《The effect of grammar teaching (syntax) in English on 5 to 16 year olds' accuracy and quality in written composition.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《The effect of grammar teaching (syntax) in English on 5 to 16 year olds' accuracy and quality in written composition.doc（82页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、REVIEWJune 2004The effect of grammar teaching (syntax) in English on 5 to 16 year olds accuracy and quality in written compositionReview conducted by the English Review GroupThe EPPI-Centre is part of the Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London EPPI-CentreNAME OF G
2、ROUP AND INSTITUTIONAL LOCATIONEPPI Review Group for EnglishDepartment of Educational Studies, University of York, UKAUTHORS AND REVIEW TEAMRichard Andrews, Department of Educational Studies, University of YorkSue Beverton, School of Education, University of DurhamTerry Locke, Arts and Language Educ
3、ation Department, University of Waikato,New ZealandGraham Low, Department of Educational Studies, University of YorkAlison Robinson, Department of Educational Studies, University of YorkCarole Torgerson, Department of Educational Studies, University of YorkDie Zhu, Department of Educational Studies,
4、 University of YorkADVISORY GROUP MEMBERSHIPJudith Bennett, Department of Educational Studies, University of YorkJames Durran, Parkside Community College, CambridgePolly Griffith, Chair of Governors, Millthorpe School, York Nick McGuinn, Department of Educational Studies, University of YorkGloria Re
5、id, Kingston-upon-Hull Local Education AuthorityPeter Taylor, Oaklands School and All Saints School, YorkIan Watt, Department of Health Sciences, University of YorkEvidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) supportDiana ElbourneJo GarciaACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND C
6、ONFLICTS OF INTERESTThe EPPI English Review Group and this review are part of the initiative on evidence-informed policy and practice at the EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, funded by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). Particular t
7、hanks go to Diana Elbourne, Jo Garcia and all members of the EPPI-Centre team.The Review Group acknowledges financial support from the DfES, via the EPPI-Centre, via core institutional research funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England and from the Department of Educational Studi
8、es at the University of York. There are no conflicts of interest for any members of the group.LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSCTControlled trialDESDepartment of Education and Science (England and Wales)DfEEDepartment for Education and Employment (England and Wales)PGCEPostgraduate Certificate in EducationQAQua
9、lity assuranceQCAQualifications and Curriculum Authority (England and Wales)GLOSSARY Accuracy of writingAccuracy in terms of sentence structure and correct use of punctuation with standard written English.CoherenceRelationships that link sentences together to form a meaningful flow of ideas or propo
10、sitions. The links between sentences are often inferred, rather than explicitly flagged.CohesionGrammatical or lexical (word-level) relationships that bind different parts of a text together: for example, however, on the one hand, on the other hand.Contextualised grammar teachingGrammar teaching tha
11、t takes account of the function of sentences and texts in context, and also of the relationship of sentences to higher (e.g. text) and lower (e.g. phrase, clause, word, morpheme the smallest meaningful unit of grammar) units of language description.De-contextualised grammar teachingSometimes known a
12、s traditional grammar teaching, this focuses on the internal dynamics and structure of the sentence or text, not in the context of written production (e.g. drill and practice).Deep syntactic structuresThese are the projected abstract underlying structures of a sentence (as opposed to surface structu
13、res); more loosely, deep and surface structures form a binary contrasting pair of descriptors, the first being the supposed underlying meaning, and the second the actual sentence we see or hear.Functional grammarThe term used to describe Hallidays systemic-functional grammar (Halliday and Hasan, 198
14、5). Such a grammar goes beyond the description or prescription or generation of sentences or texts. It aims to relate text and sentence to context and meaning.Language awarenessAn approach to teaching about language that aims to raise awareness of different aspects of language, as opposed to formal
15、grammar teaching.Learning difficultiesGeneral difficulties with learning, often assumed to face about 20% of the school population from time to time.Meta-languageA diction (specialised subset of language) used to discuss language, e.g. noun, syntax.OracyThe spoken equivalent of literacy. The term is
16、 derived from an analogy with literacy.ParadigmaticA set of linguistic items in which any member of the set can be substituted (grammatically) for another member. Paradigmatic items are in an or relationship, whereas syntagmatic items (their opposite) are in an and relationship to each other. For ex
17、ample, nouns and verbs each form a paradigmatic class.Paragraph compositionParagraphs have no grammatical status as such, but their arrangement within a text (e.g. the five-paragraph essay in the US tradition), is considered part of teaching textual grammar.Pedagogic grammarThe distillation (usually
18、 of a traditional grammar) as used in textbooks for first or second language teaching.PunctuationSurface markers for sentence structure, or, in the case of exclamation marks and question marks, indicators of tone and function.Quality of writingQuality in terms of a set of criteria: for example, cohe
19、sion, imaginativeness, appropriateness of style, verve. Usually judged inter-subjectively by a panel of experts (e.g. teachers).Sentence-combiningA teaching technique for linking sentences horizontally, i.e. not via their meaning or sub-grammatical character, but with connectives (e.g. conjunctions)
20、 or syntagmatically (see syntagmatic). It can also cover sentence-embedding and other techniques for expanding and complicating the structure of sentences.Sentence-diagrammingA technique deriving from structural and transformational grammars in which relationships between parts of a sentence are pre
21、sented diagrammatically, often in tree-diagram form.Sentence level grammar teachingTeaching about the structural rules of sentence creation.Specific learning difficultiesDyslexia and other specific difficulties with language learning.SyntagmaticSee paradigmatic. Syntagmatic relationships can be conc
22、eived as in a chain or sequence, for example, the relationship between nouns and verbs in a sentence.SyntaxConstraints which control acceptable word order within a sentence, or dominance relations (like head noun + relative clause).Text level grammar teachingTeaching about the cohesion* of a stretch
23、 of written composition. The term text grammar applies the notion of grammar to whole texts, with an assumption of semantic (meaning), or pragmatic (meaning in use) coherence*.* See aboveText structureRules governing the internal arrangement of whole texts.Traditional grammarSentence grammars that t
24、end to focus on the internal elements of the sentence, classifying parts of speech and describing (and sometimes prescribing) the relationship between parts of speech.Transformative/generative grammarA transformative grammar attempts to systematise the changes that take place between the deep struct
25、ures in language patterning and surface structures (i.e. the actual utterances made by speakers and writers); such a grammar is termed generative because it is thought to be able to generate sentences or meaningful utterances, as opposed to merely describing or prescribing rules for their informatio
26、n.Written compositionComposition is the term used to describe the putting together of words in an extended piece of writing.This report should be cited as: Andrews R, Torgerson C, Beverton S, Locke T, Low G, Robinson A, Zhu D (2004) The effect of grammar teaching (syntax) in English on 5 to 16 year
27、olds accuracy and quality in written composition. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education. CopyrightAuthors of the systematic reviews on the EPPI-Centre website (http:/eppi.ioe.ac.uk/) hold the copyright for the text of th
28、eir reviews. The EPPI-Centre owns the copyright for all material on the website it has developed, including the contents of the databases, manuals, and keywording and data-extraction systems. The Centre and authors give permission for users of the site to display and print the contents of the site f
29、or their own non-commercial use, providing that the materials are not modified, copyright and other proprietary notices contained in the materials are retained, and the source of the material is cited clearly following the citation details provided. Otherwise users are not permitted to duplicate, re
30、produce, re-publish, distribute, or store material from this website without express written permission.TABLE OF CONTENTSSUMMARY1Background1Methods used in the review1Identifying and describing studies: results2In-depth review: results3Findings and implications41. BACKGROUND61.1 Aims and rationale f
31、or current review61.2 Definitional and conceptual issues71.3 Policy and practice background81.4 Research background: previous systematic reviews and seminal works in the field151.5 Authors, funders, and other users of the review181.6 Research questions192. METHODS USED IN THE REVIEW202.1 User involv
32、ement202.2 Identifying and describing studies202.3 In-depth review233. IDENTIFYING AND DESCRIBING STUDIES: RESULTS263.1 Studies included from searching and screening263.2 Characteristics of the included studies (systematic map)283.3 Identifying and describing studies: quality assurance results37 4.
33、IN-DEPTH REVIEW: RESULTS384.1 Selecting studies for the in-depth review384.2 Further details of studies included in the in-depth review384.3 Synthesis of evidence384.4 In-depth review: quality assurance results455. FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS475.1 Summary of principal findings475.2 Strengths and limit
34、ations of this systematic review485.3 Implications486. REFERENCES506.1 Studies included in map and synthesis506.2 Other references used in the text of the report54APPENDIX 2.1: INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA57APPENDIX 2.2: SEARCH STRATEGY FOR ELECTRONIC DATABASES59APPENDIX 2.3: EPPI-CENTRE CORE KE
35、YWORDS60APPENDIX 2.4: REVIEW-SPECIFIC KEYWORDS61APPENDIX 4.1: SUMMARY TABLES FOR STUDIES INCLUDED IN THE IN-DEPTH REVIEW62APPENDIX 4.2: SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS OF EVIDENCE FOR STUDIES INCLUDED IN THE IN-DEPTH REVIEW79SUMMARY BackgroundA systematic review is needed in order to ask the question: What is th
36、e effect of grammar teaching on the accuracy and quality of 5 to 16 year-olds written composition? This perennial question has haunted the teaching of English for over a century. Although there have been extensive reviews of the question, views remain polarised, with a belief among some teachers, ne
37、wspaper editors and members of the public, that such teaching is effective, and among others that it is ineffective. A systematic review is therefore required to provide an authoritative account of the results of research into the question.The objectives of the review are as follows: to map the fiel
38、d of research on the effects of text- and sentence-level grammar teaching on writing in English-speaking countries for pupils aged between 5 and 16 to undertake two distinct but complementary in-depth reviews in the field of sentence-level grammar: the effect of teaching syntax on accuracy and quali
39、ty in written composition (in 2003-4); the effect of teaching sentence-combining on accuracy and quality in written composition (in 2004-5)The present review concerns the effect of teaching syntax on the accuracy and quality of written composition.One previous systematic review has been published in
40、 the broader field of the effect of grammar teaching on written composition. In 1986, Hillocks published a meta-analysis of experimental studies designed to improve the teaching of written composition. He analysed the experimental research between 1960 and 1982 and concluded that grammar instruction
41、 led to a statistically significant decline in student writing ability, the only instructional method of those examined not to produce gains in writing ability. Methods used in the reviewSystematic review methods were used throughout this review, using the Evidence for Policy and Practice Informatio
42、n and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) guidelines and tools for conducting a systematic review (EPPI-Centre, 2002a, 2002b and 2002c).Studies were included in the systematic map if they looked at the effect of grammar teaching in English on 5 to 16 year olds accuracy and quality in written composit
43、ion. The criteria for including and excluding studies for the in-depth review on the effect of teaching syntax were refined after the systematic map was drawn. Reports were identified from the following sources: searching of electronic bibliographic databases: Educational Resources Information Cente
44、r (ERIC); PsycINFO; and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) citations in reference lists of all included systematic and non-systematic reviews personal contacts We applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria successively to the titles and abstracts and the full reports with quality assurance (QA)
45、screening supplied by the EPPI-Centre. The studies remaining after application of the criteria were keyworded using the EPPI-Centres Core Keywording Strategy (EPPI-Centre, 2002a) and online database software, EPPI-Reviewer (EPPI-Centre, 2002b). Additional review-specific keywords which are specific
46、to the context of the review were added to those of the EPPI-Centre. Again, QA was provided by the EPPI-Centre. Studies identified as meeting the inclusion criteria for the in-depth review were analysed in depth using the EPPI-Centres detailed Data-Extraction Guidelines (EPPI-Centre, 2002c), togethe
47、r with its online software, EPPI-Reviewer (EPPI-Centre, 2002b). Three components were identified to help in making explicit the process of apportioning different weights to the findings and conclusions of different studies. Such weights of evidence are based on the following:(A) the soundness of studies (internal methodological coherence), based upon the study only(B) the appropriateness of the research design and analysis used for answering the review question(C) the relevance of the study topic focus (from the sample, measures, scenario, or oth
