Perspectivas

For this part of the literature review, five journal papers were consulted. Of these, four referred to the Australian context and the fifth was British. The latter gives a history of the teaching of English grammar in England during the 20th _{century. This}

paper points out that “the ‘death of grammar-teaching’ was a feature of most English speaking countries at about the same time” (Hudson & Walmsley, 2005, p. 593). It can therefore be safely assumed that the history of grammar teaching or the lack of it would apply equally well to the Australian situation. As well as these

journal papers, an Australian government publication (Louden et al., 2005) was included. Its aim was to investigate teachers’ preparation to teach both literacy and numeracy, particularly to educationally disadvantaged students in the early and middle years of schooling.

Harper and Rennie (2009); Louden and Rohl (2006); and Rohl and Greaves (2005) all deal with student teachers’ and beginning teachers’ knowledge and ability to teach literacy and grammar. Macken-Horarik (2009) investigates the issues facing

adaptations of grammatically informed metalanguages in English. Hudson and Walmsley (2005), as previously mentioned, give a history of the teaching of English grammar in the 20th _{century. Louden et al. (2005) identify key areas to improve}

The three papers dealing with student and beginning teachers all agree that their preparation is inadequate. Louden and Rohl (2006) show in graphic form that 42% of primary beginning teachers and 35% of secondary beginning teachers were positive about their preparation to teach grammar. These figures show that well below half of beginning teachers felt positive. Furthermore, the opinion of senior staff assisting the beginning teachers was even lower, in fact much lower at 22%. The senior teachers’ rating of the beginning teachers might point to the fact that some of the beginning teachers were unaware of the extent of their lack of knowledge. The senior teachers were the mentors for the beginning teachers and would have had to help those teachers with their queries regarding how and what to teach. It is important to note that the senior teachers’ viewpoint was vastly different from the beginning teachers’ ideas about their own capabilities. Rohl and Greaves (2005) quote the same figures and conclude that “there is need for ongoing professional development for teachers” in this endeavour (p. 7).

The title of the paper by Harper and Rennie (2009), although humorous, shows the unenviable situation in which student teachers find themselves in respect to their preparedness to teach grammar. The paper’s title is ‘I had to go out and get myself a book on grammar’: A study of pre-service teachers’ knowledge about language. This study found that student teachers’ knowledge about language (KAL) was “fragmented and lacked depth” and they “did not feel adequately prepared to use their knowledge in their future teaching” (p. 22).

In a recent British newspaper article reporting on an event named British Grammar Day sponsored by Oxford University, Lindsey Thomas, a school improvement consultant with the Buckinghamshire Learning Trust, put forward the suggestion that teachers should replace the word “grammar” with “understanding language” (Brown, 2014, paragraph 2). The idea behind this proposal was that the word “grammar” is perceived with negative connotations, while “understanding” or “knowledge about language” immediately sounds more positive. Similarly, Macken- Horarik (2009) acknowledges that “teachers’ knowledge about language is an issue for the profession” (p. 56) and proposes that the term “grammar” is problematic and would like to see the term “grammatics” introduced in order to separate

language use and the study of language use (p. 59). The Australian Government publication by Louden et al. (2005) advises that student literacy teachers need to be engaged with their programs, need personal competence in literacy and need to be knowledgeable about literacy teaching, which includes grammar. A change in terminology could be beneficial for the purposes of perceptions of both students and teachers in this regard. It is possible that the negative press associated with the word “grammar” could be improved if such a change were implemented.

The recent history of grammar teaching is given by Hudson and Walmsley (2005). This is a very informative paper, because from it one can see why current teachers are under-prepared to teach grammar effectively. However, the authors are convinced that there is now a “rebirth of grammar teaching” (p. 594). Despite this rebirth, the authors are of the opinion that there are still “far too few teachers of English with an adequate grounding in the linguistics of English” (p. 609). Lê et al. (2011) point out that workshops on grammar should be provided for current teachers and that grammar should be taught within teacher education courses. Hudson and Walmsley (2005) also propose that grammar should no longer be taught prescriptively, as it used to be in the past, but should allow for variation or dialects. They suggest that students should be taught standard English for official use, but should not be told that their dialect variations are grammatically wrong. This would constitute grounds for a paradigm shift in the minds of those few

teachers who are still teaching and are old enough to remember the way they were taught grammar in the years prior to the 1960s.

In a British study, Hudson (1998) poses the question: “Is grammar teachable?” His answer begins as follows: “First, it depends on the teacher's own knowledge. A teacher who knows very little about grammar can obviously teach very little, compared with one who knows a lot” (p. 3). He goes on to look at the historical background, that is, that current teachers have very little grammatical knowledge because grammar has not been adequately taught since the 1960s. The problem, as identified by Hudson, is that the British National Curriculum sets various targets for grammar teaching and the teachers do not possess enough knowledge to meet those targets. Hudson set out to determine whether any countries did actually

teach formal grammar and he discovered that grammar was indeed taught in France, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Norway, Russia and Germany as it pertains to those national languages. He continues with:

In all these places every primary child learns to classify words both in terms of word classes and in terms of an elementary list of functions; so for example a child could presumably take the first clause of the present sentence and tell you that child was a noun and that it was the subject of learns, with the noun words as the object of classify. (Hudson, 1998, p. 6)

Hudson concludes that in all those countries the teachers are already well grounded in grammar from their own schooling and can therefore pass on the elements of grammar to their pupils, whereas in Britain this is not the case. In an Australian study, Lê et al. (2011) show that there are currently no mechanisms to assess the linguistic knowledge of teachers in Australia.

In an even earlier study, Fraser and Hodson (1978) assert that simply because something (in this case, grammar) has not been learned, it should not be assumed that it is without value, since any number of problems could arise, such as teaching method, learning material, environment, time of day, and so on. Therefore, simply because students fail to learn grammar, these authors are of the opinion that it does not follow that grammar is useless.

In a later study, Hudson (2001) examines the relationship between grammar teaching and students’ writing skills. By this time (three years after his previously mentioned study), Hudson states that the British National Curriculum’s

prescriptions are an attempt to change the practice of the time, that is, by

reintroducing the teaching of grammar. One of the reasons given for changing this teaching policy is the “beneficial effect of grammar teaching on children’s writing” (p. 1). Hudson examines the evidence for the effects of grammar teaching and finds that there is evidence from developmental psychology which shows that

metalinguistic awareness starts to develop between the ages of five and seven. Therefore, very early at primary school level, students have the capacity to begin

learning about grammar in a simple way. However, this, too, is contingent on teachers developing their own knowledge. The Coalface Grammar problems, as highlighted by Huddleston (2010) and as discussed in section 2.4 of this chapter, show that even well-meaning attempts to help teachers in this regard can be problematic. Therefore, teacher trainers should take the lead and ensure that student teachers are given sufficient grammar knowledge to equip them for the task ahead, particularly in relation to the requirements of the new Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2012b).

Hudson (2001) summarises many authors by saying that, in the past, it was considered that grammar teaching did nothing to improve students’ writing and that, therefore, it was of no value. However, he goes on to show that the pendulum is beginning to swing in the opposite direction and that it is time for a

reintroduction of grammar teaching in general. Ultimately, in Australia, the federal Government has made a decision that formal grammar will be taught at all levels of primary and secondary education and that it will be taught by all teachers, not just specialist English teachers. This may be part of the reason why a resurgence in grammar interest has taken place in Australia and should certainly be a reason for the nation to contemplate more advanced and more intensive grammar training for both current and new teachers.