La interacción con terceros en actividades de I+D y apoyo técnico

According to Watson (2015), it is well documented that teachers’ beliefs can affect their pedagogical practice (Nespor 1987; Pajares 1992; Poulson, Avramidid, Fox, Medwell & Wray 2001; Findlay 2010). The influence of these beliefs seems particularly strong when teachers are faced with ‘ill-defined situations’ (Nespor 1987:324). Given the discussions within this chapter so far, it is argued that current national policy is responsible for presenting such an ‘ill-defined situation’ and one which might therefore lead teachers to base their ‘instructional decisions on their own practical theories’ (Borg and Burns 2008:458). Phipps and Borg (2009:3) maintain that beliefs about teaching and learning can be ‘deep-rooted and resistant to change’, be this of their own experience as learners (Lortie 1975; Holt Reynolds 1992), or as a result of teacher education (Kagan 1992; Richardson 1996). Therefore, beliefs can be said to have a powerful effect on teachers’ pedagogical decisions (Johnson 1994).

The research suggests that teachers’ beliefs related to grammatical terminology tend to be negative. Findlay (2010:4) found that although grammar was seen as ‘a legitimate aspect of the subject’, the teachers who were interviewed did ‘not enjoy teaching it’ and regarded it ‘as a chore’. Crystal (2006) reports on what seems to be a profound suspicion of linguistic terminology, amounting at times to a real fear of the terms which other academic domains do not seem to share, and Micciche (2004:716) maintains, ‘Grammar makes people anxious, even - perhaps especially - writing teachers’. Furthermore, as discussed previously, research found

46

that teachers do not possess a strong repertoire of pedagogical understandings or approaches on which they can draw in these situations (Watson 2015).

Phipps and Borg (2009:2) found that where differences between teachers’ stated beliefs and their classroom practices existed, these differences were often presented as a negative phenomenon and articulated through terms such as, ‘incongruence, mismatch, inconsistency, and discrepancy’. However, they also found that these differences could be viewed positively as they seemed to provide a valuable focus for both research and teacher development, and potentially a powerful and positive source of teacher learning (2009:14). Similarly, Golombek and Johnson (2004:323-324) identified ‘a recognition of contradictions in the teaching context’ as a ‘driving force’ in teachers’ professional development. Bold (2012) concludes that teachers need not be intimidated by the terminology; they just need to be satisfied that it will help children reflect more effectively on language in use.

However, the concept of inconsistencies and contradictions being a positive and powerful driver of change may be constrained by the testing and accountability culture and the high stakes demands of the SPaG test (DfE 2013b). Fearn and Farnan (2007) speculate as to whether there might be a way to teach grammatical structures that would still satisfy high stakes tests and teachers and at the same time positively affect writing performance. This reminds us of the performative pressure and that it is often the need to reach targets that drives teaching. Clandinin (1985:364) concludes that policies which do not take teachers’ beliefs into account are doomed to fail.

2.5.2 Pupil perspectives

Bell (2016:159) presents a more positive view of teachers’ beliefs, recounting teachers’ ‘genuine enthusiasm’ which can ‘clearly be passed to children’. However, whilst teachers’ perspectives seem to be evident in some of the research literature, pupils’ voices have been more noticeably absent. Rudduck (1999) calls for the literacy curriculum, as experienced and perceived by pupils, to be given the attention it deserves, as they are ‘expert witnesses’ in the process of school improvement. Berry (2008) writes, ‘it is rare to find a focus on learner knowledge of terminology’. That said, this is a complex and abstract area and so Calderhead’s (1987:185) conclusion that ‘some thinking may not be verbalizable’ seems especially pertinent. Nevertheless, given the resurgence of grammar in the form of high-level curricular expectations and high-stakes testing, Carter’s question would still seem to be of overriding importance. He asks:

Do we take for granted assumptions about young children’s problems with and perceptions of language? Perhaps more explicit interchange with the children would enlighten both parties. (1990:51)

Bell (2016:161) calls for further work to usefully address the ‘ways in which children themselves perceive this element of their education’. Safford (2016:19) agrees, suggesting a longitudinal study which draws together grammar teaching, testing, academic achievement, employability and life skills. The notion of pupils as ‘expert

47

witnesses’ (Rudduck 1999) in the current phase of England’s grammar debate is a key aspect of this research study.

2.5.3 Section summary

Research suggests that teachers’ beliefs are highly influential, with teachers ultimately as the ‘arbiters of how curriculum policy’ is enacted in the classroom (Clark 2010). Lefstein (2009:378) agrees, stating that:

Policy is further mediated by textbooks, instructional aids, professional development materials and activities and – most crucially – by the teachers and pupils who translate these texts into classroom activities.

Therefore, this section has raised the following research question as significant:

Research question 4: In what ways are the multiple perspectives and practices of the pupils and teachers valuable in generating models of good practice for the teaching of grammatical terminology?

Derewianka and Jones (2010:7) ask, in refuting the common binary ‘either/or’ nature of these arguments, ‘is it more a matter of what we want the model to do for our students?’, as we consider what teaching it might afford our 21st _{century students.}