Metatalk and metalinguistic knowledge: the interplay of procedural and declarative knowledge in the classroom discourse of first-language grammar teaching

Figures & data

Table 1. Theorisation of declarative and procedural metalinguistic knowledge.

Dimension of knowledge	Key charactertistics	How observed
Declarative metalinguistic knowledge	Conscious Explicit Verbalisable	Explicit in comments on language use with or without technical terminology. Comments might demonstrate knowledge of forms or exploration of meaning or both.
Procedural metalinguistic knowledge	Conscious Implicit May be non-verbalisable	Inferred from students’ oral composition, specifically where students suggest or try out different options or make revisions to texts.
Procedural epilinguistic knowledge	Unconscious Implicit May be non-verbalisable	May be inferred from students’ oral and written composition (but not included in this study).

Table 2. LEAD principles from the grammar for writing pedagogy.

Principle	Explanation	Example
Link	Make a link between the grammar being introduced and how it works in the writing being taught.	How prepositional phrases can establish a clear picture of a setting.
Examples	Use grammatical terms but explain the grammar through examples, not lengthy explanations.	Show the modal verbs: can; could; may; might; must; shall; should; will; would; ought to. Use them to speculate what a character in a shared fiction text might do at a key moment in the story, discussing how modals express different degrees of certainty or possibility.
Authenticity	Use examples from authentic texts to link student writers to the broader community of writers.	Examine patterns of language in real-life texts, such as the use of modal and imperative verbs for persuasion in charity leaflets or co-ordination of three clauses in political speeches.
Discussion	Build in high-quality discussion about grammar and its effects.	Discuss as a whole class the different grammatical choices in two students’ drafts of the ending to an argument piece.

Figure 1. Declarative knowledge codes.

Figure 2. Procedural knowledge codes.

Table 3. Episodes in which students use grammatical terminology.

Code	Definition	Lessons	References
Use of terminology	Any occasions where students used grammatical metalanguage	9	25
Explanation with terminology	Comments where students gave explanations or definitions of grammatical forms or terms, using grammatical metalanguage	7	9
Misconceptions	Occasions where students demonstrated misconceptions in their use of terminology	4	5

Table 4. Frequency of grammatical terms in student talk.

Grammatical term	Occurrence in student-teacher talk	Occurrence in student-student talk	Total occurrences
Noun	12	7	19
Adjective	10	7	17
Noun phrase	8	0	8
Verb	7	0	7
Sentence	6	1	7
Abstract noun	3	2	5
Non-finite clause	3	0	3
Determiner	1	0	1
Prepositional phrase	1	0	1
Relative clause	1	0	1
Relative pronoun	1	0	1
Subject	1	0	1
Subject-verb inversion	1	0	1
Verb phrase	1	0	1

Table 5. Student comments on impact and effect of linguistic choices.

Code	Definition	Lessons	References
All comments	Any comments where students discussed the impact of linguistic choices	11	29
Simplistic comments	Student comments which demonstrate superficial and limited understanding of the impact of linguistic choices and impact on the reader, either using grammatical terms or in response to teacher use.	5	11
Elaborated comments	Student comments which demonstrated more sophisticated or developed understanding of the impact of linguistic choices on a reader, either using grammatical terms or in response to teacher use of terminology.	5	14
Comments without terminology	Comments on language use (e.g. word choice) with no student or teacher use of terminology	4	4