Teacher Trainees’ Explicit Knowledge of Grammar and Primary Curriculum Requirements in England
INSIGHTS FROM THE STIMULATED RECALL DIALOGUES AND GROUP INTERVIEWS
In the group interview, when invited to identify what had hindered their grammar teaching, time was a recurrent theme. One said:
To spend an evening looking at grammar when you have (all the other subjects) to prepare…is impossible.
Of great concern was the number of teaching objectives that they felt pressured to cover:
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?
You have to move on to the next thing…even if you feel that the children haven’t got it.
Our trainees clearly believed that children are being asked to acquire too much too quickly. Concerns about inability to give adequate time to develop pupils’ understanding echoed a dilemma expressed in the SPRINT project by experienced teachers (English et al. 2002), who felt that children’s thinking and talking time had been eroded by NLS demands.
In group interviews, trainees told us that before the teaching practice they had felt that they had to ‘know’ grammar before they could explain it accessibly. So, at that time, use was made of self-access materials. However, it emerged that it was mainly through having to prepare for teaching rather than explicitly learning about grammar that trainees felt they gained confidence and competence. Harriet articulated this common solution, saying that she studied the areas of grammar she had to teach:
Me, I do it as I go along…you just do what you have to for the lessons next week really.
We haven’t got time to broaden our whole range of grammar ....you have to prioritize.
Each trainee worked in this incremental way but did not find assistance in traditional reference grammars. Many grammar books, websites and textbooks, including those on recommended course lists, were deemed inaccessible, did not help them explain points of grammar or exceeded their current level of knowledge. Resources designed for classroom use with pupils were more useful, for example Bain and Bridgewood (1998):
This kind of book simplifies it for me so that I can understand it.
Through the group interviews, we learned that our trainees also relied for guidance on the NLS Framework (DFEE, 1998), Grammar for Writing and Year 6 Exemplification materials. Unfortunately, Grammar for Writing is often limited in the guidance it gives, for example muddled advice about connectives (DfEE, 2000: 122-123), which Holly had used. While the NLS prescribed the teaching of homophones, Harriet found Grammar for Writing lacking. The research activity drew our attention to this and other flaws in prescribed materials, enabling us to offer cautionary advice to future groups, without undermining confidence in the NLS.
By the end of the teaching practice, the trainees were at ease with the language of the NLS, but there was variation in the degree to which they challenged its authority. Holly, with the least explicit grammatical knowledge but with high confidence, accepted the description of language in the NLS and the methodology recommended. She admitted in the group interview that she was able to cope whilst in control of the teaching but felt insecure when asked questions for which she did not have a prepared ‘grammar’ script. When she did not know, she advised the children that she would return to the subject following further research. Despite having the lowest score at the beginning of the course, she had little anxiety about working with grammar by the time of the group interview. In answer to a question about when she began to use the term subordinate clause, she replied: “since I’ve been on this course”. She used preparation for NLS lessons to research and she felt that her discourse had changed: “the more you teach it, the more the more you’ve researched it.
Catherine, with more experience of studying language (but lower confidence), expressed frustration with the NLS objectives, some being inappropriate to most of the age group for which they are specified. We do not know if any applied linguists and child development specialists were asked to advise on NLS grammar, but suspect that Catherine did not feel well served by the unnamed ‘experts’, behind the NLS. For her, the principal challenge was not learning grammar but finding ways to put it over to young children, often in groups of 25 or more. She thought that our research had helped to widen her own understanding. She reflected on one NLS explanation: “one test of a verb is whether or not its tense can be changed”. she said: “I’ve never thought of it like that”. This seemed to involve a cognitive leap forward though she was perhaps more familiar with the grammatical terms than others in the group. She could explain what a verb is, but would not readily discuss its properties. In her case, active exploration of language appeared to reduce anxiety and add to awareness.
The four participants appreciated opportunities to discuss lesson plans with more experienced teachers and their own class teacher. Disappointingly, opportunities for observation of grammar teaching were limited during the school experience, the trainees claiming not to have seen a single example of grammar teaching. Our research could not give insight into how much children were being taught about language in their normal class time and what models of grammar teaching they experienced. This is an area for future investigation on our part as the trainees’ claim may not be entirely accurate. It is possible that, early in their training, they were witnessing grammar teaching but not identifying it as such.
