Grammar for Writing: Shaping Policy and Practice

The Grammar for Writing? study which forms the foundation for the proposed project is located within a contested, politicised history. Grammar teaching was generally abandoned in Anglophone countries in the 60s on the grounds that it made no difference to children's language capacities or writing abilities. Research has tended to focus on whether explicit learning of grammar benefits children's writing and the results appear to be conclusively negative. Indeed, Hillocks and Smith (1991) argue that 'research over a period of nearly 90 years has consistently shown that the teaching of school grammar has little or no effect on students.' Certainly, a string of robust reviews in the past 50 years (eg Braddock et al 1963; Elley et al 1975; Hillocks 1986; Andrews et al 2006) have concluded that teaching grammar is of no benefit in supporting writing development. There is, however, a major difficulty with almost all of the research that these reviews represent. The studies repeatedly investigate whether various forms of isolated grammar teaching, such as learning transformational grammar, or parsing sentences, improves writing.

In contrast, our study has eschewed decontextualised teaching of grammar. Instead, the intervention teaching materials draw attention to the grammar of writing in an embedded and purposeful way at relevant points in the learning. In this way, young writers were introduced to what we have called 'a repertoire of infinite possibilities', explicitly showing them how different ways of shaping sentences or texts, and how different choices of words can generate different possibilities for meaning-making. The goal of such an approach is to support writers in taking control and ownership of the texts they compose, making choices which enable them to voice themselves in their writing, and to shape texts to meet the writer's rhetorical goals. We think of this as helping writers to become designers of text, understanding the warp and the weft of text, its textures and nuances, and able to combine both creative and critical thinking in the process of composition. The strongly positive effect of this intervention has enabled the study to offer a new theory of the grammar-writing relationship.

The proposed project seeks to build on the success of this approach in three significant ways.

Firstly, the project will seek to bridge the research-practice interface by working collaboratively, through Research Action Partnerships, with a small number of English departments to explore the implications of the research in the classroom practice of these departments. The focus of these collaborations will be on trialling the successful intervention pedagogy, on addressing whether the pedagogy can be equally successful for weaker writers, and on raising critical questions about the intervention. This aspect of the project will address the question: What are the main themes, issues and concerns in professionals' discussion of the role that this research suggests grammar can play in a pedagogy of writing?

Secondly, the project will seek for broader national impact through the holding of a National Stakeholders Conference, bringing together practitioners, researchers, advisors, teacher educators, inspectors and policy-makers to engage in critical discussion about the policy and practice implications of our research. This will be further informed by a set of four international perspectives on the issue and will lead to negotiated decisions about recommendations for further action. This aspect of the project will address the question: What are the opportunities and barriers to engaging professionals and policymakers in the policy implications of this research?

Thirdly, the project team will develop a set of commercial teaching resources, drawing on the successful pedagogy of the intervention, and informed by the outcomes of the Research Action Partnerships, to generate maximum access for English teachers.

The design of this project is wholly focused upon impact and knowledge exchange, rather than the generation of new data and new research. As such, there is a close relationship between the project activities and impact. Thus, this Impact Summary considers impact in terms only of the immediate beneficiaries, those who will benefit directly from the project. Consideration of the wider beneficiaries, is included in the Pathways to Impact document. There is already considerable academic and professional interest in the findings from the original study, both nationally and internationally, and the project aims to establish a solid initial impact upon which to build further elaborated knowledge exchange and professional development. The ultimate goal of any knowledge exchange in this area is to improve the educational attainment of students in writing.
Immediate beneficiaries:
1. English Departments involved in the Research Action Partnerships: this element of the project represents the most in-depth knowledge exchange activity and builds on the PI's previous success in working collaboratively with teachers. For example, the research design of Grant R000239123, involved active collaboration with 3 headteachers as participant researchers and was followed by securing 13 DfES Best Practice Scholarships with teachers from the research schools to follow up the findings in their practice. More recently, a Research Action Partnership with Education Bradford involved working with a range of primary schools over 18 months to develop practice based on our research. The impact of these partnerships is fundamental, because of the sustained and participatory engagement. They give teachers an immensely valuable opportunity to access and reflect on cutting-edge research, but equally importantly, to analyse and reflect on their own practice in the teaching of writing and to discuss pedagogy and writing attainment with their peers and with partnership researchers. The potential benefits of the Research Action Partnerships are: improved writing attainment for students in the schools involved; better departmental understanding of writing pedagogy; and improved contexts for bridging research and professional practice.
2. Stakeholders involved in the National Stakeholder Conference: this element of the project represents the broader reach of knowledge exchange by engaging a wide range of stakeholders in considering the research findings. It brings together those capable of achieving influence beyond their own practice, and includes policymakers, and the wider public (such as the English Association). This builds on the PI's previous experience of working constructively with many of the policy stakeholders as commissioned researcher (eg Ofsted 2005; DCSF 2008; QCA 1999) and as critical friend to several of the National Strategy projects (Improving Writing at Key Stage 3; Developing Talk; Supporting Able Readers) The potential benefits for stakeholders are: research-informed policy decisions; strengthened provision for writing in teacher education programmes; improved advisory or support programmes for writing; and better public understanding of the 'grammar debate'.
3. English teachers: the design of commercial teaching resources will make the practical realities of the research available and accessible to all secondary English teachers. The teaching materials for the intervention succeeded in raising student attainment with only limited mediation, suggesting that well-designed materials can have impact. This builds on the PI's previous experience of publications which makes research accessible to practitioners (see publications list) and upon the experience of the RF in writing teaching materials for Devon Curriculum Services, published by NATE (eg Lines and Lloyd 2007). The potential benefits for English teachers are: accessible materials to improve writing attainment translating the successful intervention strategies for more widespread use.