decision to use Bloom’s taxonomy at this stage in the thesis reflects the value of using a well-established framework of categories of intellectual processes: ‘remembering’, ‘understanding’, ‘applying’, ‘analysing’, ‘evaluating’ and ‘creating’ as identifiable categories. It is a well-known framework familiar to the ‘wider education community’ (STA 2013:27). It also has some direct relation to grammatical terminology. For example, the Technical Report on the SPaG (STA 2013) presented Bloom’s taxonomy as ‘a meaningful and useful scale, representative of the key cognitive processes children go through’ (STA 2013:28). Furthermore, while ‘applying’, ‘analysing’, ‘evaluating’ and ‘creating’ are not differentiated between in the findings of this study, the two processes of ‘remembering’ and ‘understanding’ emerged as highly significant. Therefore, a reconceptualisation of this Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, in order to demonstrate the re-positioning of ‘remembering’ and ‘understanding’ and in the light of the distinction made between grammatical terminology
per se and grammatical terminology in use would seem to be appropriate. It is hoped that this will result in a
‘scale’ which is even more ‘meaningful and useful’ (STA 2003:28) for the teaching and learning of grammatical terminology. For ease of reference, the version proposed by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) is presented as Figure 6.1.
146
Figure 6.1: A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001)
In the light of the findings of this study, it is posited that ‘remembering’ grammatical terminology is not a lower order skill, positioned at the base of the triangle (see Fig 6.1 Anderson and Krathwohl 2001), through which the pupil must pass in order to progress upwards through the cumulative hierarchy of cognitive processes. This thesis suggests that this would imply a form of rote learning, which is impossible for complex abstractions, misguidedly suggesting that automaticity of recall at this early stage in concept development is both desirable and achievable. Nevertheless, this perception is reflected at different levels of educational circles; for example: (i) at policy level (e.g. the “teach and apply” approach in the National Curriculum DfE 2013a:64); (ii) at practice level (e.g. teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions of the benefits of “teaching grammatical terminology earlier to embed it sooner”) and at research level (e.g. the declarative versus procedural binary).
This thesis argues that this is not helpful as a conceptualisation of the process of the development of grammatical terminology: it presupposes that pupils will be able to operate with the recall of complex content in the same way as they operate with the recall of more concrete or less complex content. Grammatical terms are difficult with different abstract concepts (Final assertion 2) and, as such, do not lend themselves to the ‘concrete recollections’ of the young child (Vygotsky 1978:50), inferred by the bottom “rung” of ‘remembering’. Therefore, Model 1 presents ‘remembering’ differently i.e. as an ongoing endeavour, developing alongside, through and because of ‘applying’, ‘analysing’, ‘evaluating’ and ‘creating’. It negates the assumption that rote learning through repetition and practice over time will support grammatical terminology in use by achieving automaticity (Final assertion 11) and argues that, while this may achieve more confident recall of definitional
147
verbal meaning, it will not necessarily achieve conceptual understanding (Final assertion 1) that can be meaningfully applied. This thesis posits that it is only deep conceptual understanding over time that will best realise grammatical terminology in use (e.g. Final assertion 3). See Figure 6.2: Model 1.
Figure 6.2: Model 1: A conceptual model for the teaching and learning of grammatical terminology: a reconceptualisation of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson and Krathwohl 2001) based on the study’s findings
Meaning-making through grammatical terminology
Grammatical terminology in use Grammatical terminology per se
Crucially, within this model, this process of ‘remembering’ is a mediated one (light blue triangle). The importance of mediation was evident in the findings (Final assertion 12) and is supported by the literature. For example, a fragment of one of Vygotsky’s unpublished notes suggests mediation ‘as the basis of higher psychological processes’ (1978:Preface), based on the principle that ‘human beings actively remember with the help of signs’ (Vygotsky 1978:51). In the classroom, this mediation is provided by a wide range of implicit and explicit tools and signs, modelled initially by the teacher, then increasingly self-directed and self- constructed by the pupil. The intention is to reduce the cognitive load experienced by the pupil in having to remember an abstraction at the point of application.
Through the use of mediated tools and signs to support recall, the pupil is able to focus more on the higher- order processes of that concept (i.e. ‘application’, ‘analysis’, ‘evaluation’ and ‘creating’). Model 1 proports that,
Conceptual
Understanding
Mediated
Remembering
148
at the beginning stages of conceptual development of a grammatical word meaning, the need for mediation is considerable (represented by the wide base of the light blue triangle) but, over time, the need for mediational tools and signs to support recall in the context of a task diminishes until the pupil is more genuinely capable of unmediated meaningful recall (Ausubel 2000) (represented at the apex of the light blue triangle). At this point, the pupil ‘casts off the external stimuli, no longer paying attention to them’ (Vygotsky 1978:72) and begins to organise sign use internally and in a more complex way. Thus, it can be inferred that the pupil has greater space available for the intellectual freedom necessary for the higher order processes: thought processes which have begun to run vertically as well as horizontally over and through the different grammatical abstractions and generalisations, making connections between them.
Conversely, ‘understanding’ is presented as an inverted, dark blue triangle, alongside the light blue triangle of ‘mediated remembering’. Thus, the process of ‘understanding’ is seen as the inverse of that of ‘remembering’ i.e. ‘mediated remembering’ reduces in emphasis as ‘understanding’ increases. Crucially, this ‘understanding’ is ‘conceptual understanding’ i.e. a deeper-level understanding which can be generalised or abstracted to other contexts. The use of an inverted triangle typifies Vygotsky’s assertion that, at the first point of learning (represented by the point of the inverted triangle of ‘understanding’), the conceptual understanding of grammatical terminology has only just begun and exists at this early stage in development as ‘only the vaguest representation’ (1987:172). Again, over time and through the range of classroom activities which focus the pupils on ‘applying’, ‘analysing’, ‘evaluating’ and ‘creating’ in purposeful, meaningful and motivational reading and writing activities, ‘conceptual understanding’ develops.
This reconceptualisation overcomes the difficulties inherent in the declarative/procedural binary as it posits that ‘mediated remembering’ and ‘conceptual understanding’ (i.e. declarative knowledge) develop alongside and through the higher order processes of ‘application’, ‘analysis’, ‘evaluation’ and ‘creating’ (i.e. procedural understanding) rather than before nor after as proceeding or subsequent stages. This is represented diagrammatically by the left-right white arrows. The different contexts of grammatical terminology in use should be wide ranging and varied in character, complexity and challenge in order to promote transfer across contexts through generalisation (e.g. cross-curricular application of learning). The findings suggested that the greatest meaning and motivation for pupils lay in ‘creativity’ and this is already proposed by the Taxonomy as the highest intellectual endeavour.
Model 1 is underpinned by grammatical terminology per se and grammatical terminology in use. These have been introduced by this thesis as two broad categories of grammatical terminology in an attempt to organise and gain control of the complexity of concepts and ideas. They are represented in Model 1 by the blue “step- up” arrow running horizontally across the top of the diagram. Both grammatical terminology per se and
grammatical terminology in use contribute to ‘meaning-making’ (also labelled at the top of the diagram).
Therefore, in spite of the “step-up” of this arrow line, the text labels of ‘grammatical terminology per se’ and ‘grammatical terminology in use’ are not stepped (i.e. are not positioned one above the other). This is intended to signal their equal significance in the meaning-making processes in this study (e.g. grammatical
149
word meaning and grammatical discourse meaning) as well their comparable significance, importance and interest as areas of study in their own right.
Instead, the step-up arrows are intended to signal a distinction in the interrelationship between grammatical
terminology per se and grammatical terminology in use. While the discussion of findings suggested that grammatical terminology per se should be supported by mediational tools and signs at all points of teaching
and learning, this Model draws attention to grammatical terminology per se as a mediational tool for
grammatical terminology in use. In this way, grammatical terminology per se is developed through mediational
tools and signs until conceptual understanding develops sufficiently for it to become a mediational tool itself for the development of grammatical terminology in use. Thus, the “step-up” (half-way across the inverted blue triangle of ‘conceptual understanding’) denotes this change in relationship.
Model 1 also posits that in order to teach grammatical terminology per se, focused teaching would seem to be necessary for some of the time (reflecting the pupils’ call for “one thing at once”) whilst remaining as close as possible to a meaningful and motivational authentic language context (e.g. class novel). These ideas are now presented and discussed through Model 2.