A cycle of insecurity: Primary teachers’ practices and resources for the teaching of written grammar

Abstract

This article reports on the qualitative findings of a mixed methods study that investigated primary school teachers’ beliefs, practices and choices of resources for teaching written grammar. Qualitative data were collected from Primary teachers in Western Australia through semi-structured interviews (n = 10) and analysed thematically. Although all participating teachers reported that they saw the teaching of written grammar as important, it was found that they had insecure Pedagogical Content Knowledge about Grammar (PCKAG). This insecure knowledge base coincided with eclecticism in pedagogical practice and the choice and use of resources that were not optimal for building PCKAG, or for supporting best practices in the instruction of written grammar.

Keywords:

• Grammar
• knowledge about language
• literacy
• pedagogy
• teacher knowledge

Introduction and background

Issues and controversies in the teaching and learning of grammar

The teaching of written grammar in schools has long been a subject of controversy in English speaking countries, with suggestions that students are not always taught appropriately (Maiden 2014) and that teachers do not have adequate Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) (Shulman 1986, 1987) for teaching grammar (Jeurissen 2012; Jones and Chen 2012; Macken-Horarik et al. 2018), termed here Pedagogical Content Knowledge about Grammar (PCKAG). The aim of the study reported here was to investigate Primary (Years 3 to 6) teachers’ definitions, beliefs and practices relating to the teaching of written grammar, which encompassed investigating their definitions of written grammar and the resources they used to help them in this teaching. The teachers were based in Western Australia, where there had not been a history of teaching systemic functional grammar (SFG) in schools prior to the introduction of the Australian Curriculum in 2011.

The study focused on written grammar, which is often more carefully crafted than spoken language (Derewianka 2011; Strauss et al. 2018) and is not learned in the same way as spoken grammar (Crystal 1992). The teaching of written grammar has seen lengthy controversy, starting with the Braddock et al. (1963) report, which stated that the teaching of grammar could be regarded as being detrimental to success in writing, a position supported by Hillocks (1986). More recent research continues the controversy, with Graham et al. (2018) finding that teaching grammar can have a positive effect on writing, especially at the sentence level, and other research indicating that the teaching of grammar may have little or no effect (Wyse et al. 2022), especially in less able writers (Jones and Chen 2012). It is possible that the effect of the teaching of grammar on students’ writing depends on the pedagogies used; there is a strong body of research that suggests that written grammar teaching needs to be embedded in the reading and writing of texts in order to be effective (Derewianka 2012; Myhill et al. 2013). In addition, the explicit teaching of grammar is seen to be beneficial as it can provide students with a metalanguage with which to think and talk about their writing (Macken-Horarik et al. 2011; Derewianka 2012; Myhill et al. 2013). In order to teach grammar and writing effectively, teachers need strong grammatical knowledge (Myhill et al. 2013).

The lack of empirical research on how teachers source and employ professional learning resources to help build their knowledge about grammar, or research on how they source and employ instructional resources to support their instructional practices, was an impetus for this study.

The Australian Curriculum and NAPLAN

The Australian Curriculum: English (AC:E), introduced in 2011, requires teachers to teach grammar, with elements of both traditional grammar and systemic functional grammar (SFG) theories underpinning the content (Exley et al. 2016). SFG frames language as a system for making meaning, where linguistic choices are made to fulfil communicative purposes. Grammar is seen as “the resource we use whenever we produce (or understand) the wordings of a language” (Macken-Horarik et al. 2015, p. 146). This differs from traditional grammar, which tends to focus more on form, with emphasis on grammar rules and parts of speech (Derewianka and Jones 2010).

Although it does not specify how grammar should be taught, the AC:E requires students to build “understandings of relations between wordings and social processes of meaning making” (Macken-Horarik et al. 2018, p. 292) and, for this relational approach to work, teachers need the capacity to teach about texts at word, sentence and text levels, and also the relations between each level. For teachers without adequate knowledge about grammar, the demands of the AC:E may present pedagogical problems, especially in contexts where there is limited availability of professional learning opportunities and quality teaching resources. In Western Australia, professional learning (PL) available to teachers is largely determined at a school level rather than a system level, thus many teachers will not necessarily have received robust PL in the area of grammar.

A further issue worth noting is that teacher practice can be negatively affected by testing regimes, such as The National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) in Australia, with research indicating that teachers may resort to transmissive styles of literacy teaching with an emphasis on covering the content (Farvis and Hay 2020), implementing test practice (Berliner 2011) or over relying on particular types of resources, such as generic reading and writing schemes from multinational publishers, in efforts to improve student test results (Cormack and Comber 2013). This may work against teaching grammar in a contextualised manner, to the detriment of students’ writing.

Student achievement in writing and grammar in Australia

As shown in Table 1 and described below, a percentage of primary students in Australia consistently achieve at or below the minimum standard for writing and grammar, according to National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) results, through which Australian students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 are tested. In 2017, at the time of the completion of data collection for this study, 95.5% of Year 3 children (typically aged 8) across Australia were at or above the national minimum standard for writing, with the corresponding figure for Western Australia (WA) being 94.9% (ACARA 2017). It is worth emphasising that the minimum standard for the tests reported here was quite low and, indeed, has been described as ‘exceptionally’ low (Fahey 2023). In 2017, the number of Year 5 children (aged 10) achieving the national standard in writing was 91.7% (Australia) and 91.4% in WA (ACARA 2017). It has also been suggested that the NAPLAN data show that many students do not have the writing capabilities needed to meet the achievements standards set out in curriculum documents (Australian Educational Research Organisation 2022). Thus, although the percentage of children not meeting minimum standards may appear to be relatively small, the impact on the children concerned can be significant. Research into educational opportunity undertaken by Lamb et al. (2015) found that standards for literacy testing are set too low to identify struggling students and that minimum standards are below international standards. More recently, similar concerns have resulted in the development of new proficiency standards for NAPLAN which will set higher expectations for student literacy achievement (Productivity Commission 2022). Another component of NAPLAN that is relevant to this study is the grammar and punctuation test. In 2017, when data collection for this study was completed, 94.4% of Year 3 children across Australia achieved at or above the national minimum standard, with 92.8% of WA Year 3 children achieving at or above the standard (ACARA 2017). This compares with Year 5 scores of 92.3% (Australia) and 90.7% (WA) (ACARA 2017). Having 9.3% of Year 5 students performing below minimum standard in the Grammar and Punctuation test indicates a clear need for improvement. See Table 1 for a summary of NAPLAN figures, as well as 2021 figures showing that scores improved slightly between 2017 and 2021.

Table 1. Percentage of children performing at or above the national minimum standard in 2017 and 2021 (NAPLAN).

	Year 3 Australia	Year 3 WA	Year 5 Australia	Year 5 WA
Writing 2017	95.5%	94.9%	91.7%	91.4%
Writing 2021	96.7%	96.6%	93.3%	93.1%
Grammar and Punctuation 2017	94.4%	92.8%	92.3%	90.7%
Grammar and Punctuation 2021	94.4%	94.8%	93.9%	92.5%

The lower proportion of students achieving at or above the minimum standard at Year 5 (relative to Year 3) may be indicative of a need for professional learning opportunities and quality teaching resources for primary teachers tasked with teaching increasingly complex grammar concepts through middle and upper primary. It is acknowledged that there may be many other factors contributing to the decrease in scores for Year 5 children, but to date there has been no research definitively identifying the factors at play. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the full range of possible contributing factors.

To provide context regarding curricular requirements in Australia, Year 3 children must be taught to: “Understand that a clause is a unit of grammar usually containing a subject and a verb and that these need to be in agreement.” By Year 6, students are required to: “Investigate how complex sentences can be used in a variety of ways to elaborate, extend and explain ideas” and “Understand how ideas can be expanded and sharpened through careful choice of verbs, elaborated tenses and a range of adverb groups/phrases” (ACARA n.d.-a).

Teacher knowledge and pedagogical approaches for teaching grammar

Teachers need secure PCKAG, including metalanguage, to teach grammar effectively (Myhill et al. 2013). As an educational construct, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is a body of knowledge that is “…uniquely the province of teachers, their own special form of professional understanding…” (Shulman 1987, p. 8). PCK includes three areas of knowledge: subject matter (content) knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and contextual knowledge that work together to comprise the PCK needed by teachers for effective classroom teaching (Fernandez 2014). Metalanguage is defined as the ‘Vocabulary used to discuss language conventions and use (for examples, language used to talk about grammatical terms such as ‘sentence’, ‘clause’, ‘conjunction’ (ACARA n.d.-a) or ‘any terms used to talk about language’ (Bell et al. 2016, p. 5). Best practices for teaching written grammar tend to promote the use of guiding principles for the selection of pedagogic approaches and instructional procedures, rather than prescriptive approaches (Parr and Limbrick 2010; Myhill et al. 2011; Richards and Reppen 2014; Exley et al. 2016; Chamberlain 2017; Wyse and Torgerson 2017). Principles for teaching written grammar involve teaching the grammar through written (mentor) texts, which are exemplar texts that teachers and students examine so that students can learn from them as writers (Laminack 2017); focusing on teaching and learning that interrogates language use in texts; and providing opportunities for students to apply knowledge in the context of reading and writing authentic texts. Teaching should be specific, explicit, consistent, systematic, and should provide embedded opportunities for practice (Parr and Limbrick 2010; Myhill et al. 2011; Richards and Reppen 2014; Exley et al. 2016; Wyse and Torgerson 2017).

Teacher beliefs about teaching grammar

For the purposes of this paper, the term “beliefs” is defined as the stated opinions, perspectives, values, attitudes, judgements and views that teachers express when discussing written grammar (Pajares 1992; 2015; Hammond and Macken-Horarik 2001). Research indicates that teachers generally hold positive beliefs about grammar (Hammond and Macken-Horarik 2001; Watson 2015; Bell 2016), and that teacher knowledge about grammar is essential to successful writing pedagogy (Hammond and Macken-Horarik 2001; Jones and Chen 2012; Bell 2016). Research also indicates that when teachers have negative beliefs about grammar, this can impact on their ability to implement effective grammar pedagogy (Watson 2015). Many teachers lack confidence in their own knowledge about grammar and are nervous about teaching it (Hammond and Macken-Horarik 2001; Myhill et al. 2013; Bell 2016).

Resources for teaching grammar

The notion of “resources” in education is contested and complicated (Zuidema and Fredricksen 2016) and much literature discusses resources without providing a definition (Marsh 2010; Cooper et al. 2012). The use of interchangeable terms, such as resources, materials, artefacts or aids, is common in the literature. The definition of what constitutes a resource has expanded from material resources such as books and instructional materials, to include human capital and the knowledge of content, students and curriculum that teachers may possess (Zuidema and Fredricksen 2016). Resources may include text-based resources (books, notes, and plans), electronic resources (the internet, computers, apps), cognitive resources (explicit and implicit knowledge) and collegiate resources (other teachers, support staff). Clearly, it is important for teachers to be able to access, choose and use resources that will build and align with their PCKAG and support their teaching practice. However, without sufficiently strong PCKAG, it may be difficult for teachers to make informed choices regarding the selection of appropriate resources.

A broad definition of resources is taken in this study and includes material resources as well as collegiate resources, for the purposes of building content knowledge (knowledge about grammar) as well as instructional resources. There is little empirical research on the resources teachers use, or how they source and employ resources to help build their knowledge about grammar (professional learning resources) and to support their instructional practices (instructional resources), which was an impetus for this study.

Materials and methods

This research used a mixed methods (convergent parallel) design (Creswell 2012), to answer the main research question: How and why do teachers select and use resources for teaching written grammar in the context of their beliefs about, and their pedagogical approaches to, teaching written grammar?

Four sub-questions were: 1) How do teachers define written grammar? 2) What beliefs to teachers hold in regard to teaching written grammar and what are their explanations for these beliefs? 3) What are the teachers’ reported pedagogical practices when teaching written grammar and what are their justifications for those practices? 4) What are the teachers’ reported resources for the teaching of written grammar?

Convergent parallel design (Creswell 2012) involves collecting and analysing qualitative and quantitative data sets and then comparing and contrasting results. The purpose of this paper is to report on the collection and analysis of the qualitative data, which was analysed separately from the quantitative (survey) data. This component of the research resulted in the generation of nine themes, which are worth describing and evidencing in some depth in their own right.

The survey employed Likert scales to enquire about teachers’ agreement with statements about: beliefs about grammar, definitions of grammar, and resources and pedagogies for teaching written grammar. It is beyond the scope of this paper to describe and discuss the survey results.

Participants

Years 3 to 6 teachers from the three sectors of Government, faith based and Independent schools in Perth metropolitan and outer metropolitan schools were invited to participate. The 10 interview participants (9 female and 1 male) were recruited through the survey (n = 6) and snowball sampling (n = 4). The survey, completed by 140 teachers, invited participants to be interviewed. There were no further qualifying criteria for interviewees, other than being teachers of Year 3 to 6. Interested survey participants were requested to email the researchers to participate in interviews. All of the interview participants taught in government schools, although teachers from other sectors were sought. Interview participants ranged in teaching experience from less than one year to 31-40 years. Five of the 10 teachers interviewed were teachers of Year 3 students and the remainder taught Years 4, 5 or 5/6 (Table 2). We were unable to recruit more than 10 interview participants. However, this was deemed to be sufficient to achieve data saturation. Guest et al. (2006) have suggested that in most cases, approximately 12 interview participants, if purposefully selected, will be sufficient to achieve data saturation.

Table 2. Interview participants: demographic data.

TEACHER eXPERIENCE
Less than 1 year	1 - 3 years	4 – 10 years	11 – 20 years	21 − 30 + years	31 – 40 years
10% (n = 1)	20% (n = 2)	20% (n = 2)	0%	30% (n = 3)	20% (n = 2)
GRADE LEVELS TAUGHT
Year 3		Year 4	Year 5	Year 5/6
50% (n = 5)		20% (n = 2)	10% (n = 1)	20% (n = 2)

Data collection

Qualitative data were collected using semi-structured interviews of approximately one hour in duration to afford the maximum opportunity for a comprehensive and accurate communication of ideas between the interviewee and the researcher (Berg 2009; Yin 2009). Interview questions were closely aligned to the four sub-questions for this research and are shown in Appendix 1. The interviewer used additional probing questions where elaboration on participants’ responses was needed.

Data analysis

The qualitative data were transcribed and analysed by the first author using the inductive process of systematic thematic analysis. The initial open coding involved first reads with annotations, then separate analysis and coding using NVivo. A code book was developed to ensure comparability and consistency of codes, for example: Use of mentor or ‘real’ texts: teacher states, describes pedagogy or recounts situations wherein published literary or non-fiction texts are used as pedagogical tools for teaching grammar. Subsequent axial, cross-case coding (Corbin and Strauss 2008) involved collapsing the codes into categories which were created with reference to the RQs. Nine themes were identified from 20 categories (referred to in this paper as sub-themes) and these were verified by reiterative and constant comparison against one another, the codes, categories and raw data.

Results

Results are reported in terms of the four sub-questions concerning teachers’ reported definitions, beliefs, pedagogical practices and resources. Nine themes and 20 subthemes (categories) were identified (Table 3) and are described with supporting quotes from participating teachers. As with all qualitative data analysis, it is a complex process: transcript data can be used in more than one subtheme, and there is sometimes ‘spillover’ of subthemes into more than one theme. Due to the scope of this article, it is not possible to go into equal depth for all themes and subthemes. Themes that were most closely related to the research questions are included. Table 3 identifies the themes and subthemes relating to each of the sub-questions.

Table 3. Summary of themes and subthemes.

	THEMES	SUBTHEMES
Definitions	Indefinite definitions	Nascent attempts Anything but functional
Beliefs	Necessity of teaching written grammar	Grammar is essential External requirements
	Impediments to the teaching of grammar	Complexity of writing School structures as impediments. Teacher frustration
	Fragile foundations of PCKAG	Limited confidence in PCKAG Use of metalanguage
Pedagogical Practices	Disconnected eclecticism	Disconnection from text Technology as entertainment
	Contextualised eclecticism	Connection to texts, genre, curriculum and writing Student focus Technology as a tool
Resources	Teachers as problem solvers	Resource creation Reflection and sharing
	Dissatisfaction and satisficing	Dissatisfaction with available resources Internet as resource of first choice
	Curriculum alignment	Alignment with curriculum Critique and selection

Definitions

A theme of “indefinite definitions” was identified to describe teacher definitions of written grammar, which had the subthemes of “nascent attempts” and “implicitly functional”. The former subtheme reflects the fact that the teachers found it challenging to provide a definition, needing time to think about their responses and sometimes making several attempts to define written grammar and explain their thinking. An illustrative response is: “Oh, that’s a hard one. Let me think for just a moment… If I was put on the spot, I wouldn’t know what to say…” (T4). Other teachers, despite not being able to provide a confident definition, indicated that they did know the curriculum. For example: “No, I wouldn’t know that [definition] off the top of my head, but I’ve seen, I mean I’ve got a list of all the things that are expected at each different year level in grammar…” (T1). Thus, it is not necessarily claimed here that teachers’ indefinite definitions impacted on their ability to teach grammar. Teachers did not give a clear definition of functional grammar, hence the development of the “implicitly functional” subtheme, which was derived from teacher definitions that either referred to grammatical correctness and named parts of speech, or definitions that were implicitly functional.

Beliefs

Three main themes regarding teacher beliefs about the teaching of written grammar were identified, namely: the “necessity of teaching written grammar”; “impediments to the teaching of grammar”, and; “fragile foundations of PCKAG”. Under the theme of “necessity of teaching written grammar”, teachers believed teaching written grammar was essential and recognised that it was mandated in the AC:E and helped children with their writing. For example, one of the teachers said: “I’m looking for progression in their writing, I’m looking for specific goals …[it] might be to use a correct tense …” (T2). Under the theme of “impediments to the teaching of grammar”, three subthemes were identified. The first was “complexity of writing” and how students appeared to take a long time to master different elements of written grammar, as shown by the statement: “Do you ever get off full stops?” (T2). Other subthemes were “teacher frustration” and “school structures as impediments”. Teachers believed that the teaching of grammar was frustrating. For example, one teacher talked about their attempts to teach coordinating conjunctions: “In two weeks I’ve only had two students who have used anything but ‘and’ and that is really frustrating; I don’t know what I’m doing wrong” (T2). Under the “school structures as impediments” subtheme, the crowded timetable was a prominent issue for several teachers: “I think, given the time constraints, I haven’t been able to do it to the best of my ability…” (T3). Another issue was a lack of resources provided by the schools.

Of particular interest is the theme of the “fragile foundations of PCKAG”, which has two subthemes; “limited confidence in PCKAG” and “use of metalanguage”. Levels of teacher confidence in their knowledge about grammar varied, although it was often limited. Years of experience did not seem to relate to the levels of confidence expressed by the teachers with some less experienced teachers stating they were confident, and more experienced teachers stating that they were not confident when teaching written grammar. One teacher was confident in her knowledge of written grammar (content) and pedagogy: “I know my content with all of this stuff so for the most part I just need to look at what I have to teach and I know that and I know how to teach it…” (T4) and another teacher said, “Overall, I think I teach it well” (T7). However, other teachers were more unsure, with one indicating that they had implicit knowledge as they were a good writer but found it difficult to teach grammar explicitly: “I’m a reasonably good writer… but the explicit teaching is probably an area I could improve, and my background knowledge” (T10). Another teacher indicated that they were fairly confident but admitted to not knowing all the grammar knowledge required for the year group being taught: “Pretty much 90% of it, I think, but there are some areas where even I find it a little bit tricky” (T1). Other teachers were less confident, with one rating themselves: “I don’t know, three and a half [out of 10]? I’d like to think that I spot the mistakes” (T3), and another stating, “I think I can do it better, it’s one of my weak areas that I target and try to get on top of all the time” (T2).

The subtheme of “use of metalanguage” was evident in teachers’ descriptions of their own ability to use grammar. An example of this is: “As a writer I am very confident but … when I’ve been teaching these concepts to the children, I’ve been thinking, oh, so that’s what it’s called? … I know I use the conventions correctly but to put a name to them… I don’t think I could do that” (T4).

Pedagogical practices

Teachers used eclectic pedagogies for teaching written grammar. “Disconnected eclecticism” describes practices that are fragmented, disconnected, and decontextualised from texts. This theme had the subthemes of “disconnection from text”, where teachers spoke about doing grammar using short decontextualised activities and worksheets that had minimal apparent connection to authentic writing, such as, “We do snippets… so we play games… sometimes they cut and paste sentences and put things down, nothing very exciting,” (T2). One teacher stated that they would require students to examine and write definitions of grammatical terms: “I always write the definition first…then I give them a worksheet” (T8). This disconnected eclecticism theme was also comprised of the “technology as entertainment” subtheme. An Illustration of this is, “I’m using Grammaropolis, which is on YouTube and I find that those videos…the kids just love them. They’ve got songs that come along with them and they’re very catchy…” (T3).

The theme of “contextualised eclecticism” also describes an eclectic pedagogical approach; however, here, the teaching of written grammar was meaningfully connected to written texts. The subthemes are “connection to texts, genre, curriculum and writing”, “student focus” and “technology as a tool”. Several teachers said they linked the grammar being taught to authentic texts, for example: “I like to do it in terms of whole text and I like to do it in a gradual release model…” (T10) and, “[W]e did a brainstorm of all the verbs on the board and we categorised them into action, saying, thinking and feeling verbs and …then we did … our shared reading of Roald Dahl, and we were looking at picking out verbs.” (T3). The gradual release model referred to here is characterised by the sequencing of lessons whereby the responsibility for completing a task shifts from the teacher to the student through modelling, guided practice and finally independent practice (Pearson and Gallagher 1983). However, despite attempts to contextualise, there was still eclecticism in that the teachers used a variety of teaching strategies and resources that did not always seem to have a coherent underpinning philosophy of how to teach grammar. Teachers used approaches that suited their needs at the time, and one teacher described using a range of seemingly unrelated pedagogical tools such as using a dated textbook as well as grammaropolis.com. The subtheme “student focus” refers to teachers’ attempts to ensure the content and teaching is engaging and useful for the student. A participant quote to illustrate this subtheme is: “…needs to be useful to the kids … and it needs to be at a level that they can understand, and it needs to extend them just a little bit (T7). “Technology as a tool” refers to the use of digital technologies as a tool for learning and engagement. For example, one teacher mentioned the use of the Plickers (www.plickers.com) app as a quick assessment tool. Another mentioned the use of Google by children to search grammatical concepts and rules.

Resources

Three themes about resources were: “teachers as problem solvers”; “dissatisfaction and satisficing” (the term satisficing is defined below); and “curriculum alignment”. The “teachers as problem solvers” theme had two sub-themes: “resource creation” and “reflection and sharing”. Teachers commented on how they constructed new or modified existing resources or materials, including digital resources, when they could not source suitable resources for their purposes, such as, “I make my own resources a lot of the time. I use iMovie to make resources quite a lot” (T4). When being problem solvers, teachers engaged in reflective practice and used colleagues as a resource. Teacher 2’s comments about a purchased workbook demonstrated reflective practice: “We’ve got a workbook that targets specific things but I don’t think that actually helps at all… it was mine [the choice] in an attempt to do something about grammar that I don’t think I’m teaching particularly well” (T2). In this instance, the teacher attempted to address the issue of a self-identified limitation in PCKAG by purchasing a grammar workbook to guide grammar lessons. The outcome of this action was not as successful as the teacher had hoped: “Workbooks and bits of paper aren’t particularly effective” (T2). The reflection and sharing subtheme describes ways in which participating teachers looked to colleagues as resources for building their PCKAG: “I’ll also engage in professional discussion with all the teachers in here… and I’ll say to them, ‘Have you done a lesson on this? How do you go about doing it?’” (T4).

A theme relating to resources used was “dissatisfaction and satisficing”. People, when making decisions, can be satisficers or maximisers (Schwartz et al. 2002). Maximisers tend to keep on searching until they find the best possible alternative or solution, whereas satisficers tend to accept the first satisfactory or good enough solution. “Dissatisfaction and satisficing” had two subthemes: “dissatisfaction with existing or available resources” and “Internet as the resource of first choice”. The “dissatisfaction with existing or available resources” theme was often linked with teachers spending considerable time searching the internet for resources to teach written grammar. One teacher used the term “scouring the internet…” (T4) to describe her quest for suitable resources. The teachers expressed two key areas of dissatisfaction with the resources for teaching written grammar as outdated and not fitting with current pedagogical trends: “…with the books, there’s nothing up to date that provides interactive activities where I don’t have to be photocopying lots of things. And I don’t want worksheets. Our school doesn’t believe in worksheets” (T3). The other area of dissatisfaction was that there were no resources available: “I find that with every other subject this school has amazing resources and I can tap in to those resources and online I’m signed up to an amazing resources, but grammar and punctuation, I struggle a little bit (T4),” and, “I’ve worked now at three amazing schools and, um, I’ve never really come across any amazing resources to teach grammar” (T4).

The internet appeared to be the resource of first choice for a number of participants. One teacher referred to “Dr Google” and commented, “Google is my friend” (T10). Internet sources were often used as the resource of first choice for planning, teaching and conceptual knowledge, which may be preferable to the dated print resources available to some teachers: “I used to have a book called “Write Right” which was from uni days, but normally Google solves most things” (T2). In the case of time-poor teachers, it is perhaps not surprising that they may satisfice when looking for resources. This tendency may be heightened by insufficient PCKAG to inform better choices. Despite the tendency for satisficing, teachers seemed to consider the internet as a reliable source: “I’ve been able to find whatever I need on there,” (T3) and, “normally Google sort of solves most things” (T2). However, there was little evidence of discussion about the suitability or quality of the resources available, leading to questions regarding teacher evaluation of resources on the internet: “I’ve used a couple of websites…they’re on my desktop, so I just go and click into them or they’re on my literacy folder … I just know where it is, I know what it looks like, so I don’t really think about it” (T8).

The “curriculum alignment” theme consists of two overlapping subthemes, “alignment with curriculum” and “critique and selection”. The subtheme of “critique and selection of resources” relates to teachers being able to critique the resources to determine their alignment to the curriculum. The ability to critique for this purpose depends on teacher’s knowledge about grammar theory, particularly about SFG and has been discussed previously.

Some of the participating teachers demonstrated strong alignment between the resources they used and the SFG elements of the AC:E: “A green book I quite like by Beverly Derewianka… it’s good and if there was a lot more hours in the day I’d probably learn an awful lot from that book…” (T9). Other teachers described resources that were aligned to both types of grammar. For example: “Some Beverly Derewianka books, I can never remember the titles of them… I used to have First Aid to English” (T5). However, participating teachers appeared to be selecting resources that were more aligned with traditional grammar and thus somewhat “misaligned with the curriculum”. This was highlighted when three teachers referred to using grammar texts that resonated with their own schooling: “Last year I had a really old-fashioned book and it was probably 50 years old … I’d give them a grammar sheet… It’s just like Living English or probably something from our childhood” (T2). Misalignment with curriculum was also evident when teachers discussed the websites that they used, such as Grammarly.com and Grammaropilos.com, which are not Australian websites and appear to focus on traditional grammar.

Discussion and implications

In this section, we discuss the findings in relation to the research questions and the literature, after summarising the results. In relation to RQ1, the teachers were not able to provide comprehensive definitions that included functional grammar, which may have been a reflection of their insecure knowledge base. In relation to RQ2, teachers believed that teaching grammar was necessary but that there were impediments to teaching it, and that their PCKAG was somewhat limited or insecure. In response to RQ3, it was found that teachers used pedagogies that were essentially eclectic, with some practices being disconnected from authentic reading and writing practice and others being connected. Finally, in response to RQ4, teachers’ selection and use of resources indicated that they were problem solvers who created and modified existing instructional resources. Conversely, they would sometimes ‘satisfice’ or make do with the resources they could find. Also, with regards RQ4, teachers used instructional and professional resources that both aligned and did not align with the curriculum.

The results indicate that, overall, participating teachers’ PCKAG and confidence in teaching grammar was not sufficiently secure to teach written grammar in the explicit, systematic, contextualised manner proposed as best practice for improving students’ writing (Myhill et al. 2011; Exley et al. 2016), and may have been more in alignment with the requirements of the NAPLAN grammar assessment rather than the improvement of writing; the NAPLAN assessment largely consists of multiple choice questions requiring students to select the correct word to fill gaps in a decontextualised sentence, and does not require them to know or understand much metalanguage.

The teachers’ insecure knowledge base, particularly in terms of their knowledge about functional grammar and metalanguage, may have affected their pedagogical practices and their selection of resources. Furthermore, the teachers’ eclectic pedagogical practices and the resources employed may have impacted on (and been impacted by) their insecure knowledge base, sometimes in negative ways. For example, in some cases teachers selected web resources that, whilst helping them find an immediate resource or bridge a knowledge gap, may have done little to build a comprehensive and coherent knowledge base or pedagogical approach. Likewise, using dated grammar books that focus on parts of speech and grammar rules did not appear to help them build PCKAG that aligned with the Australian Curriculum: English. As noted by Myhill (2011), “the potentiality of grammar lies not in crude applications of prescriptive rules to correct children’s writing but in opening up possibilities, making tacit patterns and ways of meaning making explicit” (p. 92). An insecure knowledge base, eclectic pedagogical practices, the selection of suboptimal resources and limited confidence can potentially be seen as what we refer to as a “cycle of insecurity” for teaching grammar and writing.

The insecure knowledge base of participating teachers was apparent in their definitions of written grammar, which overall were “indefinite” or partial and tentative, with little reference to the role of grammar in making meaning. This, alongside limited confidence, was also apparent in the teachers’ belief that written grammar is complex and frustrating to teach. The finding that teachers in Western Australian primary schools had an insecure knowledge base, limited confidence and (partially) negative attitude towards teaching grammar supports existing research; there is a considerable body of research on teachers’ insecure knowledge about language (KAL) which has been building for many years (e.g. Jones and Chen 2012; Bell 2016). Whilst participants in this study had gaps in their explicit knowledge, they did seem to have implicit or tacit knowledge about grammar, although this is not usually sufficient for effective practice or to articulate knowledge about grammar (Myhill 2005). Although it is acknowledged that there is scope for further research in this area, it is argued that in order to teach grammar in a meaningful, contextualised way, teachers need a strong understanding of how language works (Derewianka and Jones 2012), which includes explicit knowledge such as metalanguage. Explicit knowledge is factual and verbal, and hence easier to articulate than tacit knowledge, which is often procedural knowledge built up through experience. Tacit knowledge can in some circumstances be converted to explicit knowledge (Brevik 2014), a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper.

Participating teachers’ beliefs about grammar were largely in alignment with those of teachers in other studies. For example, they saw the teaching of written grammar as necessary and worked hard to secure professional knowledge resources and instructional resources. This finding aligns somewhat with Bell’s study (2016), where it was found that teacher attitudes towards the teaching of grammar (in the UK) was generally positive. However, as was the case for teachers in Watson’s (2015) study, who found that teachers had some negative attitudes towards the teaching of grammar, teachers in the current study found grammar teaching difficult and frustrating.

An original contribution of this research is an inquiry into the resources teachers used for building their PCKAG (professional knowledge resources) and for teaching grammar (instructional resources). Although we are differentiating knowledge resources from instructional resources, these types of resources necessarily overlap and interact. As described in the findings, teachers were eclectic in their practice and in their selection of resources to build their PCKAG (professional knowledge resources), as well as their selection of instructional resources. Furthermore, their selection of resources was often misaligned with the curriculum in that they focused primarily on traditional grammar. This may to an extent reflect elements of ‘traditional grammar’ that are used in SFG. However, it can limit the teaching of SFG if teachers’ knowledge does not extend beyond this. In trying to build their KAG, teachers often relied on texts that were misaligned with the functional basis of the AC:E as these texts were based on traditional grammar. An insecure knowledge base may have made it difficult for the teachers to select appropriate resources. Teachers mentioned that they did not have sufficient time to teach grammar adequately, which may have impacted on their preparation of grammar lessons. Satisficing behaviour (Schwartz et al. 2002) may also be partly attributed to having insufficient PCKAG to make informed and judicious choices of resources.

On the positive side, participating teachers were resourceful in their quest for professional knowledge and instructional resources – they often created their own instructional resources, networked with other teachers, and searched the internet to find resources. Professional standards for proficient teachers in Australia state that teachers must “select and/or create and use a range of resources, including ICT, to engage students in their learning” (AITSL. 2017, n.p.). Teachers were doing this, although they appeared to need additional support in evaluating the quality and appropriateness of resources.

There is scope for more research into the relationships between resources used by teachers in the teaching of grammar and how and why they use these resources. Longitudinal research that includes classroom observation may enable researchers to understand in more detail the decisions teachers make in selecting, using and evaluating both professional knowledge resources and instructional resources for the teaching of grammar.

A limitation of this research is that it did not consider student experience. Given that teachers’ practices were not always coherent, and in some cases decontextualised grammar teaching was dominant, student learning may have been compromised. Cushing and Helks (2021, p. 248) studied student experiences in the UK and found that students’ “reporting of their experiences of grammar were associated with notions of decontextualised grammar, feature spotting and the arbitrary insertion of grammatical features into their writing”. Given the eclecticism in the teachers’ practices, it seems important for further research to investigate children’s experiences in learning grammar in Australian schools.

In order to help teachers build their PCKAG, professional learning opportunities that focus on grammar teaching in the context of real texts with a focus on meaning would be advantageous. As Crystal has pointed out: ‘[G]rammar should never be studied or taught divorced from the meaning that the sentence patterns convey. To teach grammar without reference to meaning is the strategy that has given grammar a bad name’ (2017, p. 118). However, funding for professional learning to build teacher capacity and confidence to teach grammar in this way has not necessarily been put into place across Australia (Macken-Horarik et al. 2018), leaving teachers in many cases to scramble for professional knowledge and resources. Research on quality professional learning indicates that it should be sustained over time, be collaborative, voluntary or self-selected by the teacher, and should involve subject knowledge, bring in outside expertise, and involve opportunities to apply the new learning (Sims and Fletcher-Wood 2021). Whilst there are some excellent resources that teachers can tap into, such as Myhill’s Writing Resources for Teachers (n.d.), these resources may best be used within the context of ongoing, collaborative PL contexts such as professional learning communities. It is stressed that, in Australia, professional learning opportunities vary across schools and systems, and it is also the teacher’s responsibility to identify their own professional learning needs and source professional learning to address these needs (AITSL. 2017).

Finally, there may also be a case, as Wyse et al. (2022) has suggested to be the case in the UK, for a review of curriculum expectations regarding the teaching and learning of grammar. Although the Australian Curriculum has recently been through a review process and a new version (V9) has been released, the demands for teaching grammar to primary school children have not been significantly changed.

Conclusion

Exley et al. (2016) suggested that the teaching of grammar should be specific, explicit, consistent, systematic, and provide embedded opportunities for practice. The findings of this study suggest that grammar teaching among participating teachers was not necessarily explicit, consistent and systematic, and was often eclectic and decontextualised. The AC:E requires teachers to understand traditional and functional grammars, and to be able to relate word, sentence and text level meanings. In order to do this effectively, teachers need a relatively deep understanding of written grammar and how to teach it, alongside strong metalanguage, which the participants in this study did not appear to have for all aspects of written grammar. To support teachers in teaching written grammar, there appears to be a need for access to quality professional learning (PL) and to a coherent body of instructional resources. This study indicates that access to quality PL and resources was not always available to participating teachers, contributing to an insecure knowledge base and decontextualised practices. Because of these challenges, teachers seemed to be caught up in a cycle of insecurity in their grammar teaching.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank participating teachers and Dr V. Faulkner.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.