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

References

• ACARA [Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority]. 2017. National Assessment Program—literacy and numeracy achievement in reading, writing, language conventions and numeracy: national report for 2017. https://nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/naplan-national-report-2017_final_04dec2017.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• ACARA [Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority]. n.d.-a. Australian curriculum: English – version 8.4. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/english/.
   Google Scholar
• ACARA. n.d.-b. English aims. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/english/aims/.
   Google Scholar
• AITSL. 2017. Improving teacher professional learning. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/improve-practice/improving-teacher-professional-learning.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Education Research Organisation. 2022. Writing development: what does a decade of NAPLAN data reveal? https://www.edresearch.edu.au/sites/default/files/2022-10/writing-development-report-aa.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bell H. 2016. Teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about grammar: a case study of an English primary school. English Educ. 50(2):148–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/eie.12100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg B. 2009. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. 7th ed. Boston: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Berliner D. 2011. Rational responses to high stakes testing: the case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Camb J Educ. 41(3):287–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2011.607151
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braddock R, Lloyd-Jones R, Schoer L. 1963. Research into written composition. Champaign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
   Google Scholar
• Brevik LM. 2014. Making implicit practice explicit: How do upper secondary teachers describe their reading comprehension strategies instruction? International Journal of Educational Research. 67(Jan):52–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2014.05.002
   Google Scholar
• Chamberlain E. 2017. Inspiring writing in the primary school. Newton, New South Wales: Primary English Teaching Association Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper G, Kenny J, Fraser S. 2012. Influencing intended teaching practice: exploring pre-service teachers’ perceptions of science teaching resources. Int J Sci Educ. 34(12):1883–1908. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.698762
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbin A, Strauss J. 2008. Basics of qualitative research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Cormack B, Comber B. 2013. High-stakes literacy tests and local effects in a rural school. AJLL. 36(2):78–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03651913
   Google Scholar
• Creswell J. 2012. Educational research: planning, conducting and, evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 4th ed. United States of America: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Crystal D. 1992. The Cambridge encyclopaedia of the English language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crystal D. 2017. Making sense: the glamorous story of English language. London, UK: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Cushing I, Helks M. 2021. Exploring primary and secondary students’ experiences of grammar teaching and testing in England. English Educ. 55(3):239–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/04250494.2021.1898282
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Derewianka B. 2011. A new grammar companion for teachers. Newtown, NSW: PETAA.
   Google Scholar
• Derewianka B. 2012. Knowledge about language in the Australian Curriculum: English. AJLL. 35(2):127–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03651879
   Google Scholar
• Derewianka B, Jones P. 2010. From traditional grammar to functional grammar: bridging the divide. NALDIC Quart. 8(1):6–17.
   Google Scholar
• Derewianka B, Jones P. 2012. Teaching language in context. Melbourne: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Exley B, Kervin L, Mantei J. 2016. Playing with Grammar: a pedagogical heuristic for orientating to the language content of the Australian Curriculum: English. English Aust. 51(2):100–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fahey G. 2023. NAPLAN sets bar too low to spot students at risk of failing. Centre for Independent Studies. https://www.cis.org.au/commentary/opinion/naplan-sets-bar-too-low-to-spot-students-at-risk-of-failing/.
   Google Scholar
• Farvis J, Hay S. 2020. Undermining teaching: how education consultants view the impact of high-stakes test preparation on teaching. Policy Futures Educ. 18(8):1058–1074. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210320919541
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez C. 2014. Knowledge base for teaching and pedagogical content knowledge: some useful models and implications for teachers’ training. PEC. 60(1):79–100. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/14.60.79
   Google Scholar
• Graham S, Bollinger A, Booth Olson C, D’Aoust C, MacArthur C, McCutchen D, Olinghouse N. 2018. Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: a practice guide teaching elementary school students to be effective writers. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx#pubsearch.
   Google Scholar
• Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. 2006. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 18(1):59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammond J, Macken-Horarik M. 2001. Teachers’ voices, teachers’ practices: insider perspectives on literacy education. Aust J Lang Liter. 24(2):112–132.
   Google Scholar
• Hillocks G. 1986. Research on written composition: new directions for teaching. Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
   Google Scholar
• Jeurissen M. 2012. Perhaps I didn’t have as good a knowledge as I thought I had. What do primary school teachers know and believe about grammar teaching? AJLL. 35(3):301–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03651890
   Google Scholar
• Jones P, Chen H. 2012. Teachers’ knowledge about language: Issues of pedagogy and expertise. Aust J Lang Liter. 35(1):147–168. https://doi.org/10.3316/aeipt.191898
   Google Scholar
• Lamb PS, Jackson J, Walstab A, Huo DS. 2015. Educational opportunity in Australia 2015: who succeeds and who misses out. Centre for International Research on Education Systems, Victoria University. http://www.mitchellinstitute.org.au/wpcontent/uploads/2015/11/Educational-opportunity-inAustralia-2015-Who-succeeds-and-who-misses-out19Nov15.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Laminack L. 2017. Mentors and mentor texts: what, why, and how? Read Teach. 70(6):753–755. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1578
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macken-Horarik M, Love K, Horarik S. 2018. Rethinking grammar in language arts: insights from an Australian survey of teachers’ subject knowledge. Res Teach English. 52(3):288–316. www.jstor.org/stable/44821304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macken-Horarik M, Love K, Unsworth L. 2011. A grammatics “good enough” for school English in the 21st century: four challenges in realising the potential. AJLL. 34(1):9–23. https://doi.org/10.3316/ielapa.729463172935631
   Google Scholar
• 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. Ling Educ. 31(2):145–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2015.07.004
   Google Scholar
• Maiden S. 2014. School report calls for teachers to go “back to basics” on grammar, punctuation and reading. The Daily Telegraph, October 11. https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/school-report-calls-for-teachers-to-go-back-to-basics-on-grammar-punctuation-and-reading/news-story/37a8914c2e90dcb5da71b908498a76cc.
   Google Scholar
• Marsh C. 2010. Becoming a teacher: knowledge, skills and issues. 5th ed. Frenchs Forest NSW: Pearson Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Myhill D. 2005. Ways of knowing: Writing with grammar in mind. Eng Teach Prac Crit. 4(3):77–96.
   Google Scholar
• Myhill D. 2011. Grammar for designers: how grammar supports the development of writing. In Ellis S, McCartney E, Bourne J. editors. Insight and impact: applied linguistics and the primary school. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; p. 81–92.
   Google Scholar
• Myhill D, Jones S, Lines H, Watson A. 2011. Rethinking grammar: the impact of embedded grammar teaching on students’ writing and students’ metalinguistic understanding. Res Papers Educ. 27(2):139–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2011.637640
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myhill D, Jones S, Watson A. 2013. Grammar matters: how teachers’ grammatical knowledge impacts on the teaching of writing. Teach Teacher Educ. (36):77–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myhill D. n.d. Writing resources for teachers. http://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/education/research/centres/writing/grammar-teacher-resources/.
   Google Scholar
• Pajares F. 1992. Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Rev Educ Res. 62(3):307–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465433062003307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parr J, Limbrick L. 2010. Contextualising practice: hallmarks of effective teachers of writing. Teach Teacher Educ. 26(3):583–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j/tate.2009.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson PD, Gallagher MC. 1983. The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemp Educ Psychol. 8(3):317–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90019-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Productivity Commission. 2023. Review of the National School Reform Agreement: study report. Productivity Commission. https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/school-agreement/report.
   Google Scholar
• Richards J, Reppen R. 2014. Towards a pedagogy of grammar instruction. RELC J. 45(1):5–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688214522622
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz B, Ward A, Monterosso J, Lyubomirsky S, White K, Lehman DR. 2002. Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice. J Pers Soc Psychol. 83(5):1178–1197. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.5.1178
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shulman L. 1986. Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educ Res. 15(2):4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004 https://doi.org/10.2307/1175860
   Google Scholar
• Shulman L. 1987. Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Havard Educ Rev. 57(1):1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sims S, Fletcher-Wood H. 2021. Identifying the characteristics of effective teacher professional development: a critical review. School Effectiv School Improv. 32(1):47–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1772841
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strauss S, Feiz P, Xiang X. 2018. Written versus spoken grammar. In I. Liontas, M. DelliCarpini, editors. The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. Wiley Online Library: International Association of TESOL Teaching; p. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0104
   Google Scholar
• Watson A. 2015. The problem of grammar teaching: a case study of the relationship between a teacher’s beliefs and pedagogical practice. Lang Educ. 29(4):332–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2015.1016955
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyse D, Torgerson C. 2017. Experimental trials and “what works” in education: the case of grammar for writing. Br Educ Res J. 43(6):1019–1047. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3315
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyse D, Aarts b, Anders J, de Gennaro A, Dockrell J, Manyukhina Y, Sing S, Torgerson C. 2022. Grammar and writing in England’s national curriculum: a randomised controlled trial and implementation and process evaluation of Englicious. UCL Faculty of Education and Society. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10144257.
   Google Scholar
• Yin R. 2009. Case study research design and methods. 4th. ed. Newburry Park: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Zuidema L, Fredricksen J. 2016. Resources preservice teachers use to think about student writing. Res Teach English. 51(1):12–36. www.jstor.org/stable/24889932.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar