The nature of English as a school subject – and particularly English literature – is a longstanding issue of debate for practitioners and researchers internationally. One dimension of this concerns the forces that shape the diet of literary texts that students are fed. In this study, we draw on the ecological model of agency to interrogate the factors which influence how teachers choose literary texts for whole class teaching. Dimensions of agency are used as lenses to reveal the complex ways in which values and beliefs, structures of authority, material resources, and identities shape the selection of books, plays and poetry that are taught in English. By looking across these dimensions, we identify important questions which contribute to the debate: who should have agency to choose the texts taught; how does teacher agency influence students’ experiences of English literature; how far should we expect these experiences to be standardised?

This article presents the results of a study, conducted in parts of Wales and southwest England, focusing on what literature is being taught to learners aged 11–14 years. By exploring this area, we gain insight into influences on teacher choices and the challenges faced by teachers. Our research, which included a survey of over 170 teachers as well as teacher interviews, provides a snapshot of young people's experiences studying literature in the early secondary years (Key Stage 3). The results show that while some schools provide variety and diversity in their choice of texts and authors, the majority provide a limited diet of literature with texts mainly from male writers, with male protagonists. Girls are rarely the main focus. Nor do the majority of children study literature written by or about those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, highlighting a lack of diversity. Literature teaching at Key Stage 3 is increasingly influenced by the demands of GCSE and exam accountability. We hope the study can act as a catalyst for discussion about what ought to be the purpose and focus of literature study in England, Wales and beyond.

The rich body of research on dialogic, exploratory talk points to its significance in developing and securing student learning (Alexander, 2018; Gillies, 2016; O’Connor & Michaels, 2007; Reznitskaya et al. 2009). More recently, this body of research has begun to consider dialogic talk specifically in the context of literacy education (for example, Boyd & Markarian, 2015; EdwardsGroves & Davidson, 2017; Juzwik et al. 2013; Wilkinson et al. 2015). However, there remains a dearth of research which considers the role of dialogic talk in the teaching and learning of writing, and particularly its role in supporting developing writers’ metalinguistic understanding of how linguistic choices shape meaning in written texts. This article will report on qualitative
data drawn from a national study, involving a randomised controlled trial and an accompanying process evaluation. The study involved an intervention which was informed by a Hallidayan theoretical framing of metalinguistic understanding which sees grammar as a meaning-making resource, and which promoted explicit teaching which made purposeful connections between grammatical choices and their meaning-making effects in writing, and which promoted the role of dialogic talk. Specifically, this article will consider how teachers manage this metalinguistic dialogic talk about language choices in the writing classroom.

This paper reports on the qualitative strand of a Randomised Control Trial (RCT) study which involved the implementation of a pedagogical intervention emphasising the relationship between linguistic choice and effect in written text. The intervention was delivered to all year 6 students (aged 10-11) in 55 English schools. Drawing on observational data of 17 lessons, each taught by a different teacher, the analysis presented here focuses on how metatalk – talk about writing - was utilised by teachers during the intervention to foster metalinguistic discussion about written text. The findings draw particular attention to: the way that metatalk about written text manifests in different forms and for different purposes; the particular complexities of metatalk about written text; and how metatalk about can be orchestrated in a way which supports the cumulative development of metalinguistic understanding about written text. This paper argues that students’ learning may hinge particularly on how teachers orchestrate metatalk repertoires to make connections between ideas and develop understandings in lessons.

In the light of ongoing international debate about the purpose of explicit teaching of grammar, this paper considers the relationship between metalinguistic understanding and development as a writer. Drawing on a cumulative series of studies over a period of ten years, adopting a functionally-oriented approach to grammar, the paper argues that purposeful grammar teaching occurs within the teaching of writing, not divorced from it; and that this teaching develops students’ metalinguistic understanding of how written texts are crafted and shaped. In this way, grammar is positioned as a resource for learning about writing and one which can support students in becoming increasingly autonomous and agentic decision-makers in writing. We show through practical examples how the pedagogy works in practice, and through classroom interaction data we highlight how metalinguistic talk (metatalk), which enables and encourages the verbalisation of choice. The data also shows, however, that teachers’ skill in managing metatalk about metalinguistic choices in writing is critical in framing students’ capacity to think metalinguistically about their writing and to be autonomous writerly decision-makers.

This study investigated the metalinguistic reflections of 12 students, aged 14–15 years, undertaking a unit of work focused on reading and writing non-fiction. The unit embedded contextualised grammar teaching into preparation for English Language examinations. Students were interviewed twice, with prompts to discuss a sample of argument text in interview one, and a sample of their own writing in interview two. The interviews and subsequent analysis drew on Gombert's taxonomy of metalinguistic understanding, focusing on metasemantic, metasyntactic and metatextual reflections, and probing students’ ability to link these to metapragmatic concerns. Similarly to previous studies, the findings suggest that students struggle to articulate the impact of metasyntactic choices; however, here it is suggested that this may be a particular artefact of the need for a specialised metalanguage for discussing syntax. Results also indicate a tendency to reify form-function relationships, and signal the potential benefit of using students’ own writing as a platform for exploring authorial choices. Finally, the study contributes to the theorisation of metalinguistic understanding by suggesting how declarative knowledge may emerge from procedural activity, with interviews scaffolding students’ ability to articulate what had initially been tacit language choices.

This paper reports on an investigation of L1 English teachers’ conceptual and evaluative beliefs about teaching grammar, one strand of a larger Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)-funded investigation into the impact of contextualised grammar teaching [RES-062-23-0775]. Thirty-one teachers in English secondary schools were interviewed three times each over the course of a year-long project, discussing their beliefs about writing in general and grammar in particular. The results indicate that while teachers’ initial conceptualisations of ‘grammar teaching’ tend to reflect a prescriptive and traditional model of grammar, their beliefs about how it may be of value tend to evoke a rhetorical model. Their initial prescriptive conceptualisation is also related to negative affective responses to ‘grammar’. This paper suggests that attempts to encourage support or enthusiasm for teaching grammar will therefore need to deal with teachers’ explicit awareness (or lack thereof) of the variety of meanings that ‘grammar teaching’ can have.

Through a case study of a first-language English teacher’s approach to teaching writing, the significance of conceptual and affective beliefs about grammar for pedagogical practice is explored. The study explores a perceived dichotomy between grammar and creativity, examining a belief that attention to grammar is separate and secondary to the generation of ideas, the creation of meaning and to personal expression. It indicates that, in this case, these perceptions are related to formulaic approaches to the teaching of grammar for writing which separate content and form and reduce attention to grammar to a superficial level. Theoretically, the study provides evidence that beliefs play an important role in influencing pedagogy in contested areas of the curriculum. It demonstrates how affective and conceptual elements of belief can shape practice, particularly when external constraints on teaching are low. It argues that attempts to advance a rhetorical and contextualised approach to grammar, as evident in parts of the English National Curriculum, must therefore take into account the impact of teachers’ beliefs about grammar.

For most Anglophone countries, the history of grammar teaching over the past 50 years is one of contestation, debate and dissent: and 50 years on we are no closer to reaching a consensus about the role of grammar in the English/Language Arts curriculum. The debate has been described through the metaphor of battle and grammar wars (Kamler, 1995; Locke, 2005), frequently pitting educational professionals against politicians, but also pitting one professional against another. At the heart of the debate are differing perspectives on the value of grammar for the language learner and opposing views of what educational benefits learning grammar may or may not accrue. At the present time, several jurisdictions, including England and Australia, are creating new mandates for grammar in the curriculum. This article reviews the literature on the teaching of grammar and its role in the curriculum and indicates an emerging consensus on a fully-theorized conceptualization of grammar in the curriculum. © the Author(s) 2013.

Teaching grammar has been mandated in statutory curriculum documents in England since 1988. Yet despite this, research evidence continues to suggest that metalinguistic knowledge is an area of challenge for many teachers. Drawing on data from a larger study, this paper considers the role of teachers' grammatical knowledge, both content and pedagogical content knowledge, in mediating learning about writing in the classroom. It also illustrates how students' learning about writing is influenced by teachers' metalinguistic knowledge. The study highlights that grammatical pedagogical content knowledge is more significant than grammatical content knowledge in supporting meaningful teaching and learning about writing. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd.

The place of grammar within the teaching of writing has long been contested and successive research studies have indicated no correlation between grammar teaching and writing attainment. However, a recent study has shown a significant positive impact on writing outcomes when the grammar input is intrinsically linked to the demands of the writing being taught. The study adopted a mixed methods design with a large-scale randomised controlled trial accompanied by a qualitative dataset, which provided contextual information about how the intervention was implemented. In this paper, we will outline the pedagogical principles that underpinned the intervention, and illustrate both the theoretical grounding and practical classroom examples that exemplify the approach. We will argue that any future policy or professional development that draws on this research must take account of these pedagogical principles, rather than focusing too superficially on either the grammar or the teaching materials which exemplify them. © 2012 UKLA.

This article presents the outcomes of a study investigating current secondary English teachers' beliefs about grammar teaching, and illustrates the salience of teachers' emotional response to the issue. Interviews with 31 teachers reveal two discourses which frame the ways in which teachers express their feelings: a dominant discourse of grammar as threatening, reactionary and dull, and an oppositional discourse which positions grammar as inspiring, fascinating, and empowering. The influence of these discourses on practice is explored, along with examples of how attitudes can change as a result of participation in a research project. © 2012 National Association for the Teaching of English.

The place of grammar within the teaching of writing has long been contested and successive research studies have indicated no correlation between grammar teaching and writing attainment. However, a recent study (Authors 2012) has shown a significant positive impact on writing outcomes when the grammar input is intrinsically linked to the demands of the writing being taught. The study adopted a mixed methods design with a large scale randomised controlled trial accompanied by a qualitative data set, which provided contextual information about how the intervention was implemented. In this paper, we will outline the pedagogical principles which underpinned the intervention, and illustrate both the theoretical grounding and practical classroom examples which exemplify the approach. We will argue that any future policy or professional development which draws on this research must take account of these pedagogical principles, rather than focusing too superficially on either the grammar or the teaching materials which exemplify them.

This paper reports on a national study, involving a mixed-method research design comprising a randomised controlled trial (RCT), text analysis, student and teacher interviews and lesson observations. It set out to investigate whether contextualised teaching of grammar, linked to the teaching of writing, would improve student outcomes in writing and in metalinguistic understanding. The RCT involved 744 students in 31 schools in the south-west and the Midlands of England, and was a blind randomisation study. Classes were randomly allocated to either a comparison or intervention group, after the sample had been matched for teacher linguistic subject knowledge (LSK). The statistical data were complemented by three interviews per teacher and three interviews with a focus student in each class, plus three lesson observations in each class, giving a data-set of 93 teacher interviews, 93 student interviews and 93 lesson observations. In addition, the final pieces of writing produced for each scheme of work were collected. The statistical results indicate a significant positive effect for the intervention, but they also indicate that this benefit was experienced more strongly by the more able writers in the sample. The regression modelling also indicates that teacher LSK was a significant mediating factor in the success of the intervention. The qualitative data provide further evidence of the impact of teacher knowledge on how the intervention was implemented and on students' metalinguistic learning. It also reveals that teachers found the explicitness, the use of discussion and the emphasis on playful experimentation to be the most salient features of the intervention. The study is significant in providing robust evidence for the first time of a positive benefit derived from the teaching of grammar, and signals the potential of a pedagogy for a writing which includes a theorised role for grammar. © 2012 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.