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
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
