Session Information
31 SES 11 A, Instructing Grammar
Paper Session
Contribution
Proficiency in language is seen as a crucial performance indicator in education at both primary and secondary level. In England, this is evidenced by policies creating targets for spelling and grammar tests at ages 11 and 16. Over recent years, debates concerning UK schools have shifted from if grammar should be taught to how it should be taught (Locke, 2010; Myhill and Watson, 2014). Pupils with English as an Additional Language (EAL) who demonstrate strong language skills can close the attainment gap typically associated with students from minority backgrounds and achieve higher results at school-leaving age (Demie and Strand, 2006). In Australia, debates on minority students and grammar have also prompted changes to the national curriculum. This has included linking the teaching of grammar to social context (Derewianka, 2012), resulting in innovations in grammar teaching that have aimed to close the attainment gap for minority groups and improve communication for all students (Rose and Martin, 2012; Macken-Horarik et al., 2015).
This paper stems from an evaluation of an intervention based on systemic functional linguistics, called Integrating English. The programme is designed to improve the language pedagogy of Year 5 and 6 teachers, with the aim of improving the linguistic proficiency and communicative ability of all students. However, it is expected to have greatest impact on EAL students, in turn leading to better learning across all school subjects for all pupils. Integrating English is based on Language in Learning Across the Curriculum (LiLAC), a training programme developed in South Australia, widely used in Australia and owned by the Government of South Australia. The LiLAC course supports teachers in adopting a functional approach to linguistics and grammar, and treats communication across all academic subjects as a matter of 'learning how to mean' using the semiotic resources available to that subject: as students learn through language, language learning is central to learning in all subjects (Halliday, 1993). This paper presents robust evidence on how Integrating English works within the mainstream primary school system in England. It addresses the following research questions:
- What is the impact of the intervention on the language ability of pupils, as measured by a writing test as primary outcome, with Grammar, Punctuation and Spelling and Reading as secondary outcomes?
- What is the impact of the intervention on EAL students, as measured by a writing test with Grammar, Punctuation and Spelling and Reading as secondary outcomes?
- What is the impact of the intervention on deprived students, as measured by a writing test, with Grammar, Punctuation and Spelling and Reading as secondary outcomes?
- Where variations in implementation (from provision of training to delivery and final outcomes) occur, what effect does this have on the impact of the intervention?
Method
This study used a randomised controlled trial (RCT) design to determine whether the intervention improved attainment, defined in terms of a primary outcome (scores on a writing assessment administered by the evaluation team) and two secondary outcomes (scores on compulsory national tests for 11 year old pupils, on both reading and grammar, punctuation and spelling). To be eligible for the project, schools needed to 1) have a significant proportion of EAL students and 2) have a sufficient number of pupils overall to support the power calculations conducted in the inception stage. The research design was a two-arm, school-level clustered randomised controlled trial with a sample of 91 primary schools (46 intervention, 45 control) and over 4,000 pupils. All schools were allocated to one of five geographic hubs. A minimisation approach was used to allocate schools to the intervention or control group. The purpose of using minimisation was to best ensure sample balance at baseline across five factors: geographical hub area, school level attainment at Key Stage 2 (age 11), the percentage of pupils classed as EAL, mean score on an English fluency scale (for EAL pupils) and number of classes in the Key Stage 2 cohort. Control schools received a cash payment for taking part and operated on a 'business as usual' basis throughout the duration of the study. The impact analyses will draw on multilevel models using the outcome variables listed above, with pupils clustered within schools. Initial models will simply estimate the treatment effects, and further models will include the factors used in minimisation as control variables. Another important element of the evaluation was to verify that the programme was properly implemented by teachers with sufficient understanding of the model of language. The process evaluation established how the LiLAC training programme was implemented in schools through evidence obtained in classroom observations, views of teachers and school leaders on the efficacy of the intervention, and a range of measures indicating participation in training and identifying changes in student performance, with an emphasis on EAL students.
Expected Outcomes
We will present results from the main analysis using pupil writing score as the primary outcome. Results from analyses of secondary outcomes (Reading test score, and Grammar, Punctuation and Spelling test score) will also be presented, as will analyses of two subgroups of pupils (those with English as an Additional Language, and those eligible for Free School Meals). We will also report on findings from the process evaluation, discussing issues around implementation and fidelity to the intervention. Finally, the paper will reflect on the suitability of an RCT design within this evaluation. In presenting analysis of the EAL pupil subgroup, we have obtained values for each participating pupil on the five point fluency scale which became compulsory for schools in September 2016, but was abandoned after only two years. This paper therefore presents a unique opportunity to evaluate an intervention not only on its impact on EAL pupils, but also to examine the effects according to fluency in English as measured by this scale. The trial is publicly registered at: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN44415239
References
Demie, F. & Strand, S. (2006) 'English language acquisition and educational attainment at the end of secondary school' Educational Studies 32/2, 215-231 Derewianka, B. (2012) 'Knowledge about Language in the Australian Curriculum: English' Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 35/1, 127-146 Halliday, M.A.K. (1993) 'Towards a language-based theory of learning' Linguistics and Education 5, 93-116 Locke, T. (ed.) (2010) Beyond the grammar wars. London: Routledge Macken-Horarik, M., Sandiford, C., Love, K., & Unsworth, L. (2015) 'New ways of working ‘with grammar in mind’ in School English: Insights from systemic functional grammatics' Linguistics and Education 31, 145-158 Myhill, D. & Watson, A. (2014) 'The role of grammar in the writing curriculum: A review of the literature' Child Language Teaching and Therapy 30/1, 41-62 Rose, D. & Martin, J.R. (2012) Learning to write. Reading to learn. London: Equinox
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.