A new 100m breaststroke record was set by Australian swimmer Leisel Jones at the
Beijing Olympic Games.
A new 100m breaststroke record was set by Australian swimmer Leisel Jones at the
Beijing olympic games.
A new 100m Breaststroke Record was set by Australian Swimmer Leisel Jones at
the Beijing Olympic Games.
A new 100m Breaststroke record was set by Australian Swimmer Leisel Jones at
the Beijing Olympic games.

49. Which sentence uses an adverb correctly?

Jan arrived lately to the chess club meeting.

Lee conducted his science experiment confidently.

Ben pulled at the string slow so it did not break.

Cass grabbed her bag and ran to the shops as quick as she could.

50. The bell rang to signal the return to classes after lunch and Pat rushed to the art room.
Her pottery dish had been fired in the kiln overnight and she was keen to check on it.

Which event happened first?

The bell rang.

Pat rushed to the art room.

The pottery dish was fired in the kiln.

Pat checked on her pottery dish.

161
51. Which of these words is a noun?

hopeless

respectful

nervously

cleverness

52. Which is a correct sentence?

Sarah, who has four younger brothers, are going to the movies tonight.

The dogs in the backyard growls when a stranger approaches.

The racquets for the tennis match are in the locker.

The charger for the mobile phones beep when the batteries are charged.

*Test Acronyms:

****** University Test of English

International English Language Testing System
Special Tertiary Admissions Test
Test of English as a Foreign Language

162
 Appendix 3

Selection of Descriptions
Descriptions Selected Experienced Experienced Experienced
Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Teacher 3

Foundation

Language

Understand that some language in written texts

Considered No No
is unlike everyday spoken language.

Understand that punctuation is a feature of

written text different from letters; recognise
how capital letters are used for names, and that Yes Yes Yes
capital letters and full stops signal the
beginning and end of sentences.

Recognise that sentences are key units for

Yes Considered Yes
expressing ideas.

Recognise that texts are made up of words and

Yes Considered Yes
groups of words that make meaning.

Literacy

Create short texts to explore, record and report

ideas and events using familiar words and
No Yes Yes
beginning writing knowledge.

Participate in shared editing of students’ own

texts for meaning, spelling, capital letters and
No Yes Yes
full stops.

Year 1

Language

163
Recognise that different types of punctuation,
including full stops, question marks and
exclamation marks, signal sentences that make Yes Yes Yes
statements, ask questions, express emotion or
give commands.

Identify the parts of a simple sentence that

represent “What’s happening?”, “Who or what
Yes Yes Yes
is doing or receiving the action?” and the
circumstances surrounding the action.

Explore differences in words that represent

people, places and things (nouns and pronouns),
Yes Yes Yes
actions (verbs), qualities (adjectives) and details
like when, where and how (adverbs).

Literacy

Create short imaginative and informative texts

that show emerging use of appropriate text
structure, sentence-level grammar, word choice,
No Yes No
spelling, punctuation and appropriate
multimodal elements, for example illustrations
and diagrams.

Reread student’s own texts and discuss possible

changes to improve meaning, spelling and No Yes No
punctuation.

Year 2

Language

Recognise that capital letters signal proper

nouns and commas are used to separate items in Yes No Yes
lists.

Understand that simple connections can be

made between ideas by using a compound
Yes Yes Yes
sentence with two or more clauses and
coordinating conjunctions.

164
Understand that nouns represent people, places,
things and ideas and can be, for example,
common, proper, concrete and abstract, and that Yes Yes Yes
noun groups can be expanded using articles and
adjectives.

Literacy

Reread and edit text for spelling, sentence-

No Yes No
boundary punctuation and text structure.

Year 3

Language

Understand how different types of texts vary in

use of language choices, depending on their
Yes Yes Yes
function and purpose, for example tense, mood,
and types of sentences.

Understand that paragraphs are a key

Yes Considered Yes
organisational feature of written texts.

Know that word contractions are a feature of

informal language and that apostrophes of Yes Considered No
contraction are used to signal missing letters.

Understand that a clause is a unit of meaning

usually containing a subject and a verb and that Yes Yes Yes
these need to be in agreement.

Understand that verbs represent different

processes (doing, thinking, saying, and relating)
Yes Yes Yes
and that these processes are anchored in time
through tense.

Learn extended and technical vocabulary and

ways of expressing opinion including modal Yes Yes Yes
verbs and adverbs.

Construct texts featuring print, visual and audio

elements using software, including word Considered No No
processing programs.

165
Literacy

Reread and edit texts for meaning, appropriate

No Yes No
structure, grammatical choices and punctuation.

Year 4

Language

Understand how texts are made cohesive

through the use of linking devices including Yes Yes Yes
pronoun reference and text connectives.

Recognise how quotation marks are used in

texts to signal dialogue, titles and reported Yes Yes Yes
speech.

Understand that the meaning of sentences can

be enriched through the use of noun and verb Yes Yes Yes
groups and prepositional phrases.

Investigate how quoted (direct) and reported

Yes Yes Yes
(indirect) speech work in different types of text.

Understand how adverbials (adverbs and

prepositional phrases) work in different ways to Yes Yes Yes
provide circumstantial details about an activity.

Year 5

Language

Understand how possession is signalled through

apostrophes and how to use apostrophes of Yes Yes Yes
possession for common and proper nouns.

Understand the difference between main and

subordinate clauses and how these can be
combined to create complex sentences through Yes Yes Yes
subordinating conjunctions to develop and
expand ideas.

Understand how noun and adjective groups can

be expanded in a variety of ways to provide a Considered Yes Yes
fuller description of the person, thing or idea.

166
Understand the use of vocabulary to express
greater precision of meaning, and know that
Yes No No
words can have different meanings in different
contexts.

Year 6

Language

Understand the uses of commas to separate

Yes Yes Yes
clauses.

Investigate how clauses can be combined in a

variety of ways to elaborate, extend of explain Yes Yes Yes
ideas.

Understand how ideas can be expanded and

sharpened through careful choice of verbs, Yes Yes Yes
elaborated tenses and a range of adverbials.

Year 7

Language

Understand the use of punctuation to support

meaning in complex sentences with Yes Yes Yes
prepositional phrases and embedded clauses.

Recognise and understand that embedded

clauses are a common feature of sentence
Yes Yes Yes
structures and contribute additional information
to a sentence.

Understand how modality is achieved through

discriminating choices in modal verbs, adverbs, Yes Yes Yes
adjectives and nouns.

Investigate vocabulary typical of extended and

more academic texts and the role of abstract
nouns, classification, description and Considered No No
generalisation in building specialised
knowledge through language.

167
 Appendix 4

Interview Schedule

Introduction of the interviewer.

Hello, my name is Ross Mackenzie, you may remember me from a little while ago
when I asked whether you were willing to complete a questionnaire on grammar
terminology etc.

During the interview, I would like to discuss with you the following topics: your
perception of grammar and the NCE (affective and beliefs); how you conceptualise
grammar; and, following this, I would like you to pop your teacher’s hat on and take
an evaluative point of view with respect to grammar pedagogy in schools and pre-
service institutions. To begin with I will make very general statements

Grammar and the National Curriculum

Main Questions Additional questions Clarifying questions

When I say the words What type of grammar is in the

“Grammar” and “National NCE?
Curriculum, what comes to Do you feel it’s important to have a Can you expand on this
mind for you from a teaching knowledge of the grammar a little?
point of view? terminology that’s used in the
NCE?
Can you provide an
How confident are you in your
example of what you
knowledge of grammar
mean?
terminology that’s used in the
NCE?
(Use pauses and wait
Has your confidence level in using
until person has
grammar terminology in the NCE
definitely stopped
changed since completing the
speaking)
grammar terminology
questionnaire?
Why?
Do you feel it is important to
model grammar and, if so, why?

168
 Do you feel confident to teach
grammar concepts as they arise?
How were your beliefs and feelings
about grammar formed?

How do you define Has your definition of grammar

grammar? changed in any way over time?
Haw the introduction of grammar
What does grammar teaching into the NCE changed your concept
look like? of grammar?
Do you think it helps students to
learn a second language in order to
improve their understanding of
grammar in the first of vice versa?

Has the NCE changed your view

How effective is grammar on the rationale for teaching

teaching in improving grammar?
literacy standards? What is the most effective method
for teaching grammar?
Has there been any change in
grammar content taught in your
classroom since the introduction of
NCE?
Can you describe / evaluate your
experiences of learning grammar or
grammar pedagogy when a pre-
service teacher?

Is there anything else you

would like to add about
grammar, the NCE or ….?

169