Researchers call for review of primary grammar teaching

The teaching of grammar in English primary schools does not appear to help children’s narrative writing, according to new research.

The study, funded by the Nuffield Foundation and co-authored by researchers from UCL and the University of York, is the first randomised controlled trial worldwide to examine how Year 2 pupils' writing might benefit from grammar teaching. The research assessed the impact of a new grammar teaching intervention called Englicious.

The study analysed data from 1,246 pupils and their teachers in 63 schools. The teachers and their pupils were allocated at random to either receive the Englicious intervention programme or to have their usual grammar teaching. The teachers’ lessons in the Englicious classes differed from those in the control group classes because they linked the grammar teaching more closely with the pupils’ practising of writing – a feature of the Englicious approach. Children’s writing was assessed via a narrative writing test both before and after the end of the grammar intervention. The main assessment was a test of pupils’ narrative writing. The secondary test measure was a sentence generation test which required pupils to generate sentences based on a two-word prompt.

The results showed that while children who followed the Englicious programme had encouraging results when it came to generating sentences, there was no statistically significant improvement in their narrative writing. Although they found some evidence that the grammar content of England’s national curriculum could be taught in a more beneficial way, the researchers say that the main outcome of the research leads to questions about whether the type and amount of grammar content in the national curriculum is the most appropriate focus to help pupils learn to write.

The researchers suggest that a review of the requirements for grammar in England’s national curriculum is needed. They also suggest the curriculum should focus more on what helps children to develop their writing skills at different points in development, focusing on teaching approaches such as sentence-combining, strategy instruction and emphasising the processes of writing.

UCL’s Professor Dominic Wyse lead author of the study said: ‘The lack of impact of grammar teaching on pupils' narrative writing raises questions about the extensive grammar specifications that are part of England's national curriculum.’ He added: ‘The national curriculum needs to reflect robust evidence on what works much more closely. Until an in-depth review of England’s national curriculum is undertaken children are unlikely to be receiving the optimal evidence-based teaching of writing that they deserve.’

Also commenting on the research Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, said: ‘This report adds to the accumulating evidence that the National Curriculum for English stands on weak foundations. In January a comprehensive review of the literature from UCL concluded that research evidence did not support government’s phonics-centred model for the teaching of reading. Now, the UCL/York research suggests the way that primary schools are required to teach grammar does not support children in their writing.’ 

Further comment came from Adrian Williams, a trustee for the Queen’s English Society, who suggested it was important to consider what the impact of teaching grammar was intended to be. He said: ‘Let’s consider what we mean by “better”. If we mean “more imaginatively, more powerfully, making a greater impact with what they write”, it seems unlikely that the learning of grammar will improve a child’s ability to write better. Indeed the learning experience might well deter the child from writing for enjoyment at all. If, by contrast, “better” means “correctly”, it seems reasonable to expect that children who have been taught grammar and have learned the lesson will eventually begin to apply what they have been taught.’

Full research report: https://tinyurl.com/ycxepvvw