Cover not available
Article published In:
Pedagogical Linguistics
Vol. 2:2 (2021) ► pp.175–199

The conceptual importance of grammar

Knowledge-related rationales for grammar teaching

ORCID logo | Fontys University of Applied Sciences
ORCID logo | Radboud University
Knowledge about Language (KaL) is an important part of L1 language education around the world. A controversial part of KaL is grammatical or syntactic knowledge, i.e., knowledge about the form, meaning and use of sentences and phrases. In the current international discourse on L1 grammar teaching, grammar is principally motivated by the desire to enhance students’ literacy development, befitting the communicative turn in mother tongue education and following high quality research which has shown that contextualized grammar teaching can impact on students’ writing development. However, there are also other potentially meaningful reasons to teach grammar, which remain underresearched and underdiscussed in curriculum discussions: (1) the general importance of language justifies that L1 speakers understand how their language works; (2) grammar teaching provides more insight into the workings of the human mind; (3) grammar teaching can be used to facilitate students’ reasoning and stimulate their critical thinking abilities. These reasons for teaching grammar do not necessarily relate to literacy development; rather, they pertain to a general conceptual importance of knowledge about grammar. This paper explores these arguments and argues, partly based on empirical evidence from recent research, that knowledge-related rationales deserve a more prominent place in curriculum discussions about grammar teaching.
Keywords: grammar education, knowledge-related rationales, literacy-related rationales, conceptual importance, grammatical understanding, critical thinking
Article outline
  • 2.Knowledge-related rationales for Grammar teaching
    • 2.1The General Importance of Language Justifies that L1 Speakers Understand how their Language Works
    • 2.2Grammar Teaching Provides More Insight into the Workings of the Human Mind
    • 2.3Grammar Teaching Can be Used to Facilitate Students’ Reasoning and Stimulate their Critical Thinking Abilities
      • 2.3.1Grammatical Metaconcepts and Grammatical Reasoning
      • 2.3.2Metaconcepts and Grammatical Reasoning at the University Level
      • 2.3.3Metaconcepts and Grammatical Reasoning in Secondary Education
  • 3.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Declaration of Interest
  • Note
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 18 May 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.21008.van
References (146)
References
Alderson, J. & Hudson, R. (2013). The metalinguistic knowledge of undergraduate students of English language or linguistics. Language Awareness 22(4), 320–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Assaraf, O., Dodick, J. & Tripto, J. (2013). High School Students’ Understanding of the Human Body System. Research in Science Education 431, 33–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bateman, J. (2017). The place of Systemic Functional Linguistics as a linguistic theory in the twenty-first century. In: T. Bartlett & G. O’Grady (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp. 11–27). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baumberger, C. (2019). Explicating Objectual Understanding: Taking Degrees Seriously. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 501, 367–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baumberger, C., Beisbart, C. & Brun, G. (2016). What is understanding? An overview of recent debates in epistemology and philosophy of science. In: S. Grimm, C. Baumberger, and S. Ammon (Eds). Explaining Understanding. New Perspectives from Epistemology and Philosophy of Science (pp. 1–29). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Behrens, S. (2018). Understanding Language Use in the Classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, P., Fortier, V. & Gauvin, I. (2020). Using L1 knowledge about language during L2 error correction: do students make cross-linguistic connections? Language Awareness 29(2), 95–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, A. & Oliva, T. (2007). Engaging grammar. Practical advice for real classrooms. Urbana IL: NCTE.Google Scholar
Bennis, H. (1991). Taalkunde in de bovenbouw. Levende Talen 4611, 235–242.Google Scholar
Bonset, H. & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2004). Mother-tongue education (L1) in the learning to-learn paradigm: Creative redevelopment of learning materials. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 41, 35–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boivin, M.-C. (2018). A review of the current empirical research on grammar instruction in the francophone regions. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature 171, 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonset, H. & Hoogeveen, M. (2010). Taalbeschouwing. Een inventarisatie van empirisch onderzoek in basis- en voortgezet onderwijs. Enschede: SLO.Google Scholar
Borg, S. (1998). Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative study. TESOL Quarterly 32(1), 9–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. & Taverniers, M. (2008). Layering instructural-functional grammars. Linguistics 46(4), 689–956. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burgess, J., & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: Explicit or implicit. System 30(4), 433–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. & McLelland, J. (2005). Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review 221, 381–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Camps, A. & Fontich, X. (2019). Teachers’ concepts on the teaching of grammar in relation to the teaching of writing in Spain: A case study. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature 191, 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carter, R. (2003). Language Awareness. ELT Journal 57(1), 64–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chamalaun, R. (2019). Het onderwijzen van werkwoordspelling: de rol van grammatica. In: S. Vanhooren & A. Mottart (Eds.) 33ste HSN-conferentie Onderwijs Nederlands (pp. 40–44). Gent: Scribis.Google Scholar
Chipere, N. (2003). Understanding complex sentences. Native speaker variation in syntactic competence. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1966). Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought. New York: H. & Row.Google Scholar
(1975). Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
(2002). On Nature and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Some simple evo-devo theses: how true might they be for language? In: R. Larson et al. (Eds.) The Evolution of Human Language (pp. 54–62). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2008). Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 311, 489–558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chu, S., Reynolds, R., Tavares, N., Notari, M. & Lee, C. (2017). Twenty-First Century Skills and Global Education Roadmaps. In: Chu, S., Reynolds, R., Tavares, N., Notari, M. & Lee, C. 21st Century Skills Development Through Inquiry-Based Learning (pp. 17–32). Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, M., Knutti, R., Arblaster, J., Dufresne, J-L., Fichefet, T., Friedlingstein, P., … Booth, B. B. B. (2013). Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility. In T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G-K. Plattner, M. M. B. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, … P. M. Midgley (Eds.), Climate Change 2013 – The Physical Science Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 1029–1136). New York NY USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Curriculum.nu (2019). Conceptvoorstellen leergebied Nederlands, 2019.Google Scholar
Connelly, F. M., He, M. F. and Phillion, J. (2008). The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Coppen, P.-A. (2013). Wat is de zin van de schoolgrammatica? Over zinsontleding en woordsoorten. In: Boogaard, M. & Jansen, M. (Eds.) Alles wat je altijd al had willen weten over taal. De Taalcanon (pp. 57–60). Amsterdam: Meulenhoff bv.Google Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. (1997). Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1998). Language Play. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Deacon, T. (1997). The symbolic species. Harmondworth, UK.Google Scholar
Deng, Z. (2015). Michael Young, knowledge and curriculum: an international dialogue. Journal of Curriculum Studies 47(6), 723–732. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denham, K. & Lobeck, A. (2010) (Eds.). Linguistics at School: Language Awareness in Primary and Secondary Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denham, K. (2020). Positioning students as linguistic and social experts: teaching grammar and linguistics in the United States. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature 201, 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Regt, H. (2009). The epistemic value of understanding. Philosophy of Science 76(5), 585–597. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S., & Haspelmath, M. (Eds.) (2013). The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at [URL]
Eisenstein Ebsworth, M., & Schweers, C. (1997). What researchers say and practitioners do: Perspectives on conscious grammar instruction in the ESL classroom. Applied Language Learning 8(2), 237–260.Google Scholar
Elsner, D. (2020). Grammar is irrelevant. The role of Epistemological Beliefs in Students’ Learning Succes. In: Trotzke, A. & Kupisch, T. (Eds.). Formal Linguistics and language Education. New Empirical Perspectives. (pp. 69–90). Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. (2014). The Language Myth. Why language is not an instinct. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 321, 429–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics. An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fontich, X. & Camps, A. (2014). Towards a rationale for research into grammar teaching at schools. Research Papers in Education 29(5), 598–625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fontich, X. & García-Folgado, M. (2018). Grammar instruction in the Hispanic area: The case of Spain with attention to empirical studies on metalinguistic activity. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature 181, 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frijns, C., Sierens, S., Van Avermaet, P., Sercu, L., & Van Gorp, K. (2018). Serving policy or people? Towards an evidence-based, coherent concept of language awareness for all learners. In: C. Hélot, C. Frijns, K. Van Gorp, & S. Sierens (Eds.), Language awareness in multilingual classrooms in Europe. From theory to practice (pp. 87–116). Walter de Gruyter Inc. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Funke, R. (2018). Working on grammar at school: empirical research from German-speaking regions. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature 181, 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Funke, R., Wieland, R., Schönenberg, S., & Melzer, F. (2013). Exploring syntactic structures in firstlanguage education: effects on literacy-related achievements. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature 131, 1–24.Google Scholar
Gallistel, C. (2007). Learning organs. In: J. Bricmont & J. Franc (Eds.) Cahier No 88: Noam Chomsky. (pp. 181–7). Paris: L’Herne.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2003). Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach To Language. Trends In Cognitive Science 7(5), 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstone, R. L., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Promoting transfer by grounding complex systems principles. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 171, 465–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). A Meta-Analysis of Writing Instruction for Adolescent Students. Journal of Educational Psychology 99(3), 445–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimm, S. (2012). The Value of Understanding. Philosophy Compass 71, 103–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hagoort, P. (Ed.). (2019). Human language: From genes and brains to behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hendrix, T. (1997). Taalkunde getoetst. De validatie van een vakonderdeel taalkunde in het schoolvak Nederlands. Doctoral dissertation. Nijmegen: KUN.Google Scholar
Harley, T. (2008). The Psychology of Language. From Data to Theory. Third edition. New York: Psychology press.Google Scholar
Havekes, H. (2015). Knowing and Doing History. Learning Historical Thinking in the Classroom. Doctoral dissertation. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Hirsch, E. (2016). Why Knowledge Matters: Rescuing Our Children from Failed Educational Theories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Pfeffer, M. G. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science 281, 127–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hocket, C. (1966). The problem of universals in language. In: J. Greenberg (Ed.) Universals of Language (pp. 1–29). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honda, M. (1994). Linguistic inquiry in the science classroom. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Honda, M. & O’Neil, W. (1993). Triggering science-forming capacity through linguistic inquiry. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (Eds.), The view from Building 20: essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 229–255). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. (2007). Thinking Linguistically. A scientific approach to language. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (2004). Why education needs linguistics (and vice versa). Journal of Linguistics 40(1), 105–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Linguistic theory. In B. Spolsky & F. Hult. (Eds.) The Handbook of Educational Linguistics (pp. 53–65). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulshof, H. (2002). Vormen van taalkennis. Over grammatica, taalbeschouwing en taalkundige vorming in het onderwijs Nederlands. Inaugural address. Leiden: Leiden.Google Scholar
(2013). Onderzoek naar taalkundeonderwijs: geloof en empirie. In: T. Janssen & T. van Strien (Eds.). Neerlandistiek in beeld (pp. 263–272). Amsterdam: Stichting neerlandistiek VU.Google Scholar
(2014). De ‘triviale’ herkomst van het redekundig ontleden. Uit de geschiedenis van de schoolgrammatica in Nederland. Levende Talen Magazine 101(7), 22–25.Google Scholar
Hulshof, H. & Hendrix, T. (1996). Kennis over taal en taalverschijnselen. Omgaan met taalkundige onderwerpen in de klas. Bussum: Coutinho.Google Scholar
(2010). Ten geleide. Het schoolvak Nederlands inhoudelijk aanvullen. Levende Talen Magazine 971, 5–10.Google Scholar
Hulshof, H. & Van Rijt, J. (2020). Is het schoolvak Nederlands inspirerender geworden? De relatie tussen taalkunde en het schoolvak Nederlands opnieuw bekeken. Nederlandse Taalkunde 25(2–3), 437–445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hurford, J. (2007). The origins of meaning. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2012). The origins of grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Janssen, F., Hulshof, H. & Van Veen, K. (2019). Wat is echt de moeite waard om te onderwijzen? Een perspectiefgerichte benadering. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Google Scholar
Klafki, W. (1957). Das pädagogische Problem des Elementaren und die Theorie der kategorialen Bildung. Weinheim. Beltz.Google Scholar
Kraak, A. (2006). Homo loquens en homo scribens. Over natuur en cultuur bij de taal. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, K. & J. Nokes. (2014). Theories of Syntax. Concepts and Case Studies. New York: Palgrave Macmillian. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locke, T. (Ed.) (2010). Beyond the grammar wars. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (2016). Handbook of writing research (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Macken-Horarik, M., K. Love, and S. Horarik. (2018). Rethinking Grammar in Language Arts: Insights from an Australian Survey of Teachers’ Subject Knowledge. Research in the Teaching of English 52(3): 288–316.Google Scholar
Meijerink e.a. (2009). Over de drempels met taal en rekenen – Hoofdrapport van de Expertgroep Doorlopende Leerlijnen Taal en Rekenen. Enschede.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, R., Swann, J., Deumert, A. & Leap, W. (2013). Introducing sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1999). Authority in language: Investigating language prescription and standardisation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mithen, S. (1996). The prehistory of the mind: A search for the Origins of Art, Science and Religion. London: Phoenix.Google Scholar
Moesker, M. & Das, H. (2010). Leerlingen stellen vragen aan taal. Levende Talen Magazine 971, 38–43.Google Scholar
Moore, A. (2004). The Good Teacher: Dominant Discourses in Teaching and Teacher Education. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, M. (2008). An Introduction to Language and Society. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mulder, J. (2007). Establishing Linguistics in Secondary Education in Victoria, Australia. Language and Linguistics Compass 1(3), 133–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Grammar in English curricula: Why Should Linguists Care? Language and Linguistics Compass 5(12), 835–847. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myhill, D. (2016). The Effectiveness of Explicit Language Teaching: Evidence from the Research. In: M. Giovanelli & D. Clayton (Eds.) Linguistics and the Secondary English Classroom, (pp. 36–49). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2018). Grammar as a Meaning-Making Resource for Improving Writing. L1- Educational Studies in Language and Literature 181, 1–21.Google Scholar
Myhill, D., Jones, S. & Lines, H. (2018). Supporting less proficient writers through linguistically aware teaching. Language and Education, 32(4), 333–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myhill, D., Jones, S., Lines, H. & Watson, A. (2012). Re-thinking grammar: the impact of embedded grammar teaching on students’ writing and students’ metalinguistic understanding. Research Papers in Education 27(2), 151–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the 21st Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phipps, S. & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System 371, 380–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. New York: William Morrow. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perini, M. (2015). Describing verb valency. Practical and theoretical issues. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pronk, D. & Sweep, J. (2019). In teken van taal; schrijven en spreken over taal, een goed idee. Levende Talen Tijdschrift 20(4), 37–48.Google Scholar
Renkema, J. (2004). Introduction to Discourse Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rastle, K., & Davis, M. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(7), 942–971. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renaud, R. & Murray, H. (2008). A comparison of a subject-specific and a general measure of critical thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity 31, 85–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riggs, W. (2003). Understanding ‘Virtue’ and the Virtue of Understanding. In: M. DePaul & L. Zagzebski (Eds.) Intellectual Virtue (pp. 203–226). Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sangster, P., Anderson, C. & O’Hara, P. (2013). Perceived and actual levels of knowledge about language amongst primary and secondary student teachers: do they know what they think they know? Language Awareness 22(4), 293–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapir, E. (1933). Language. Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (New York): 155–169.Google Scholar
Sawyer, W., & Van den Ven, P.-H. (2007). Starting points. Paradigms in mother tongue education. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 7(1), 5–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schultink, H. (1969). Taalwetenschap en school. In: A. van Dam (Ed.) Onderwijs en wetenschap. De school vraagt aan de wetenschap. Gorinchem, 33–50.Google Scholar
Seuren, P. (1998). Western linguistics. An historical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Shadish, W., Cook, T. & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. (2019). Denkend aan Nederland. Sociaal en Cultureel Rapport. Den Haag: Rijksoverheid.Google Scholar
Strickland, B. (2017). Language Reflects “Core” Cognition: A New Theory About the Origin of Cross- Linguistic Regularities. Cognitive Science 411, 70–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svalberg, A. (2016). Language Awareness research: where are we now. Language Awareness 25(1–2), 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1978). Figure and Ground in complex sentences. In J. Greenberg (Ed.) Universals of human language. Vol. 41. Syntax (pp. 625–649). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Tiede, H. & Stout, L. (2010). Recursion, infinity and modelling. In H. van der Hulst (Ed.), Recursion and Human Language (pp. 147–58). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thornbury, S. (1997). About Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(2005). Beyond formalities: The case of language acquisition. The Linguistic Review 221, 183–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tordoir, A. & Wesdorp, H. (1979). Het grammaticaonderwijs in Nederland. Een overzicht betreffende de effecten van grammaticaonderwijs en een verslag van een onderzoek naar de praktijk van dit onderwijs. Den Haag: SVO.Google Scholar
Van Bergen, G. (2011). Who’s first and what’s next. Animacy and word order variation in Dutch language production. Doctoral doctoral dissertation. Nijmegen: Radboud University.Google Scholar
Van den Broek, E. (2020). Language awareness in foreign language education. Exploring teachers’ beliefs, practices and change processes. Doctoral dissertation. Nijmegen: Radboud University.Google Scholar
Van der Aalsvoort, M. (2016). Vensters op vakontwikkeling. De betwiste invoering van taalkunde in het examenprogramma Nederlands havo/vwo (1988–2008). Doctoral dissertation. Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Van der Aalsvoort, M., & Kroon, S. (2015). The contested introduction of linguistics in the Dutch exam. A historical curriculum study on the relationship between school subjects and academic disciplines. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature 151, 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Gelderen, A. (2010). Does explicit teaching of grammar help students to become better writers? Insights from empirical research. In T. Locke (Ed.), Beyond the grammar wars (pp. 109–128). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van Rijt, J. (2016). Meer grip op taalkundige structuren. De meerwaarde van valentie als taalkundig concept binnen het grammaticaonderwijs. Levende Talen Magazine 103(7), 7–10.Google Scholar
Van Rijt, J. (2020). Understanding grammar: the impact of linguistic metaconcepts on L1 grammar education. Doctoral dissertation. Nijmegen: Radboud University.Google Scholar
Van Rijt, J., De Swart, P. & Coppen, P.-A. (2019a). Linguistic concepts in L1 grammar education: a systematic literature review. Research Papers in Education 34(5), 621–648. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Rijt, J., De Swart, P., Wijnands, A. & Coppen, P.-A. (2019b). When students tackle grammatical problems: Exploring linguistic reasoning with linguistic metaconcepts in L1 grammar education. Linguistics and Education 521, 78–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Rijt, J., Wijnands, A. & Coppen, P.-A. (2019c). Dutch teachers’ beliefs on linguistic concepts and reflective judgement in grammar teaching. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature 191, 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Rijt, J., Wijnands, A. & Coppen, P.-A. (2020a). How secondary school students may benefit from linguistic metaconcepts to reason about L1 grammatical problems. Language and Education 34(3), 231–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020b). Investigating Dutch teachers’ beliefs on working with linguistic metaconcepts to improve students’ L1 grammatical understanding. Research Papers in Education, 1–30. Advance online publication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Rijt, J., Hulshof, H. & Coppen, P.-A. (2021). ‘X is the odd one out, because the other two are more about the farmland’ – Dutch L1 student teachers’ struggles to reason about grammar in odd one out tasks. Studies in Educational Evaluation 701, 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watson, A. & Newman, R. (2017). Talking grammatically: L1 adolescent metalinguistic reflection on writing. Language Awareness 26(4), 381–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wijnands, A., Van Rijt, J., & Coppen, P.-A. (2021). Learning to think about language step by step. A pedagogical template for the development of cognitive and reflective thinking skills in L1 grammar education. Language Awareness. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories – an embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction 241, 171–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolf, H. (2019). Leren ontleden: het moet en kan anders. In: S. Vanhooren & A. Mottart (Eds.) 33ste HSN Conferentie Onderwijs Nederlands (pp. 282–284). Gent: Skribis.Google Scholar
Young, M. (2013). Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: a knowledge-based approach. Journal of Curriculum Studies 45(2), 101–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Young, M., & Muller, J. (2010). Three educational scenarios for the future: Lessons from the sociology of knowledge. European Journal of Education 451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zuurmond, A. (2020). Critical Thinking, Citizenship, and Vocational Training: Creating a Space for Bildung. In: Monteressori, M. & Lengkeek, G. (Eds.) Opening up spaces for meaningful engagement in educational praxis (pp. 19–42). Utrecht: Edubron.Google Scholar
Zwart, J. W. (2010). Levende taalkunde. In: H. Hulshof & T. Hendrix (Eds.). Taalkunde en het schoolvak Nederlands. (pp. 51–54). Amsterdam: Levende Talen.Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Marjokorpi, Jenni & Jimmy van Rijt
2024. Grammatical understanding predicts reading comprehension in secondary-level students: insights from a Finnish national survey. Language and Education ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Strandberg, Agnes & Jimmy van Rijt
2024. Grammatical and rhetorical reasoning in upper secondary students’ collaborative talk about a literary text. Linguistics and Education 84 ► pp. 101359 ff. DOI logo
van Rijt, Jimmy H. M.
2024. Learning how to think like a linguist: Linguistic reasoning as a focal point in L1 grammar education. Language and Linguistics Compass 18:3 DOI logo
DEMİREL, Ahmet
2023. Ortaokullarda Dil Bilgisi Öğretiminin Uygulamadaki Güncel Durumu: Sorunlar Devam Ediyor Mu?. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi 21:1 ► pp. 402 ff. DOI logo
Dovalil, Vít & Adriana Hanulíková
2023. Grammar and variation in the classroom. Pedagogical Linguistics 4:1 ► pp. 26 ff. DOI logo
Strandberg, Agnes
2023. Grammar coming alive: Swedish L1 teachers’ reflections on using authentic texts when teaching grammar. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Lin, Hong
2022. The Influence Mechanism of High School English Grammar Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics Teaching Model on High School Students’ Learning Psychological Motivation. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
van Rijt, Jimmy, Debra Myhill, Sven De Maeyer, Peter-Arno Coppen & Christina Manouilidou
2022. Linguistic metaconcepts can improve grammatical understanding in L1 education evidence from a Dutch quasi-experimental study. PLOS ONE 17:2 ► pp. e0263123 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.