Development in Metalinguistic Understanding and its relationship to development in writing.

In the context of national and international concerns about standards in writing, both in school examinations and in the workplace, there is a pressing need for more informed understanding of the ways in which students become competent, autonomous writers. Many studies have emphasised the importance of metacognition and self-regulation in writing, signalling that writing is not simply about production, but also about choice and control. Metalinguistic understanding (knowledge about language) is one element of this control, yet we know surprisingly little about how this develops or how it supports writing development. Thus, this study seeks to investigate the relationship between metalinguistic understanding and development in writing; in other words, what metalinguistic understanding are students increasingly able to articulate and what are they increasingly able to demonstrate in their writing. In doing so, it brings together two complementary strands of research in writing.

Firstly, it sets out to generate understanding of how young writers' metalinguistic understanding develops between the ages of 9 and 14. Existing research on metalinguistic understanding has not considered this in the context of older writers, focusing instead on early years' writing, on oral development, and on bilingual learners. Thus, we have no empirically evidenced understanding of trajectories of metalinguistic development in the middle years. At the same time, we have only limited understanding of the relationship between metalinguistic development and writing development. In general, there is an assumption that metalinguistic development precedes language performance, but in the context of writing, it is important to interrogate whether greater metalinguistic understanding leads to improved writing performance, or whether writing performance marches ahead of, or indeed shapes, metalinguistic development. Gombert (1992) suggests tentatively that declarative knowledge (being able to articulate metalinguistic understanding about writing) precedes procedural knowledge (being able to transfer metalinguistic knowledge into writing). This study will address these gaps in the research through examining the inter-relationship of declarative metalinguistic knowledge and procedural metalinguistic knowledge, and the inter-relationship of metalinguistic understanding and writing performance.

Secondly, the study will seek to understand how the explicit teaching of grammar, relevant to the writing being taught, fosters metalinguistic understanding, and whether it supports the generation of metalinguistic understanding which leads to improvement in writing. This will include exploring the role of grammatical metalanguage in enhancing or constraining metalinguistic knowledge. Curricular emphases on teaching grammar are theoretically predicated upon an assumption that explicit teaching leads to increased metalinguistic understanding, which in turn is realized in improved writing performance. This causal trajectory has never been robustly researched, despite the prolonged and heavily contested debate about the place of grammar in the language curriculum (Locke 2010).

The proposed study is a collaborative, comparative study involving England and Australia. In England, grammar has notionally been a part of the National Curriculum for English since its inception in 1989, with particular emphasis given to 'grammar for writing' in the National Strategies from 1998-2011. In contrast, Australia is just introducing its first National Curriculum, with a parallel focus on grammar. The bid has been developed jointly and a parallel bid to this submitted to the ARC by the Australian team to fund the Australian element. The proposal here has been designed to have intellectual and methodological coherence both as part of a comparative study or as an independent national project, to mitigate against the risk of the Australian bid being unsuccessful.

The study's focus on metalinguistic understanding and its relationship to writing development will have important implications not only for academic beneficiaries, but also for policy-makers and for professional practice. These implications would not be limited to England and Australia only, but would have relevance to the many Anglophone countries for whom the place of grammar in the curriculum remains contested (eg Canada; USA; New Zealand; South Africa). Arguably, the Australian National Curriculum, with its goal to achieve a 'gradually more powerful conversion of 'knowledge about' language into a resource for effective reading, listening, viewing, writing, speaking and designing' (ACARA 2009:3), is underpinned by a more coherent rationale than its English counterpart. However, this rationale is not as yet empirically tested, a gap which this study will address in relation to writing. At the same time, the study's investigation of how metalinguistic understanding is realised in writing attainment is important given international concerns about achievement in writing and the social wellbeing and economic implications that derive from being an effective communicator in writing.

This study's results, therefore, will have the potential to inform evidence-based national policy-making in language education, curriculum design, examination and testing procedures, teacher education, and to inform practitioners and professional practice. The participatory and collaborative nature of the research design will also bring benefits to the teachers and students directly involved in the study, potentially transforming departmental cultures and practices.

Potential beneficiaries of this research in England and the nature of the potential impact are outlined below:

1. The project schools, both the participating teachers and students in the sample classes.
Involvement in the research is likely to benefit participating teachers in developing their pedagogic subject knowledge of metalinguistic understanding in the context of writing, and will benefit students in helping them to reflect on and articulate their metalinguistic understanding.

2. Policy-makers and policy-informers, such as the Department for Education, Ofsted, and government ministers.
The findings of the study are likely to benefit policy-makers by providing an evidence-based understanding of the relationship between metalinguistic understanding and writing development which should help to provide a coherent theoretical and pedagogical rationale for curriculum development.

3. Testing and Assessment bodies, such as Cambridge Assessment, OCR, Edexcel, and AQA.
The findings related to developmental aspects of metalinguistic understanding and how it manifests itself in writing are likely to benefit test developers in terms of both test design and marker training.

4. Professional Associations, such as the National Association of Advisors in English, the National Association for the Teaching of English, and the United Kingdom Literacy Association.
The findings are likely to benefit professional associations by providing evidence-based understanding to inform school-facing guidance and support materials and in shaping subject-specific responses to policy-makers and policy consultations.

5. School teachers and school leaders.
The teaching materials developed for the study and the pedagogical implications of the findings are likely to benefit English teachers and literacy co-ordinators, particularly with reference to teaching strategies which support the development of metalinguistic understanding.

6. Student teachers, and lecturers in HEI responsible for Primary and Secondary English.
The empirical results and teaching materials are likely to benefit pre-service students and course tutors, particularly in highlighting what linguistic subject knowledge and pedagogic practices supports effective teaching of metalinguistic understanding.