The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 9 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Grammar for writing? An investigation of the effects of contextualised grammar teaching on students’ writing
Open accessAbstract
The role of grammar instruction in the teaching of writing is contested in most Anglophone countries, with several robust meta-analyses finding no evidence of any beneficial effect. However, existing research is limited in that it only considers isolated grammar instruction and offers no theorisation of an instructional relationship between grammar and writing. This study, drawing on a theorised understanding of grammar as a meaning-making resource for writing development, set out to investigate the impact of contextualised grammar instruction on students’ writing performance. The study adopted a mixed-methods approach, with a randomised controlled trial and a complementary qualitative study. The statistical analyses indicate a positive effect on writing performance for the intervention group (e = 0.21; p < 0.001); but the study also indicates that the intervention impact differentially on different sub-groups, benefiting able writers more than weaker writers. The study is significant in being the first to supply rigorous, theorised evidence for the potential benefits of teaching grammar to support development in writing.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
29 Own result · 17 Own method · 13 Own interpretation · 4 No full text of the sources · 4 No basis given · 2 Not checked yet · 1 Sources not found
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The analysis reported in Table 3 shows a significant positive effect on writing performance for students in the intervention group whose baseline data indicated that they were above average in writing attainment.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 3.1 Student level effects
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but low overall explanatory value is not atypical in educational studies and taken overall this model is very highly significant (F 7,36 statistic = 10.42,p-value = .00001).”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 3.0 Results
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conversely, the least experienced teachers often followed the teaching materials more rigidly and inflexibly.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 3.2 Teacher level effects
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, a student with above average writing ability in a low-performing school with a teacher with low subject knowledge and more than ten years or less than five years' experience is less likely to benefit from the intervention”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 4.0 Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Students in classes with teachers with lower GSK made less improvement than those with teachers with higher GSK.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 3.2 Teacher level effects
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Certainly, the classroom observations suggest that for some students the use of metalinguistic terminology may have been a barrier, rather than a support.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 4.0 Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, the model explains only 9% of the raw variation in the pre-and post test differences (R 2 = 0.09, adjusted R 2 = 0.08)”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 3.0 Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So overall, and ignoring the effect of any other covariates, a simple two-sample t-test suggests a highly significant (p < 0.001) positive effect size of 5.11 percentage marks for the intervention in terms of improvement in writing attainment.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 3.0 Results
hedgeddirectn = 744- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The impact of the intervention was neutral on learners whose baseline writing attainment was below average.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 3.1 Student level effects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Certainly, the qualitative evidence from the classroom observations and interviews with teachers suggests that experienced teachers, in particular, made more adaptations to the teaching materials than others, often substituting in their own preferred ways of working.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 3.2 Teacher level effects
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 25
- Probably not a substantial claim. 22
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The analysis indicates that the school inspection outcomes and the percentage of students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) were significant factors.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 3.3 School level effects
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, the lesson observations repeatedly show teachers struggling to cope with student questions on grammar and sometimes communicating incorrect information to students.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 3.2 Teacher level effects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The length of the teacher's experience and the quality of the teacher's subject knowledge of grammar were both significant in influencing student writing outcomes, regardless of whether students were in the comparison or the intervention group.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 3.2 Teacher level effects
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall then, more able writers in the intervention group improved significantly more than less able writers who received no significant benefit from the intervention”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 3.1 Student level effects
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean value of this variable over all 744 participants was 9.24%, indicating an overall improvement between pre-and post-writing tests in both the comparison and intervention groups.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 3.0 Results
hedgedn = 744- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Analysis of the raw scores provided by the markers, broken down into the sub-components of the mark schemes, indicates that the greatest improvement was made in Composition and Effect, though similar improvements were made at sentence and text level.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 3.0 Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the use of multiple regression modelling reveals that the intervention was differentially experienced by learners, with more able writers benefiting strongly whilst weaker writers benefited less.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 4.0 Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the comparison group (n = 332) the mean outcome was 6.41%, lower than in the intervention group (n = 412) where mean outcome was 11.52%.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 3.0 Results
plaincorrelationaln = 744- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The data analysis indicates that the intervention benefitted some writers more than others, and that prior writing attainment was a significant factor in this.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 3.1 Student level effects
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All the non-intercept terms in this model are very highly statistically significant (at a 0.1% level) with the exception of the teacher GSK score which nevertheless is still significant at the 5% level.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 3.0 Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To minimise any possible test effect, a cross-over design was used: half the sample took Writing Task 1 as the pretest, and the other half took Writing Test 2; this was reversed for the post-test.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 2.4 Testing materials
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The sample was first stratified at teacher level according to their GSK scores to ensure that the two groups were matched, given that GSK is known to be a factor in the teaching of grammar.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 2.2 Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: Teachers' grammatical subject knowledge is a factor in the teaching of grammar.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both the intervention and comparison group were taught the three types of writing over the same period, addressing the same curriculum teaching objectives, and producing the same written outcomes (in other words columns 1, 2, and 4 of Table 1 were the same for both groups).”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 2.3 Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a complementary qualitative data set was collated alongside the experimental study to provide in-depth understanding of the theoretical, pedagogical and contextual implications of the statistical data.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 2.2 Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both groups were given the same set of stimulus materials and resources, but only the intervention group had detailed teaching units, planned at lesson level, in which grammar was explicitly taught.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 2.3 Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In order to avoid any possible bias created by the precise choice of writing task, the topic was selected to avoid known gender preferences in writing and to avoid the need of any specific topic knowledge or experience.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 2.4 Testing materials
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both tests were independently marked by Cambridge Assessment, an independent organisation who were responsible for setting and marking the national test of writing for fourteen year olds until 2006.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 2.4 Testing materials
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, there have been no systematic studies of whether making meaningful connections between particular linguistic structures and particular writing tasks supports the development of students' writing.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 1.0 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The study was blind as participant teachers were not told the research focus was grammar; instead they were told the focus was on the teaching of writing (see also Ethical Considerations 2.7).”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 2.2 Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The classes were then randomly assigned, using a random number generator, to either a comparison or an intervention group.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 2.2 Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, existing research is limited in that it only considers isolated grammar instruction and offers no theorisation of an instructional relationship between grammar and writing.”
- Also stated in: § 1.1 The effectiveness of grammar teaching · plain
“But none directly address the interrelationship of grammar and writing, or offer a theoretical account of such an inter-relationship.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 1.1 The effectiveness of grammar teaching · plain
In the paper
“In order to avoid selection bias (Cook and Wei 2002), the school sample was secured by using local authority data to compile a numbered list of all mixed comprehensive schools in the South-West and the Midlands.A random number generator was used to determine a rank order, and each school was approached in rank order until the desired sample of 32 was reached.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 2.1 Participants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cook and Wei 2002 source
plainn = 32- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Final model selection was then checked using full residual analyses and standard diagnostic procedures.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 2.6 Analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Similarly, Stark, Kopp and Fischer (2011) argue that extraneous load is”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 4.0 Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Stark, Kopp and Fischer (2011) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It might also be the case that the level of conceptual thinking required to understand grammatical concepts and transfer that learning into their writing was too high a cognitive challenge or created too high a cognitive load for this group.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 4.0 Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The qualitative study, particularly the lesson observations and teacher interviews, indicates that all bar one teacher used the teaching units throughout the research period, and there was a high level of commitment to the project.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 2.5 Attrition and Fidelity
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The study is significant in being the first to supply rigorous, theorised evidence for the potential benefits of teaching grammar to support development in writing.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > Abstract
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As anticipated in the research design, the results and the predictive scenarios indicate the complexity of interventions in educational settings, which defy simplistic causal explanations.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > WL -Writing Level; GSK -Linguistic Subject Knowledge; LIR -Latest Inspection Result; SEN -Special Educational Needs
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to note that high inspection grades do not correlate with 'high ability' students: all the schools in the study were comprehensive schools, which do not select students on ability, and the inspection assessments take into account the baseline performance of students on entry to the school.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 3.3 School level effects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The markers did not know from which treatment group the writing was derived, and the research team was not involved in the process of marking and assessment at all.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 2.4 Testing materials
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is also possible that more able writers have clearer communicative and rhetorical intentions for their writing than less able writers, enabling them to make more appropriate use of their grammatical understanding to shape text appropriately.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 4.0 Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Cognitive load theory (Sweller 1988) acknowledges the constraints that can be placed upon working memory capacity when tackling cognitively complex tasks, such as writing, and argues that teaching materials need to be designed to manage cognitive load appropriately.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 4.0 Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sweller 1988 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The study demonstrates that more able students' learning about writing is enhanced by explicit understanding of how grammar choices can be used to shape written text to satisfy writers' rhetorical goals, but importantly it also indicated no parallel benefit for less able writers.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 4.0 Conclusions
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One drawback of the RCT was the requirement for standard teaching materials to be used across all groups, making it difficult to tailor the teaching materials to particular classes needs or interest.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 4.0 Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The lack of impact of the intervention upon less able writers may be because the grammatical features addressed in the teaching materials were poorly matched to their learning needs as writers.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 4.0 Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The analysis indicates that both hypotheses are confirmed.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 4.0 Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus the final sample for data analysis was 31 teachers and their classes.The initial student sample was 855: over the year of the study, due to students leaving schools or being absent for the post-test, and due to the loss of one whole class, as outlined above, the final student sample was 744.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 2.5 Attrition and Fidelity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The estimated effect for this group is strong in an educational intervention context (Cohen 1969, 23) and provides robust evidence for the beneficial impact on this group of students of receiving the contextualised grammar teaching.”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 3.1 Student level effects
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cohen 1969, 23
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
Teachers' grammatical subject knowledge is a factor in the teaching of grammar.
“given that GSK is known to be a factor in the teaching of grammar”
The paper relies on this without support.
The comparison group did not receive contextualised grammar teaching of the kind under investigation.
“Because it is not possible in a naturalistic educational setting to prevent any teaching of grammar naturally occurring, we have consistently used the term 'comparison' rather than 'control' group.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“with writing outcomes improving from -0.6 to 2.1 (or taking the model uncertainty into account, from somewhere in the range -10.7 to -1.3 to somewhere in the range -1.7 to 5.9).”
§ GRAMMAR FOR WRITING? AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXTUALISED GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS' WRITING > 4.0 Discussion
Reported -0.6 · recomputed -6
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
(2002) · Cited by 13,211
Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning
Sweller, J. (1988) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7 · Cited by 11,048 · cited 2×
“Cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988) acknowledges the constraints that can be placed upon working memory capacity when tackling cognitively complex tasks, such as writing, and argues that teaching materials need to be designed to manage cognitive load appropriately.”
Biesta, G. (2007) · Educational Theory · doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.2006.00241.x · Cited by 1,655 · cited 1×
“Caution is needed in implying “a causal model of professional action” (Biesta 2007, 7) which suggests that mandated action will be implemented in practice and will result in similar outcomes for all.”
English Teaching, Practice and Critique
Burn, A., & Nixon, H. (2005) · Cited by 1,326
Evidence-Based Education Policies: Transforming Educational Practice and Research
Slavin, R. E. (2002) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x031007015 · Cited by 1,107 · cited 1×
“An inherent danger in the use of an RCT is its tendency to be regarded as the ‘gold standard’ of research (Slavin, 2002; Torgerson, et al., 2004), drawing on a medical model of research, and the widespread view that it can answer the question of ‘what works’ in education.”
Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts
(2003) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.40-3550 · Cited by 638
(2007) · Cited by 563
Writing With Power Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process
Elbow, P. H. (1998) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195120172.001.0001 · Cited by 542
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- British Educational Research Association (BERA). (2004). Revised ethical guidelines for educational research: 2004. Nottingham, UK: BERA.
- Cajkler, W., & Hislam, J. (2004). Teaching and understanding grammar: How trainee teachers make sense of a new curriculum? In N. Bartels (Ed.), Applied linguistics in language teacher education (pp. 295–312). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
- Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2001). Framework for teaching English: Years 7, 8 and 9. London: DfES.
- Laurinen, I. (1955). The development of sentence sense in the light of the results attained in the teaching of writing in Finnish primary schools. Unpublished PhD thesis.
- Locke, T. (2005). Writing positions and rhetorical spaces. In B. Doecke & G. Parr (Eds.), Writing = learning (pp. 75–95). South Australia: AATE, Wakefield Press.
- Myhill, D. A. (2010b). Harnessing grammar: weaving words and shaping texts. Better: Evidence-Based Education, Winter 2010, pp. 12–13.
- National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges (NCW). (2003). The neglected ‘R’: The need for a writing revolution. New York: College Board.
- OFSTED. (2009). English at the crossroads. London: OFSTED.
- Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (1998). The grammar papers. London: QCA.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Grammar matters: How teachers' grammatical knowledge impacts on the teaching of writing
Myhill, D., Jones, S., & Watson, A. M. (2013) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.005 · Cited by 161
Self-citationEnglish language teaching of attitude and emotion in digital multimodal composition
Unsworth, L., & Mills, K. A. (2020) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100712 · Cited by 103
The role of grammar in the writing curriculum: A review of the literature
Myhill, D., & Watson, A. M. (2013) · Child Language Teaching and Therapy · doi:10.1177/0265659013514070 · Cited by 104
“In England, a mixed method study, involving 13–14 year olds, and combining a large randomized controlled trial with a qualitative design has found a strongly significant benefit for students of a contextualized approach (Jones et al., 2013; Myhill et al., 2012).”
MethodSelf-citationWriting conversations: fostering metalinguistic discussion about writing
Myhill, D., Jones, S., & Wilson, A. (2016) · Research Papers in Education · doi:10.1080/02671522.2016.1106694 · Cited by 100
Self-citation(2016) · Journal of academic language and learning · Cited by 75
Metatalk: Enabling metalinguistic discussion about writing
Myhill, D., & Newman, R. (2016) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2016.07.007 · Cited by 100
“Drawing on the outcomes of previous research studies by the research team (Myhill et al 2012; Jones et al 2013a; Myhill et al 2013), teachers were mentored in a pedagogical approach involving explicit attention to grammatical choices which set out to develop students’ metalinguistic understanding…”
MethodSelf-citationDiscovery Through Writing: Relationships with Writing Processes and Text Quality
Baaijen, V. M., & Galbraith, D. (2018) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1080/07370008.2018.1456431 · Cited by 75
The dimensions of written expression: Language group and gender differences
Babayiğit, S. (2014) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.08.006 · Cited by 65
Watson, A. M. (2015) · Language and Education · doi:10.1080/09500782.2015.1016955 · Cited by 65
“The participant was drawn from the sample of practitioners used in an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)-funded Grammar for Writing randomised control trial (Jones, Myhill, and Bailey 2013).”
MethodPlayful explicitness with grammar: a pedagogy for writing
Myhill, D., Jones, S., Watson, A. M., & Lines, H. (2012) · Literacy · doi:10.1111/j.1741-4369.2012.00674.x · Cited by 69
Self-citationGrammar re-imagined: foregrounding understanding of language choice in writing
Myhill, D. (2021) · English in Education · doi:10.1080/04250494.2021.1885975 · Cited by 67
“Our research has demonstrated that teaching grammar as choice can improve students’ writing attainment (Jones, Myhill, and Bailey 2013; Myhill et al 2012), but also that in some contexts the efficacy of the pedagogy is limited if teachers are not confident in implementation (Tracey et al. 2019).”
BackgroundSelf-citationWatson, A. M. (2013) · Language Awareness · doi:10.1080/09658416.2013.828736 · Cited by 55
van Rijt, J., de Swart, P. J. F., Wijnands, A., & Coppen, P. A. J. M. (2019) · Linguistics and Education · doi:10.1016/j.linged.2019.06.004 · Cited by 59
Playing it safe: Teachers’ views of creativity in poetry writing
Myhill, D., & Wilson, A. (2013) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2013.07.002 · Cited by 66
Self-citationSupporting less proficient writers through linguistically aware teaching
Myhill, D., Jones, S., & Lines, H. (2018) · Language and Education · doi:10.1080/09500782.2018.1438468 · Cited by 43
“A previous randomised controlled trial, conducted by the authors, had found that embedding a functionally oriented attention to grammar within the context of writing had a significant positive effect on the attainment of writing in students in the intervention group (Myhill et al. 2012; CONTACT Debra Myhill d.a.myhill…”
BackgroundSelf-citationBabayiğit, S. (2013) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9482-z · Cited by 45
Thinking differently about grammar and metalinguistic understanding in writing
Myhill, D., Watson, A. M., & Newman, R. (2020) · Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature · doi:10.5565/rev/jtl3.870 · Cited by 39
“Our own research (Myhill et al., 2012; Jones et al., 2013; Myhill et al., 2013; Watson and Newman, 2017; Myhill et al., 2018a; Myhill et al., 2018b) has taken this theoretical framing of a productive role for grammar in the writing classroom and the development of writerly metalinguistic…”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationBuilding and Justifying Interpretations of Texts: A Key Practice in the English Language Arts
Deane, P. (2020) · ETS Research Report Series · doi:10.1002/ets2.12304 · Cited by 64
Reassessing RCTs as the ‘gold standard’: synergy not separatism in evaluation designs
Hanley, P., Chambers, B., & Haslam, J. (2016) · International Journal of Research & Method in Education · doi:10.1080/1743727x.2016.1138457 · Cited by 41
“There are also an increasing number of evaluations that actually take a mixed methods approach (see, for instance, Jones, Myhill, and Bailey 2013; Gorard, Siddiqui, and See 2014).”
BackgroundLinguistic competence, Communicative Competence and Interactional Competence
Abdulrahman, N. C., & Abu-Ayyash, E. A. S. (2019) · JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN LINGUISTICS · doi:10.24297/jal.v10i0.8530 · Cited by 36
A Curriculum Model for K–12 Writing Teacher Education
Sanders, J. Y., Myers, J. K., Ikpeze, C. H., et al. (2020) · Research in the Teaching of English · doi:10.58680/rte202030739 · Cited by 35
Effective writing instruction for students in grades 6 to 12: a best evidence meta-analysis
Graham, S., Cao, Y.-C., Kim, Y., Lee, J., Tate, T., Collins, P., Cho, M., Moon, Y., Chung, H. Q., & Olson, C. B. (2024) · Reading & Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-024-10539-2 · Cited by 46
Talking grammatically: L1 adolescent metalinguistic reflection on writing
Watson, A. M., & Newman, R. (2017) · Language Awareness · doi:10.1080/09658416.2017.1410554 · Cited by 34
“A rather less limited role is advanced by Jones, Myhill, and Bailey (2013), reporting on a study which demonstrated how traditional grammatical terminology and concepts can be taught in a contextualised manner which emphasises the relationship between form and meaning, and which has a significantly…”
BackgroundArticulating a Sociocognitive Construct of Writing Expertise for the Digital Age
Corrigan, J. A., & Slomp, D. (2021) · The Journal of Writing Analytics · doi:10.37514/jwa-j.2021.5.1.05 · Cited by 40
“One contested aspect of rhetorical knowledge is that of traditional grammar because several robust meta-analyses have found no evidence to support the role of grammar instruction (Hudson, 2016; Jones et al., 2013).”
BackgroundLiviero, S. (2017) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2016.1263677 · Cited by 33
The impacts of scaffolding e-assessment English learning: a cognitive style perspective
Chen, S. Y., & Tseng, Y.-F. (2019) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2019.1661853 · Cited by 29
“Accurate English grammar is important in academic writing (Jones, Myhill & Bailey, 2012).”
BackgroundWatson, A. M., Newman, R., & Morgan, S. D. (2021) · Language Awareness · doi:10.1080/09658416.2021.1905655 · Cited by 25
“Yet despite this, some studies have reported a relationship between explicit grammatical instruction and improvement in student writing outcomes as measured by standardised tests (Jones et al., 2013).”
BackgroundA Reflexive Approach to Teaching Writing: Enablements and Constraints in Primary School Classrooms
Ryan, M. E., Khosronejad, M., Barton, G. M., Kervin, L. K., & Myhill, D. (2021) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/07410883211005558 · Cited by 24
“There is clear research evidence that emphasizes the importance of helping teachers to understand what their students are learning and applying in their writing so they can have metalinguistic conversations that move beyond form to function (see Jones et al., 2013; Matre & Solheim, 2016).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationLanguage knowledge and its application: A snapshot of Australian teachers’ views
Love, K., Macken‐Horarik, M., & Horarik, S. (2015) · The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy · doi:10.1007/bf03651898 · Cited by 19
van Rijt, J., Wijnands, A., & Coppen, P. A. J. M. (2020) · Research Papers in Education · doi:10.1080/02671522.2020.1784258 · Cited by 20
“…which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. and Camps 2014; Jones, Myhill, and Bailey 2013; Myhill et al. 2012).”
BackgroundEnglish writing instruction in Norwegian upper secondary schools
Horverak, M. O. (2015) · Acta Didactica Norge · doi:10.5617/adno.1689 · Cited by 18
Marjokorpi, J. (2023) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-022-10405-z · Cited by 25
“In contrast, other studies have indicated that such benefit can be achieved if grammar is taught in a contextualized way (Collins & Norris, 2017; Costa, 2019; Derewianka, 2012; Fearn & Farnan, 2007; Fontich, 2016; Jones, Myhill, & Bailey, 2013; Myhill, Jones, Lines, & Watson, 2012).”
McCutchen, D., Northey, M., Herrera, B. L., & Clark, T. (2021) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-021-10184-z · Cited by 16
van Rijt, J., Hulshof, H., & Coppen, P. A. J. M. (2021) · Studies In Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101007 · Cited by 15
“And while influential studies such as those by Myhill, Jones, Lines, and Watson (2012), Jones, Myhill, and Bailey (2013) and Myhill (2018) have demonstrated that explicit knowledge about grammar can positively impact on students’ writing development when taught in context, it can also be considered…”
BackgroundAl-Jarf, R. (2022) · Journal of World Englishes and Educational Practices · doi:10.32996/jweep.2022.4.2.2 · Cited by 15
Literacy Development: Evidence Review
Breadmore, H. L., Vardy, E. J., Cunningham, A. J., Kwok, R. K. W., & Carroll, J. M. (2019) · Nottingham Trent University's Institutional Repository (Nottingham Trent Repository) · Cited by 18
6. Observational Scores as Predictors for Student Achievement Gains
Klette, K., Roe, A., & Blikstad‐Balas, M. (2022) · doi:10.18261/9788215045054-2021-06 · Cited by 13
Effective classroom instructions for primary literacy: A critical review of the causal evidence
See, B. H., & Gorard, S. A. C. (2020) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101577 · Cited by 13
Exploring Connections between Writing Methods Teacher Education Courses and K-12 Field Experience
Myers, J. K., Sanders, J. Y., Ikpeze, C. H., Yoder, K. K., Scales, R. Q., Tracy, K. N., Smetana, L., & Grisham, D. L. (2019) · Action in Teacher Education · doi:10.1080/01626620.2019.1600600 · Cited by 14
Investigating the features of mathematics writing among chinese students
Han, X., & Lin, X. (2024) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-024-10547-2 · Cited by 11
“In the realm of MW, grammar is essential for ensuring clarity and comprehensibility (Jones et al., 2013).”
Correlates of Listening Comprehension in L1 and L2: A Meta-analysis
Karalık, T., & Merç, A. (2019) · Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.32601/ejal.651387 · Cited by 11
Teaching Grammar in the Context of Writing: A Critical Review
Chatterjee, A., & Halder, S. (2022) · Journal of Education · doi:10.1177/00220574221074308 · Cited by 16
Myhill, D., Lines, H., & Jones, S. (2020) · Literacy studies · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-38811-9_7 · Cited by 10
Self-citationLinguistic choice as empowerment - Teaching rhetorical decision-making in writing
Myhill, D. (2019) · Utbildning & Demokrati – tidskrift för didaktik och utbildningspolitk · doi:10.48059/uod.v28i2.1121 · Cited by 9
Self-citationEmbedding Explicit Linguistic Instruction in an SRSD Writing Intervention
Salas, N., Pascual, M., Birello, M., et al. (2023) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/07410883231169516 · Cited by 9
“Language teaching in this context is embedded within a writing instruction program and is aimed to assist the student writer in the composition process (e.g., Fearn & Farnan, 2007; Jones et al., 2013; D. A. Myhill et al., 2012, 2016).”
BackgroundMethodChanging stories: Linguistically-informed assessment of development in narrative writing
Sandiford, C., & Macken‐Horarik, M. (2020) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100471 · Cited by 11
Green, C., Giblin, I., & Mulder, J. (2024) · The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy · doi:10.1007/s44020-024-00060-y · Cited by 11
“Myhill et al. (2013) and Jones et al. (2013) report aspects of the same intervention.”
InfluentialInvestigating mathematics writing performance of Chinese middle school students
Li, Y., Lin, X., & Cheng, G. (2025) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-025-10649-5 · Cited by 7
Myhill, D., Ahmed, A., & Rezk, L. M. (2023) · Linguistics and Education · doi:10.1016/j.linged.2023.101184 · Cited by 7
Self-citationLocke, T. (2015) · New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.1007/s40841-015-0003-2 · Cited by 7
Writing conversations : metalinguistic talk about writing
Myhill, D. (2016) · Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) · doi:10.5169/seals-978661 · Cited by 6
Self-citationMccormack‐Colbert, A., Ware, J., & Jones, S. W. (2018) · Support for Learning · doi:10.1111/1467-9604.12200 · Cited by 6
“The benefits of grammar instruction in the teaching of writing are contested in most English-speaking countries (Jones et al. 2013).”
BackgroundSelf-citationOral sentence generation training to improve fifth and 10th graders’ writing
Arfé, B., Festa, F., Ronconi, L., & Spicciarelli, G. (2020) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-020-10114-5 · Cited by 6
Healey, B., & Gardner, P. (2022) · Language Awareness · doi:10.1080/09658416.2022.2092122 · Cited by 7
Green, A. (2021) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003141891 · Cited by 5
Discourse-based grammar instruction in ESL academic writing: a mixed methods study
Oyama, T., & Kang, H. (2023) · Language Awareness · doi:10.1080/09658416.2022.2163495 · Cited by 5
“…for writing do exist, yet these have largely targeted L1-English non-graduate students, focusing on other areas of grammar in other genres (e.g. Jones et al., 2013 on secondary-level students’ use of noun phrases in poetry; Wolfe et al., 2011 on undergraduate students’ use of voice in…”
BackgroundPembelajaran dan Pengajaran Tata Bahasa Berdasarkan Korpus
Herpindo, H., Astuty, A., Ekawati, M., Arvianti, G. F., Nikmatullah, M. R., & Afiq, M. N. (2023) · Risenologi · doi:10.47028/risenologi.v8i2.497 · Cited by 17
Ghafar, Z. N., & Sawalmeh, M. H. M. (2024) · British Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.32996/bjal.2024.4.1.2 · Cited by 5
What, why and how – the policy, purpose and practice of grammatical terminology
Harris, A., & Helks, M. (2018) · English in Education · doi:10.1080/04250494.2018.1507503 · Cited by 5
Paradigm Shifts in the Teaching of Grammar in K‐12 ESL/EFL Contexts
Gebhard, M., Accurso, K., & Chen, I. A. (2019) · doi:10.1002/9781119421702.ch16 · Cited by 5
Askland, S. (2019) · NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives · Cited by 5
Reforsado, M., & Lacar-Raymundo, J. (2024) · International Journal of Linguistics Literature & Translation · doi:10.32996/ijllt.2024.7.7.10 · Cited by 4
Wang, J., Kim, Y. G., Lam, J. H. Y., & Leachman, M. A. (2025) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2024.100909 · Cited by 9
Implementing a Metalinguistic Approach to Secondary School Writing
Telesca, L. (2023) · Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools · doi:10.1044/2023_lshss-22-00182 · Cited by 4
Qatari student writers’ metalinguistic understanding of transitions in L2 English written argument
Myhill, D., Ahmed, A., Abdollahzadeh, E., et al. (2024) · Language Awareness · doi:10.1080/09658416.2024.2332217 · Cited by 4
Self-citationGrammar as a Meaning‐Making Resource: Fostering Meaningful, Situated Literacy Development
Chia, A., & Xavier, C. A. (2025) · TESOL Journal · doi:10.1002/tesj.70015 · Cited by 4
Using published authors as mentors to teach grammatical conventions
Ward, B., Collet, V. S., & Eilers, L. H. (2021) · Research Papers in Education · doi:10.1080/02671522.2020.1864764 · Cited by 4
“…contrast to decontextualised grammar instruction, which yields little impact on students’ writing (Graham and Perin 2007), studies have investigated benefits of contextualised grammar instruction, theorising grammar as a meaning-making device (Fearn and Farnan 2007; Jones, Myhill, and Bailey 2013).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe challenges of mapping literacy development across the years of schooling
Weekes, T., & Jones, P. T. (2021) · The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy · doi:10.1007/bf03652069 · Cited by 4
Grammar Games: A Case for Instructionist Game Models to Enhance Grammar Awareness and Accuracy
Raftery, B., & Santos, J. (2015) · Journal of Instructional Research · doi:10.9743/jir.2015.18 · Cited by 4
Mallia, J. G. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2834431 · Cited by 4
“For example, in the 1960s and 1970s most Anglophone countries such as England, Australia, New Zealand and the USA renounced grammar instruction on the grounds that it was ineffectual (Jones et al, 2013).”
Grammar learning in a flipped classroom: Measuring achievement and students’ perceptions
Gebregziabher, H. A., Filate, A. Y., & Bishaw, K. S. (2025) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-025-00641-0 · Cited by 3
Professional development and signed literacy instruction: evidence from a multiple-baseline design
Holcomb, L., & Oakes, L. (2025) · The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education · doi:10.1093/jdsade/enaf062 · Cited by 3
Mathematics-Writing Performance of Students Experiencing Mathematics Difficulties in China
Han, X., & Lin, X. (2025) · Journal of Learning Disabilities · doi:10.1177/00222194251391829 · Cited by 3
“Within the context of MW, grammar plays a crucial role in maintaining clear communication (Jones et al., 2013), such as reducing the chances of mis-interpretation (Milroy, 2015).”
The effect of communicative grammar on journalism students writing skills
Dawit, A. (2014) · Journal of Media and Communication Studies · doi:10.5897/jmcs2014.0399 · Cited by 3
Between Grammar and Communication: Teaching L1 in the Czech Republic and England
Štěpáník, S. (2020) · Educational linguistics · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-55997-7_9 · Cited by 3
A Case Study on an Online Extracurricular English Grammar Program
Lee, S. (2021) · The Korean Association of General Education · doi:10.46392/kjge.2021.15.2.25 · Cited by 3
The value of knowing: conscious and unconscious writing choices
Jones, S. (2022) · Language and Education · doi:10.1080/09500782.2022.2109421 · Cited by 3
“Previous research from the CRW offers robust evidence of the impact on outcomes for a contextualised approach (Jones, Myhill, and Bailey 2013; Myhill et al. 2012).”
BackgroundSelf-citationDavies, C. E., Syrett, K., Taylor, L., et al. (2022) · Language and Linguistics Compass · doi:10.1111/lnc3.12476 · Cited by 3
Improving Grammar Mechanics Among Kurdish EFL Learners: A Case Study
Ahmed, A. A. (2024) · International Journal of Social Sciences and Educational Studies · doi:10.23918/ijsses.v11i2p41 · Cited by 3
‘Let me see it through your eyes’: Teaching grammar‐for‐writing as imaginative embodiment
Healey, B. (2024) · Literacy · doi:10.1111/lit.12387 · Cited by 3
ÖMEROĞLU, A. F. (2025) · Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi · doi:10.16916/aded.1659884 · Cited by 3
Konstruktivistické a kognitivně-komunikační paradigma jako východisko koncepce výuky českého jazyka
Štěpáník, S. (2020) · Pedagogika · doi:10.14712/23362189.2019.1355 · Cited by 3
Literacy for life: evaluating the National Literacy Trust’s bespoke programme for schools
Morris, R., See, B. H., Gorard, S. A. C., & Siddiqui, N. (2021) · Educational Studies · doi:10.1080/03055698.2020.1867077 · Cited by 3
Young writers ‘learning to mean’: from classroom discourse to personal intentions
Jones, S. (2021) · L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature · doi:10.17239/l1esll-2021.21.01.15 · Cited by 3
“This approach has previously been reported as effective (Myhill et al., 2012; Jones et al., 2013).”
BackgroundResultSelf-citationInpanich, P., & Somphong, M. (2022) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v15n4p25 · Cited by 3
Cognitive Predictors of Coherence in Adult ESL Learners’ Writing
Saeed, A., Everatt, J., Sadeghi, A., et al. (2022) · Journal of language and Education · doi:10.17323/jle.2022.12935 · Cited by 3
The use of grammar learning strategies by law students in writing opinion text
Prihatini, A., & Pangesti, F. (2023) · LITERA · doi:10.21831/ltr.v22i2.53565 · Cited by 3
“Therefore, teaching grammar must be relevant to writing to positively increase students' competence in writing (Jones et al., 2013).”
InfluentialUtilising Grammar Checking Software within the Framework of Differentiated Language Teaching
Κόκκινος, Θ., Gakis, P., Ιορδανίδου, Ά., et al. (2020) · International Conference on Educational and Information Technology · doi:10.1145/3383923.3383936 · Cited by 3
The Importance of Grammar in Language Teaching and LearningPreprint
Ly, C. K. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4897169 · Cited by 3
A Relevant Pedagogic Grammar for Today’s Classrooms
Derewianka, B. (2019) · Springer international handbooks of education · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02899-2_43 · Cited by 2
Análisis del vocabulario y la gramática en los documentos curriculares de Hispanoamérica
Sotomayor, C., Coloma, C. J., Osorio, G. M., & Chaf, G. (2020) · Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1075/resla.18051.sot · Cited by 2
Najma’s Snow: Making Space for Formative Creative Writing
Warbrick, A. (2022) · Changing English · doi:10.1080/1358684x.2022.2149472 · Cited by 2
“(Jones et al. 2012, 68) This deepening sense of identity as a writer can only come, I argue, if the teacher is not permanently positioned as a corrective figure.”
BackgroundDifficulties in Acquiring and Developing Writing Skills
Arfé, B., & Dockrell, J. E. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-29286-6_10 · Cited by 2
English Language Apprehension and the Reading-Writing Competence of Students
Baful, R., & Derequito, C. M. (2022) · The International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention · doi:10.18535/ijsshi/v9i02.01 · Cited by 2
Sulaiman, M. S. A., & Mohammed, H. (2019) · The Journal of The University of Duhok · doi:10.26682/hjuod.2019.22.2.16 · Cited by 2
Czech Teachers´ Subjective Theories about Teaching Grammar
Hurytová, I. (2022) · Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature · doi:10.5565/rev/jtl3.1013 · Cited by 2
“Especially abroad there are already studies that prove that functional grammar teaching is meaningful for the development of pupils´ communication skills (Fontich & Camps, 2014; Jones et al., 2013; Myhill et al., 2012).”
BackgroundThe Role of Grammar and Vocabulary for Writing Instruction in School
Sotomayor, C. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-29286-6_4 · Cited by 3
THE EFFECTS OF INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE APPROACH ON WRITTEN OUTPUT
Master, A. S., & Thesis, S. (2015) · Cited by 2
Literacies, language, and schooling: exploring writing pedagogy for English language learners
Kim-Rich, E., & Curwood, J. S. (2022) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-818630-5.07057-3 · Cited by 5
Zhao, A., Chen, F., & Li, X. (2026) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence14010011 · Cited by 1
“This finding is consistent with findings from earlier studies that underscored its importance in L2 writ‑ ing (e.g., Jones et al., 2013; Schoonen et al., 2003, 2011).”
Influential
Metadata
- Authors
- Jones, S., Myhill, D., & Bailey, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Exeter (GB)
- University of Wollongong (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Myhill, Debra
- Venue
- Reading and Writing
- Published
- 2012-09-14
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1241-1263
- ISSN
- 0922-4777 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-0905
- OpenAlex
- W1971469592
- Cited by
- 148
- References
- 75
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 31.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Reading and Writing (publishedVersion)
- Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion)
- Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/J00037X/1, ES/F015313/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Writing and Handwriting Education
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Keywords
- grammar instruction, writing instruction, writing performance, meaning-making, writing development, English as a second language
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
