Show simple item record

dc.contributor.supervisorSeale, J
dc.contributor.authorNorman, Phillip Richard
dc.contributor.otherPlymouth Institute of Educationen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-31T06:55:16Z
dc.date.available2012-08-31T06:55:16Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier321751en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/1180
dc.description.abstract

Since 1921 England’s governments have commissioned enquiries into English and literacy teaching, leading towards published recommendations and requirements for English grammar teaching. Governments’ officially sanctioned publications represent their policy aspirations for English and literacy. Research studies have explored the subsequent challenge for schools and teachers who must integrate grammar into a subject whose wider philosophies may conflict with an explicit grammar element. My study draws on critical theory to analyse the ideological discourses of English grammar these official policy documents reveal, and how they conflict or coincide with wider ideologies of English and literacy in schools.

My study uses a two-stage analysis. First is an intertextual analysis using a corpus approach to identify the data’s grammar topics through its keywords and argumentation types. Second is a qualitative critical discourse analysis (CDA) of the documents’ main ideas and ideological discourses. The CDA analysis reveals three main ideological discourses of grammar, namely of ‘heritage and authority’, ‘standards and control’, and ‘life chances and skills’. These discourses are constructed from both prescriptive and descriptive traditions of linguistic thinking, and draw on ideological perspectives of teaching and teachers, learning and learners, and changing philosophies of English over time.

The findings show no direct connection between the topic keywords policy authors use and the ideological positions they adopt. But there is a clear trend in argumentation approaches used to make hoped-for claims for grammar’s place and benefits in subject English. The discourses found question whether teachers are sufficiently prepared for grammar teaching and whether learners are sufficiently prepared for communicating in the workplace. The policy ideologies of grammar found in the qualitative analysis are finally re-mapped against wider philosophies of subject English to identify the broad policy trends.

en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of Plymouthen_US
dc.subjectEnglishen_US
dc.subjectgrammaren_US
dc.subjectCurriculumen_US
dc.subjectcritical theoryen_US
dc.subjectlanguage educationen_US
dc.subjectcurriculum policyen_US
dc.subjectcurriculum policy analysisen_US
dc.subjectpolicy discourseen_US
dc.subjectpolicy ideologyen_US
dc.subjectEnglish curriculumen_US
dc.titleWhat place has grammar in the English curriculum? An analysis of ninety years’ policy debate: 1921 to 2011.en_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
plymouth.versionFull versionen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.24382/1411
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.24382/1411


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV