Teaching and Understanding Grammar: How Trainee Teachers Make Sense of a New Curriculum

HISLAM J. AND CAJKLER W.

University of Leicester School of Education

Talking about Grammar: case studies of teacher trainee reflections and explanations through structured recall interviews

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Manchester, 16-18 September 2004

Please contact one of the authors ([email protected] or [email protected]) if you wish to receive further information about this work.

. Introduction

This paper concerns the reflections of trainee primary school teachers undertaking the one-year Post-graduate Certificate of Education programme (PGCE), in an English university. Since the introduction of the National Literacy Strategy Framework, NLS, (DfEE, 1998) for primary schools, trainees have had to acquire explicit grammatical knowledge very quickly, in order to be able to explain it to children. Many trainees are not language specialists, but generalists who train to teach the whole primary national curriculum. NLS documents may be their first encounter with grammatical terminology. Their own experience of learning grammar may have been patchy, even trainees with degrees in English.

The paper is based on case studies of ten students in the classroom as they give grammatical explanations to pupils at Key Stage Two. Data collected since the introduction of the National Literacy Strategy (DfEE, 1998) revealed high levels of anxiety about the teaching of grammar, even amongst students whose subject knowledge was good. (Cajkler and Hislam, 2002). Since 2002, our research emphasis has shifted from gaps in student knowledge towards an engagement with the transformation of their knowledge during teaching episodes to enable pupils’ learning. To explore this, a number of whole-class grammar lesson episodes taught by students in KS2 classrooms were video-recorded. These offered a shared experience for the researcher and student teacher to recall and examine the grammar episodes, in post-video structured-recall interviews (adapted from the SPRINT project, Study of Primary Interactive Teaching, reported in English et al. 2002 and Moyles et al. 2003).

The structured-recall interviews (SRIs) provided an opportunity for students to reflect on their own subject knowledge and its application in the classroom. These interviews revealed that content knowledge, although important, was much less of a challenge than anticipated. The greater challenge lay with the scaffolding of this knowledge for pupils. Awareness was raised of the need to construct teacher-led explanations and activities, that avoid confusing learners and allow them to develop their own conceptual understanding.

The Grammar Challenge

Beard (1999: 49) claimed that there is ‘a growing feeling that grammar teaching has an unfulfilled potential.’ With the NLS, ambitious objectives at primary level mean that teachers have to explain grammatical terms and expect their pupils to make use of metalanguage in talking about texts. The official argument is that teaching about language will lead to improvements in writing (DfEE, 2000: 7) and in children’s thinking.

The issue of just what effect grammar teaching has on pupils’ writing has been a source of significant debate (Tomlinson, 1994, QCA, 1998, Wyse 2001). The evidence in support of a detailed focus on grammar with young children is not yet convincing (Hudson, 2001; Wyse, 2001). Wyse argued that the available research conducted to date does not show that knowledge of grammar leads to improvements in writing. In support, a recent literature review (Andrews et al. 2004: 47) concluded that ‘there is no high quality evidence to counter the prevailing belief that the teaching of the principles underlying and informing word order or ‘syntax’ has virtually no influence on the writing quality or accuracy of 5 to 16 year olds.’

The best the literature review can offer in support of current policy is the following:

‘In terms of practice, the main implication of our findings is that the evidence base to justify the teaching of syntax in order to improve the quality of writing whether traditional or generative/transformational, is very small’ (p. 49).

As a result, the review calls for a large-scale well-designed trial to explore fully the relationship between grammar teaching to 5-16 year olds and improvement in writing.

Despite the uncertainty and lack of supporting research, trainees have to negotiate a significant grammar challenge and explain grammatical concepts to young learners in the NLS. In addition, among teachers, there seems to be considerable uncertainty about how to ‘convert linguistic discussion into learning practice’ (Myhill, 2003: 358, citing Wilkins, 1979).

So, how do trainees fare? In common with other similar studies (Myhill, 2000, Williamson and Hardman, 1995), we found that trainees had little experience of describing language grammatically. We provided opportunities for trainees to develop subject knowledge. Entry and exit audits showed that grammatical knowledge improved during the PGCE year. But, it is one thing to ‘up’ trainee knowledge of grammar, another to see the knowledge aptly transmitted to young learners. The issues we sought to investigate were how trainees actively teach and explain grammar to their pupils, and the challenges they faced in attempting to do so.

The research

Ten case studies were conducted in 2001-04 to investigate how trainees shared their knowledge of grammar with pupils during teaching practice. The chosen methodology engaged researchers and trainees together in discussion and reflection on observed practice in the classroom. At the beginning of each year (September, 2001, 2002, 2003), we analysed general language awareness audits of 28 to 30 trainees, (25% of the total intake), 3 categorising each according to achievement and declared level of confidence. These audits sought to identify broad understanding of language and levels of confidence.

The trainees then completed grammar audits in November, which tested their ability to recognise nouns, verbs, prepositions, conjunctions, adverbs, adjectives, simple, compound and complex sentences. This activity was repeated at the end of the year in June to measure exit level understanding. Following the November audit, we asked for volunteers to engage in case studies of their grammar learning and teaching (observation, video-filming followed by structured recall interviews and a final group interview). In 2002 and 2003, six volunteered but only four were able to complete the activities, in 2004 there were four volunteers with two completions, making a total of ten studies over three years.

The entry and November grammar audits showed that the trainees differed considerably in their levels of grammatical knowledge and confidence. Every trainee, however, managed to improve grammatical terminology scores in subject knowledge audits during the year.

Case studies

Video recording of one hour of each trainee’s teaching, related to sentence level objectives (DfEE, 1998: 34-40), took place in the February-March or May-June teaching blocks of each year. The recordings were made using a hand-held camera.

The trainees were asked to choose a teaching sequence in which they intended to cover some aspect of grammar. We referred to these as ‘grammar episodes’, since we were not necessarily expecting to see a whole lesson dedicated to the teaching of grammar. The grammar episode might be an integral part of a lesson with aims other than the teaching of grammar.

The recording was left with the trainee to view and identify episodes for reflection. In this way, the trainee was given immediate control over the decision about which episode to review and had already begun a process of evaluation and reflection before the university researcher became involved. Approximately a week later, the observer-researcher and trainee engaged in a stimulated recall interview (SRI), while watching the recording of the lesson. The SRIs, which were recorded, were influenced by the Leicester SPRINT project (Study of Primary Interactive Teaching, reported in English et al., 2002; Moyles et al. 2003) in which VSRDs (video- stimulated reflective dialogues) were used by researchers and participating teachers to analyse classroom interaction.

On completion of the SRIs, the trainees engaged in a two-hour semi-structured Group Review. The review explored how trainees had learned grammar, how they had worked with the grammar objectives, and what they had learned from other teachers in the block practice schools. 4

At the end of this sequence, we, the researchers, watched the videos independently and began to identify and transcribe the grammar episodes, taking account of the context of the whole lesson. We then watched the videos together and agreed the wording of transcripts. Structured recall and group interviews were also transcribed and re-visited to identify common themes in the explanation for grammar. Below, we summarise with examples from the transcripts lessons learned from episodes discussed in SRIs. Four of the case studies are reported in detail in Hislam and Cajkler (in Bartels, N. ed, in press).

Grammar topics covered

The following grammar episodes were filmed and subjected to SRI:

- the use of adjectives (Linda, Year 3, Kate , Year 3); - teaching comparative forms of adjectives (Frances, Year 3) - teaching common homophones: (their, there, they’re, Year 5, Harriet); - distinguishing between first, second and third persons (Catherine, Year 3); - the use of connectives to ‘improve sentences’ (Holly, Year 4, Beccy, Year 4, Jyoti, year 5). - direct speech (writing) (Ben, Year 3) - prepositions (Julia, Year 5)

Teaching grammar All trainees selected episodes from whole-class teaching sessions. Lessons followed a similar pattern, loosely based on the ‘literacy hour’. One trainee, following the model prescribed by the mentor, taught a grammar lesson as a ‘stand-alone’ session with no direct relationship to the remainder of the lesson.

Teaching approaches varied, although in general we found that there was heavy dependence on overt explanation and elicitation of examples in trainee led whole class interactions, similar to findings made by Myhill (2003) in her study of a teacher teaching the passive voice. The following teaching patterns were identified:  two taught grammar contrastively (Harriet and Catherine), followed by re- telling;  Holly used talk-aloud demonstration based closely on examples given in Grammar for Writing (DfEE, 2000);  Linda and Julia used word class definitions and elicited examples;  Holly, Beccy and Jyoti focused on improving sentences;  Kate used group activities and tasks e.g. sentence chains. Elicitation of examples during initiation-response-feedback (IRF) interactions was a feature of almost all case studies (see Appendix for an example extract) as were gap- filling activities, brainstorming for examples and sentence-joining activities were used to practise connectives. 5 Using language to describe language

One of the most significant issues to arise from our review of grammar episodes, was how to use language to talk about language. In the SRIs, trainees reflected on their own language. How confident could they be that terms like person, agreement, adjective, noun etc., all found in the NLS objectives, could be used appropriately in KS2 lessons?

Exploring this issue of the challenge of using language (technical or semi-technical) led to reflection in SRIs on the following: a) Pupil understanding of terminology and trainees’ handling of unexpected responses b) Working with grammar terms: explanations and examples c) Handling pupil responses and explanations: terminology d) Handling pupils’ responses when meaning-focused e) Making writing ‘more interesting’.

Discussion took place about the purpose of teaching grammar. In general, the trainees said they taught the objectives because they were set, or were advised to do so by their teacher mentors. Three trainees questioned the value of this grammar teaching, but in general there was acceptance of the need to cover the NLS objectives and to use the specified technical terms. Notably, making writing ‘more interesting’ was a justification for teaching some of the grammatical features, often through the addition of adjectives and connectives (conjunctions). This was not questioned.

a) Pupil understanding of terminology

Trainees found it challenging to talk about language in a coherent way using semi- technical grammatical metalanguage. Catherine from the 2001-02 group (also reported in Hislam and Cajkler, in press), had been asked to teach pupils the differences between verbs in the first, second and third person (DfEE, 1998: 36) and to identify pronouns and understand their functions in sentences through distinguishing the 1st, 2nd, 3rd person forms of pronouns e.g. I, me, we, you, she, her, them. She chose to do so through the story of The Fox and the Hare, explaining each person in turn and asking frequent check questions in teacher-led elicitation, for example: Catherine: If we say that the Fox is telling the story, then he would be saying that HE [her emphasis] was telling the story and when we are describing how you use different words in sentences we say that HE is the third person. Pupils: (indistinct noise) Catherine: Who is the first person? 6

Pupils: We. Catherine: Or? Pupils (pause, then some mutter): I Catherine: I. Don’t call out please .. so first person is either I or we. Pupil: Or her! Catherine: Don’t call out please. What’s the second person? [nominates Graham] Graham: Hmmm, her, her and he. Catherine: Not quite.

Despite initial confusion, Catherine went on to elicit correct responses and she managed writing activities very successfully. Pupils wrote and read out coherent stories (re-told in the appropriate person) from the perspective of the hare or tortoise. Despite this, after viewing her ‘grammar’ episodes the trainee believed that about 50% of the pupils:  Did not understand that ‘we’ was first person (because ‘we’ is more than one, so how can ‘we’ be first?),  Had difficulty grasping that ‘you’ is both singular and plural, while ‘person’ is a singular word.

In the SRI, Catherine said that the learners did not have an understanding of ‘person’ in the technical sense, implying that the overt explanation had had little effect. They saw ‘person’ not as a grammatical concept but as people. Their original understanding of the term (as a human being) clouded the trainee’s presentation of first, second and third person. She accepted that her method of explaining might have added to confusion, by not starting with the children’s underlying understanding of the term.

The problem was not with Catherine’s subject knowledge; she could talk about the linguistic concept of person but she felt that her direct explanations had been inconsequential. She concluded that the pupils could have re-told the story in the first or third person without the grammatical input. The pupils’ writing of stories from different perspectives, perhaps the principal point of the lesson, was successful.

7 b) Working with grammar terms: explanations and examples On the advice of her school-based mentor, Julia taught a Year 5 class a discrete lesson on prepositions She began by asking for a definition. Upon receiving no response, she gave one: ‘A preposition is a word or a couple of words that shows a relationship between one thing and another. Prepositions will often tell you where something is’.

Use of an item of metalanguage was emphasised in this lesson, a feature identified in Myhill’s study of a teacher (2003: 363). Julia successfully elicited a number of prepositions in relation to a picture, despite the fact acknowledged in the SRI, that she did not explain that the purpose of the picture was to draw out prepositions. In reflecting on what she saw herself say and do on the video recording, she also concluded that she would not have used the word ‘preposition’ in the beginning but would have offered a bank of prepositions from which pupils could choose to describe the picture. Like Catherine, she reflected on the value of the explicit teaching and use of the term ‘preposition’ at the beginning of the lesson. She would have ended the lesson seeking to create a definition with the pupils, aiming to refine their understanding, rather than presenting a definition at the beginning.

‘Yes, I would have started with the word bank of prepositions and asked the children to have a look a them and talk to one another about what these words are all looking at. Can they generate their own definition of what these words are describing? I would have just focused on the position and perhaps the next day focused on the time prepositions rather than trying to cram them all into 45 minutes and hoping for the best. I don’t think I’d have started with the definition at all. I felt as though I had to, because I didn’t know whether I was supposed to teach the technical name or if it was ok to leave that towards the end.’

This extract illustrates the value of the SRI process in enabling reflection that led to resolutions about classroom practice. The SRI was an opportunity for trainees to consider their own and their pupils’ misconceptions. Julia’s formative reflection was in stark contrast to the discouraging attitude she revealed when talking about one of her teacher-mentors: ‘Yes, I find it really hard, even with the literacy strategy, trying to pick out what the different objectives are asking me to do because of the language that’s used. I asked my teacher mentor at my last placement about one of them and she said ‘I’ve been here 7 and a half years and I don’t normally teach that one so what hope have you got?’ That burst my bubble completely.’ Another challenge identified in the SRI was how to limit the focus. Julia had begun the lesson believing that she focused on ‘position’ prepositions, but as the lesson progressed it was clear that she had also included ‘time’ prepositions (after, before, at). In addition, during the opening teacher-led IRF phase of the lesson, a number of 8 grammar issues arose, notably a desire by the trainee to elicit technical terms. In one instance, after identifying ‘by’, as the preposition in the phrase ‘by the door’ pupils are asked:

Trainee: What kind of word is door? Pupil: An object. Trainee: Yes, it’s got a name so it’s a ……….Ben? Ben: A pronoun? Trainee: Not a pronoun. Pupil: Adjective: Trainee: Not an adjective. Pupil: A noun. Trainee: It’s a noun. Excellent.

The final correct response was accepted with relief, but pupils’ guesses were not dealt with in any way other than to offer a negative evaluation. This sequence was followed by a further set of explanations:

Trainee: Very often, a preposition is used before a noun because it is describing the relationship of one object to another. So, we had, .. Dan, what was yours? Dan: The chicken is opposite the door. Trainee: Right, so the chicken is our object. Ok? Is opposite. That’s our preposition and the door is the noun. So, it’s telling us where the chicken is in relation to the door. All right.

A little later,

Trainee: prepositions can also act as adverbs. What’ s an adverb?

A pupil responds that an adverb tells us more about a verb (a standard accepted response). The relationship is not pursued further, apart from the following guidance (to which there is no response):

Trainee: so, when we are answering the question for example ‘How? When? Where?: OK?

Sometimes, trainees reflected on the challenge of teaching their own recently learned knowledge. During the lesson, in response to a request for the preposition in the phrase ‘in a state of relaxation’ one pupil suggested ‘of’. The trainee said:

‘I really hesitated then as well because I was racking my brain trying to remember this list of prepositions and seeing if ‘of’ was one of them.’

9 Despite the hesitation, ‘of’ was accepted and the elicitation of further examples of prepositions proceeded smoothly, in a largely successful lesson. Nevertheless, for grammar episodes, the trainee was still dependent on recent deliberate learning of terms and examples, rather than awareness and ability to analyse words and how they function in context. c) Handling pupil responses and explanations: terminology

We found uncertainties about how to respond and how to receive pupil responses in almost all case studies, how to tackle misconceptions as they arose. Sometimes, trainees were puzzled by pupil responses and occasionally they were so keen to elicit the technical term that opportunities for exploration of children’s understanding were missed. For instance, during a lesson on the identification and use of adjectives, Kate sought to engage pupils in talk about the roles of adjectives and nouns:

Kate: Now I want you look at those underlined words and I want you to think about what these words are doing there… Pupil: Describing the sentence. Kate: Is it describing a sentence? Excellent. They are describing words but who can tell me what they are describing? Pupil: Describing the yellow glare ………………. Kate: what’s the same about ‘strange, yellow and still’? Pupil(Mita): .. adjectives. Kate: Well done. She’s said the word; they’re all describing words, which are called adjectives and what do adjectives do? What do they describe? Pupil: They are next to it. Kate: Next to what? Pupil: The other word. Kate: But, what kind of word is it? Rajesh, you have a go. Rajesh: Noun. Kate: Fantastic. Can anybody tell me what a noun is? Sharon? Sharon: A noun is something to describe (inaudible)…. Kate: Good try. Paminder, you have a go.

Paminder then goes on to give a list of examples of nouns (places, countries etc).

In the SRI, the trainee reflected on the above and emphasised how clear she needed to be when explaining or asking for examples:

‘It’s really made me realise how clear your language needs to be and you need to think about what you’re saying …..’

In common with other trainees, Kate was often grateful for the interventions of comprehending pupils: ‘I think I was very lucky that Mita …..picked up on the fact that they were describing words because, actually watching it I was amazed that she’s said that because I just thought ‘how did you get that from my question? …. probably hardly any of the children understood what I was asking, what kind of answer I was looking for and I think I was really lucky to get that answer…’

‘When Mita said it’s a describing word or describes a sentence and I said does it describe a sentence? Sam went ‘yellow glare’ and I think I didn’t spend enough time talking about – because he’d said yellow glare and so there’s some kind of misconception there or something, you know, there was something wrong with his answer so I think I should have spent more time ….. talking about which were the actual adjectives or checking with him. Can you tell me what the adjectives are? … My assessment of it was that he had got the idea of, or he knew which words were the adjectives and that glare wasn’t an adjective ….’

In Kate’s lesson it was clear that some pupils had internalised explanations of grammatical terms and examples and the trainee could call on these to support her objectives. Others, however, could seem puzzled when their explanations were deemed incomplete as in the above extract. This led to exchanges where pupils might give quite reasoned responses to what was being asked but were puzzled because the teacher had a particular right answer in mind. For instance, the pupil who said that the adjective was next to the word it was qualifying was indicating the way he was thinking, but because he had not given the technical term the answer was left as something incomplete. In the context of the lesson, the adjectives were next to the word they were qualifying (bright, yellow glare; still water), but an opportunity was lost here to confirm the child’s understanding and build on it. This was probably due to determination to elicit the technical term ‘noun’. There was a danger that trainees were over-focused on the elicitation of the correct technical term or standard definition (describing words etc), as recognised in the SRIs, rather than exploration of language in context. This foregrounding of technical terms is something identified by Myhill (2003: 363, citing Keith 1997 in support). d) Handling pupils’ responses when meaning-focused

Occasionally, handling pupil’s responses was a challenge when trainees elicited an answer or example they did not want. This might arise when the trainee was unsure or nervous about engaging in the explicit presentation of grammatical forms. For example, in an exchange during a lesson on the formation of comparatives with er/more, the trainee was trying to elicit the form of the comparative from ‘good’:

Trainee: What about good? Do we say gooder? Pupil: Nicer. Trainee: That would be the comparative of nice. 11 Pupil: Better. Trainee: Good boy. Pupil: Brilliant. Pupil: Matter. Trainee: That’s not an adjective. Good try.

And a little later, when trying to elicit the superlative of ‘bad’ (i.e. worst) pupil responses remained semantically linked to the trainee’s focus, but not morphologically:

Pupil: Worser? Trainee: Could I write worser?…… If it’s getting even more than this … I might put …Bad…..Worse….. even more than worse…… Pupil: Worser. Trainee: Not worser…it’s a special one … remember …. It doesn’t follow the same rules. Pupil: Terrible. Trainee: I can put terrible but it’s like worse, but a different ending. Pupil: Horrified. Trainee: I could put horrified …. That would make it worse, but it’s a different ending on the end of it. ………….. What is the most bad? Pupil: Extremely bad. Trainee: I could say that.

The trainee finally presented and negotiated recognition of ‘the worst’ assisted by a pupil who had worked out what response was sought. A similar passage occurred when the trainee moved on to the comparative with three-syllable adjective (interesting, in this case). The trainee told the group that we don’t say ‘interestinger’ and asked for ideas about how the comparative is made, when something is more than interesting. Among the first responses were ‘mysterious’, ‘intelligent’, ‘wonderful’, all presumably seen as intensifying the meaning of ‘interesting’.

In the SRI, the trainee saw this focusing on lexical meaning as the pupils using a coping strategy because they did not see what she was getting at. Unsure of the correct form, they used something else:

‘Now, they start doing it again. If they can’t do it, they’ll pick another word. So, they couldn’t think of a word so they thought of ‘terrible’ because that is worse than bad. Because they still can’t, they don’t know what I’m getting at so they’re just picking worse and worse words, you know, and I had to say the most bad because I couldn’t say the worst.’

When analysing the pupil’s response of ‘mysterious’ (as comparative of interesting):

‘I don’t know why she says it but the children who say it after her just misheard her and thought that we’d moved on to ‘mysterious’ because then they try and make that comparative.’

In the SRIs, trainees also identified critical moments which indicated success. In a lesson on adjectives, Linda was surprised by the level of awareness (7-9):

‘We were doing about the position of adjectives before nouns; ‘One of the girls, she’s special needs really …she was the only one who saw polar bear as an adjective in front of a noun. I didn’t think anyone would get that. I didn’t think about it myself.’

However, in the same lesson, elicitation caused an unexpected response because Linda was uncomfortable about using the term ‘adjective’. The trainee gave the usual definition: ‘Adjective is the word to describe…’ but then instead of asking for adjectives, she asked for ‘describing words’ to describe a pirate. Children responded with ‘spooky, deadly and dangerous’ but also ‘likes sharks’.

Linda then said: ‘What I want is a list of words that just describe what he was like.’

Then, pupils replied with words like ‘bad, cold-blooded, yellow-teethed’.

How would the pupils have responded if she had asked for a list of adjectives? There was uncertainty about the use of grammatical terms as trainees were unsure whether to ask pupils to think as many adjectives as they can. Asking pupils for describing words quite reasonably led to descriptors of the ‘likes sharks’ kind. e) Making writing more interesting

We found this justification for the teaching of grammar in a number of the case studies. Holly (also reported in Hislam and Cajkler, in press) taught the use of connectives (NLS term), then adjectives and adverbs to a mixed group of 8-10 year old pupils. She explained her purpose in the SRI: to get the children to think about their writing when they’re giving pieces of information to try and make their sentences more interesting for the reader…….. It was one of the objectives from the strategy to look at re-ordering sentences and using connectives and subordinate clauses so that’s where I sort of picked that up. Her explanation took the form of trainee demonstration and talk-aloud modelling, during which she explained the choices she was making: when we’ve written our sentences we can think about making them more interesting.

13 This approach led to some quite long stretches of uninterrupted discourse in the explanation of how ‘sentences can be joined together’: Holly: So what I’m going to do, I’m going to demonstrate for you on the board how I would add a bit more information into that writing. So, I think what I’ll do is, I’ll stick with the first sentence ‘The earth takes a day to spin on its axis.’ And the next sentence down to here (pointing to the board) I think I might join together. Because what can we use in our writing to join sentences together? Sean? Sean: Connectives? (rising intonation) Holly: Connectives, can’t we? So, let’s start off then. What was my first sentence? ‘The moon spins on its axis like the earth.’ So, that sentence is OK to start off with. And then I thought I can use a connective to start my next sentence so I think I might say (writing quickly on the board) ‘Where the earth takes a day to spin on its axis…’ Now I’ve used a connective there at the beginning (pointing to the word ‘where’). I’m going to link this information together. So, before I start my next bit of information, I’m going to use a comma here. Pupils, who were attentive throughout, made sentences using other ‘connectives’ e.g. after, when, but, because.

For adjectives and adverbs, similar explanation occurred but with meaning-related exchanges to remind pupils of the function of adjectives and adverbs: Holly: But what else can we put in our sentences to make them interesting? What I’m thinking of are more describing words [emphasis]. Yes, Sonia? Pupil: Adjectives. Holly: We can use adjectives, can’t we? What does an adjective do? Pupil: Describes something. Holly: Describes something, doesn’t it? Remember yesterday when we were talking about the dog. The black dog. Black. Describing the colour of the dog. What else were we talking about that we can put in our sentences? Pupil: An adverb. Holly: Yes, an adverb. What’s an adverb? It describes how something happens like ‘weakly’ or ‘strongly’. Holly followed advice from Grammar for Writing (DfEE, 2000: 117), and pupils appeared to respond well. Addition of adjectives, connectives and subordinate clauses was described as a strategy for making things more interesting. She wanted

14 them to make their writing ‘more interesting’ by adding adjectives and adverbs, justifying usefulness of her grammar activities: … It’s something they’ve got to know about ….…to know what a connective is or a subordinate clause…I think that will probably help them in their learning, because I know, really I didn’t have that.. I didn’t have that grammar teaching the way it is now. During the SRI, Holly was asked about her experience of being taught grammar and whether newly acquired knowledge of technical language helped with her own writing: I mean I could write and add that information in myself but I wouldn’t think: Ah I’m going to use a subordinate clause now. However, she was expecting her pupils to think in such ways. Trainees were engaging in this kind of thinking, despite the fact that research needs to be done to investigate whether teaching in such ‘grammatical’ ways supports improvement in written composition (Andrews et al. 2004). Holly, in common with many other trainees, did not analyse this claim, but it seemed to be taken from NLS training videos in which the addition of adjectives and connectives is equated with making writing more interesting.

Jyoti, in another school, also used the ‘more interesting’ justification for the teaching of adjectives and connectives, to assist the production of interplanetary travel brochures. However, Jyoti focused more broadly on the improvement of text and seemed to be less concerned with terminological issues.

Most rooms have a view of the Earth.

Trainee: what can we do to make that sentence more interesting?

This elicits a number of powerful adjectives: amazing, incredible, wonderful.

Trainee: What kind of words are these? Pupil: …. Adjectives. Trainee: Right Trainee: What else can we do to make it more interesting? Pupil: Many rooms. Trainee: OK, Anything else? Pupil: Provide …. Trainee: Very good. Jyoti was less concerned about focusing on one word class and accepted other variants that answered the question (making the text the more interesting), so accepted determiners and verbs. She dealt smoothly and engagingly with pupil responses. 15 Conclusions In the main, the lessons were successful, engaging and leading to productive activities. Despite the frustrations explored in SRIs, trainees felt they gained confidence and competence. They were keen to analyse their work and improve. Many issues were identified in the group interviews that influenced trainees’ preparation, including:  the number of teaching objectives  a feeling of pressure to cover everything.

‘You have to look like you are covering everything even though you are aware that some pupils need more time and opportunity for reflection.’

‘You have to move on to the next thing…even if you feel that the children haven’t got it’ (in the SRI about the lesson on ‘person’). ‘ You have to look like you are covering everything even though you are aware that some pupils need more time and opportunity for reflection.’

‘Do you tackle a few things well or do you do a little bit of everything?’ Trainees organised their learning as the teaching need arose, finding little use for traditional reference grammars, with many grammar books, websites and textbooks deemed inaccessible. Resources designed for classroom use with pupils were better received, for example Bain and Bridgewood (1998).

Our observations revealed that children are becoming familiar with terms for parts of speech and sentence types, but with varying degrees of conceptual understanding; they are talking about language (with varying degrees of precision) but the purpose and effects of this are less clearly understood. The lesson on prepositions probably led to pupils knowing more examples of prepositions than before. But, the terms used in the explanation (e.g. adverb, object) were not explored and seemed to lead to further misconceptions. Lessons about the use of connectives and adjectives left pupils believing they needed these features to make writing more interesting even though it is not known how such teaching improves writing.

If terms like ‘person’ ‘object’ ‘adverb’ and ‘preposition’ are to be used with clarity finding out how children understand such terms in the first place would be useful. The teaching of comparatives showed a case where the trainee focused on the grammatical form, but learners were thinking about lexical meaning. They were not on the same wavelength. The trainee was ultimately successful in her objectives but the process in which they had engaged may have puzzled some learners.

To understand the challenge facing trainees (and perhaps also qualified teachers), we need to explore how children who have been taught in the NLS talk about grammar (currently an under-researched phenomenon). 16

We suggest that we need to investigate:

 the effect of trainee explanations on pupils’ understanding;  the role of overt explanation and its place alongside exploratory activity. Trainee teachers and teachers themselves experience misconceptions.  how to receive pupil feedback, especially when unexpected, but indicative of pupils’ emerging understanding;  how to vary approaches so that exploration of grammatical concepts is less dependent on trainee-led IRF elicitation phases;  how to fashion lessons that derive from objectives but are not bound to them in technical terms.

The experience of Catherine and Harriet showed us that trainees had begun to appreciate the uneven way in which knowledge about language is acquired, that the ability to talk about nouns, verbs, adjectives and prepositions is not learned in tidy termly sequences (analysis of person for seven-year olds, connectives and subordinate clauses at age nine, passive voice at ten etc). Unfortunately, they felt required to teach a particular sequence.

Trainees and pupils need time to reflect and process the knowledge they acquire in safe settings (Czerniewska, 1994). Our collaborative case studies confirmed the importance and value of time in teacher education. Acquisition of teaching skills is a continuing process, not all in place before engaging in teaching the primary curriculum. Grammatical definitions learned at school (e.g. an adjective is a describing word) are deeply embedded and time is needed for trainees to consider the implications of passing on such definitions and the possible misconceptions that might arise. The opportunity to engage in the SRI helped some trainees to realise the importance of care with their own use of language, as already mentioned. In addition, the SRI process was a useful (though time-consuming) way to reflect on and develop teaching skills. ‘it’s really nice to keep this video because I’ll be able to look at it again and I will remember the questions I asked and I’ll go right, definitely not ask that, or you know what other ways I can ask it? ……..I can look at the video and think oh yea I won’t do it this way……………….’ (Kate )

17 PGCE programmes have to find ways to offer large numbers of trainees opportunities for reflection about grammar learning and teaching. The case studies have shown that sometimes grammatical explanation may not assist, that analysis of language can precede the giving of rules and that in some cases (e.g. person to 7-8 year olds) little if anything seems to be gained in the subsequent writing activity by beginning with overt explanation of a concept.

We need to have the courage to acknowledge that exploration of a grammar term may not always be best achieved through explicit presentation of grammar objectives and the giving of a definition, especially in the early stages of KS2. Grammatical knowledge is important, but trainees also need time for context- based analysis, (looking at use in context and not just guessing at parts). This research project offered appropriate audience, time and support for a few trainees to explore grammar-related pedagogy, but the opportunity for such development needs to be available to the whole cohort in each year and balanced against other subject knowledge demands. That is now our challenge so that all trainees address their uncertainties and develop pedagogic skills in relation to grammar. The question is how we build trainees’ knowledge so they can come to terms with the objectives, but also arrive at a situation in which trainees feel secure enough to question the validity of what is proposed in order to make informed decisions about what to teach and how to do it.

REFERENCES Andrews, R. Torgerson, C., Beverton, S., Locke, T., Low, G., Robinson, A., Zhu, D. (2004) The effect of grammar teaching (syntax) in English on 5 to 16 year olds’ accuracy and quality in written composition. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education Bain, R. & Bridgewood, M. (1998). The Primary Grammar Book: Finding patterns- making sense, Sheffield: NATE. Beard, R. (1999). National Literacy Strategy: Review of research and other related evidence. London: DfEE. Cajkler, W. and Hislam, J. (2002). Trainee teachers’ Grammatical Knowledge: the tension between public expectation and individual competence, Language Awareness, 11/ 3: 161-177. Czerniewska, P. (1994). Learning about Grammar. In J. Bourne (Ed.), Thinking through Primary Practice (pp. 120-129). London: Routledge. Department for Education and Employment, DfEE. (1998). The National Literacy Strategy: Framework for Teaching. London: DfEE. DfEE. (2000). Grammar for Writing. (Ref. DfEE 0107/2000). London: DfEE English, E., Hargreaves, L. & Hislam, J. (2002). Pedagogical Dilemmas in the National Literacy Strategy: Primary teachers’ perceptions, reflections and classroom behaviour. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32/1: 9-26. 18

Hislam, J. and Cajkler, W. (2004). In Bartels, N. (in press)Teacher Education and Allied Linguistics, Dordrecht: Kluwer Hudson, R. (2001). Grammar teaching and writing skills. Retrieved December 14, 2001, from http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/writing.htm. Moyles, J. et al. (2003). Interactive teaching in primary classrooms. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Myhill, D. (2000). Misconceptions and Difficulties in the Acquisition of Metalinguistic Knowledge. Language and Education, 14/3: 151-163. Myhill, D. (2003). Principled Understanding? Teaching the Active and Passive Voice. Language and Education, 17/5: 355-370. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, (QCA). (1998). The Grammar Papers: Perspectives on the teaching of grammar in the National Curriculum. (Ref. QCA/98/052). Hayes: QCA Publications. Williamson, J. & Hardman, F. (1995). Time for Refilling the Bath? A study of primary student teachers' grammatical knowledge. Language and Education, 9/2: 117-134. Wyse, D. (2001). Grammar for writing (sic)? A critical review of empirical evidence. British Journal of Educational Studies, 49/4: 411-427.

Appendix Case study extract Linda worked on nouns and adjectives, using elicitation routines that depended on meaning-related understandings of what words do, as the following exchange about adjective-noun combinations illustrates: Linda: Did anyone say Bad Bill? We’ve got Simon and Bill – what kinds of words are they? Pupil: They’re names. Linda: They’re names, that’s right. Can we use another word? Pupil: Freaky Fred. Linda: Yes, but what sort of name is it? Pupil: Nickname? Linda: Yes, well the whole thing [pointing to Bad Bill] would be a nickname, wouldn’t it? What sort of ….? Pupil: A proper noun? Linda: Yes, thank you very much. So, this bit here [pointing to the word ‘Bad’] is what kind of word? Pupils: (indistinct noise) Linda: And this word here is what we use to describe that noun. And when we describe a noun, there’s name for it. A describing word is a ……? Anyone remember from last week? Pupil: An adverb? Linda: Nearly, good try. Pupil: An adjective? Linda: Yes, it is. That’s an adjective…telling us what that is like, isn’t it. This person’s name is Simon and he’s…? 19 Pupil: Stupid.