The teaching of grammar in primary schools in England
(a key feature of England’s national curriculum) does not appear
to help children’s narrative writing, although it may help
them generate sentences, according to new UCL-led research.
The study, which is 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 (six to seven-year-olds) might benefit
from grammar teaching. The research assessed the impact of a new
grammar teaching intervention called Englicious.
70 Year 2 teachers in 70 primary schools, and 1,736 pupils, were
recruited to the study. The teachers and their pupils were
allocated at random to either receive the Englicious
intervention programme or to have their usual grammar teaching.
The results showed that while children who followed the programme
had encouraging results when it came to generating sentences,
there was no statistically significant improvement in their
narrative writing.
Children’s writing was tested by a narrative writing test and a
sentence generation test before and after the end of the grammar
intervention. The teachers’ lessons in the Englicious
classes differed from those in the 'business as usual' control
group classes because they linked the grammar teaching more
closely with the pupils’ practising of writing – a feature of the
Englicious approach.
Professor Dominic Wyse (IOE, UCL’s Faculty of Education and
Society), lead author 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.
“Currently, the content of England's national curriculum requires
children aged six to seven to be taught grammatical terms such
as: noun phrase, statement, command, and tense. Older primary
school children have to learn terms such as subordinate clause;
adverbial; modal verb; active and passive.
“Although teachers praised the Englicious intervention
for its hands-on and interactive approach, our results match
other experimental trials which do not provide enough robust
support for extensive grammar teaching as the best way to improve
writing.”
Co-investigator Professor Bas Aarts (UCL English Language and
Literature and Engilcious lead) added: “The free
resources on the Engliciouswebsite did help teachers to
deliver the specifications of the national curriculum in an
engaging way, and led to a positive effect on children’s ability
to generate sentences by combining clauses.
“We would have liked, however, to have seen stronger evidence of
the benefits of grammar teaching on children’s narrative writing
and more must be done to help children learn to write.”
The authors say their study and previously published research
calls into question the current way grammar is specified: they
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.
Professor Wyse 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.”
Notes to Editors
D Wyse, B Aarts, J Anders, A de Gennaro, J Dockrell, Y
Manyukhina, S Sing, C Torgerson** Grammar and Writing in
England’s National Curriculum: A Randomised Controlled Trial and
Implementation and Process Evaluation of Englicious will be
published on Wednesday 2 March, 00.01 and is under strict embargo
until this time.
Copies of the report will be available here as
soon as the embargo lifts at 00.01 on Wednesday 2 March.
