Cover not available
Article published In:
Pedagogical Linguistics
Vol. 2:2 (2021) ► pp.129–152

Norwegian teacher students’ conceptions of grammar

 | Norwegian University of Science and Technology
ORCID logo | Norwegian University of Science and Technology
This paper explores the conceptions of grammar of first-year teacher students (N = 235) in Norway. A conventional content analysis is used to analyse the answers from the first part of a survey exploring the teacher students’ views of grammar through the following questions: Q1. How would you define the term grammar? Q2. Do you think grammar is an important part of Norwegian as a school subject? Q3. Do you feel confident in grammar? The second part of the survey is a grammar knowledge test. The results show that most students define grammar as writing correctly. Many answers also refer to language structure. Among the less frequent definitions are: theoretical knowledge of language structure, precise communication, text, and constituent analysis. Nearly all students report that they consider grammar important. Moreover, most consider their own grammar competence to be relatively good. However, there is a discrepancy between this self-evaluation and the results from the knowledge test, which are quite poor. Our study contributes to the body of research on teacher students’ conception of grammar, which, in a Norwegian context, has been unexplored. We discuss our findings in the light of national and international literature, and we propose plausible contributing factors. We also reflect upon possible consequences for teacher education.
Keywords: conceptions of grammar, first-year teacher students, grammar in Norwegian education, grammar knowledge, grammar views, L1 grammar education, grammar confidence, teacher students’ beliefs, prescriptive view of grammar, linguistic knowledge in L1
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction and background
  • 2.Diverging definitions of grammar as a subject
  • 3.Beliefs about grammar and grammar teaching
  • 4.The grammar survey and the content analysis of the answers
  • 5.Findings
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 May 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.21005.nyg
References (62)
References
Alderson, J. C. & Hudson, R. (2013). The metalinguistic knowledge of undergraduate students of English language or linguistics. Language Awareness, 22(4), 320–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, H. (2016). Teacher knowledge and beliefs about grammar: A case study of an English primary school. English in education, 50(2), 148–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergström, A. (2007). Två olika ämnen? Svenska språket på gymnasiet och på högskolan [Two different subjects? The Swedish language in upper secondary school and in higher education]. (MISS 59. Meddelanden från Institutionen för svenska språket.) Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet. Retrieved from [URL]
Blikstad-Balas, M. (2014). Lærebokas hegemoni – et avsluttet kapittel? [The hegemony of the textbook – a finished chapter?]. In R. Hvistendahl & A. Roe. (Eds.), Alle tiders norskdidaktiker: festskrift til Frøydis Hertzberg på 70-årsdagen den 18. november 2014 (pp. 325–347). Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). The Distinctive Characteristics of Foreign Teachers. Language teaching research: LTR, 10(1), 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borg, S., & Burns, A. (2008). Integrating Grammar in Adult TESOL Classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 456–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boström, L., & Strzelecka, E. (2013). Min grammatikhistoria. Roliga och sorgliga berättelser ur verkligheten. En fenomenografisk analys av 313 studenters berättelser [My grammar story. Fun and sad stories from reality. A fenomenographic analysis of 313 student stories]. Tionde nationella konferensen i svenska med didaktisk inriktning (SMDI 10), 30–49.Google Scholar
Brodow, B., Nilsson, N. -E., & Ullström, S. -O. (2000). Retoriken kring grammatiken: didaktiska perspektiv på skolgrammatik [The rhetorics about grammar: didactic perspectives on school grammar]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Brøseth, H., Busterud, G. & Nygård, M. (2020). “Oppslagsdelen bak i boka gir oversikt over grammatikk.” Analyse av grammatisk metaspråk i ei lærebok for ungdomstrinnet [«The look-up pages at the end of the book gives an overview of grammar». An analysis of grammatical metalanguage in a textbook in upper secondary]. Norsk lingvistisk tidsskrift, 38(2), 187–225.Google Scholar
Brøyn, T. (2014). Hvorfor har det blitt så vanskelig å snakke om språket? Intervju med Lars Anders Kulbranstad [Why is it so difficult to talk about language these days? Interview with Lars Anders Kulbranstad]. Bedre skole (1), 8–9.Google Scholar
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709–725). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cajkler, W., & Hislam, J. (2002). Trainee Teachers’ Grammatical Knowledge: The Tension Between Public Expectation and Individual Competence. Language Awareness, 11(3), 161–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1886). Knowledge of language. Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Elsner, D. (2021). Knowledge about grammar and the role of epistemological beliefs. Pedagogical linguistics 2(2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. A perspective from north American educational research on teacher education in English language teaching. Language Teaching, 351, 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodlad, J. I. (1979). Curriculum inquiry: the study of curriculum practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Grov, A. M. (2018). Språkundervisningen som forsvant? Intervju med Hans-Olav Enger, Gunvor Mejdell, Geir Olav Kinn, Åse Wetås og Bente Heian. [The language teaching that disappeared? Interview with Hans-Olav Enger, Gunvor Mejdell, Geir Olav Kinn, Åse Wetås and Bente Heian] Språknytt (2), 18–23.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1961). Categories of the Theory of Grammar. WORD: Journal of the International Linguistic Association, 17(2), 241–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugen, T. A. (2019). Funksjonell grammatikk som metaspråk i skulen – ei moglegheit for djupnelæring i arbeid med språk og tekst. [Functional grammar as meta language in school – a possibility for work with work with language and text]. Acta didactica Norge, 13(1), 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hertzberg, F. (1995). Norsk grammatikkdebatt i historisk lys [The Norwegian grammar debate through history]. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Hillocks, G. J., & Smith, M. (1991). Grammar and Usage. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. Lapp, & J. R. Squire. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts (pp. 591–603). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hislam, J., & Cajkler, W. (2005). Teacher Trainees’ Explicit Knowledge of Grammar and Primary Curriculum Requirements in England. In N. Bartels. (ed.) Applied Linguistics and Language Teacher Education (pp. 295–312). New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hognestad, J. K. (2013). Språkdelen av norskfaget – i læreplan og klasserom [The language part in the Norwegian subject – In curriculum and class room]. Norsklæraren (2), 24–29.Google Scholar
Holmen, S. E. (2014). Kvalitet i grammatikkundervisningen i lærerutdanningen [Quality in the grammar teaching in the teacher education]. In J. Amdam, Ø. Helgesen, & K. W. Sæther. (Eds.), Det mangfaldige kvalitetsomgrepet. Fjordantologien 2013 (pp. 83–100). Oslo: Forlag1.Google Scholar
Holt-Reynolds, D. (1992). Personal History-Based Beliefs as Relevant Prior Knowledge in Course Work. American educational research journal, 29(2), 325–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, H. -F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. (2001). Grammar teaching and writing skills: the research evidence. Syntax in the Schools 171, 1–6.Google Scholar
Juuhl, G. K., Hontvedt, M., & Skjelbred, D. (2010). Læremiddelforskning etter LK06. Eit kunnskapsoversyn [Research of teaching material after LK06. An overview of knowledge]. Høgskolen i Vestfold. Retrieved from [URL]
Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using Attitude Scales to Investigate Teachers’ Attitudes to the Communicative Approach. ELT journal, 50(3), 187–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroksmark, T., Strömqvist, G., & Strömqvist, S. (1993). Fem uppsatser om grammatik. [Five texts about grammar]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: 1: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 11). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lindsetmo, K. (2015). Framtidas lærere og grammatikken: en kvalitativ kasusstudie av et utvalg lærerstudenters forståelse av og syn på grammatikk [Future teachers and grammar: a qualitative case study of a sample of teacher students’ understanding and view of grammar]. (Master’s thesis) Sør-Trøndelag University College, Trondheim.Google Scholar
Macken-Horarik, M. (2012). Why School English Needs a ‘Good Enough’ Grammatics (and Not More Grammar). Changing English, 19(2), 179–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myhill, D., Jones, S., & Watson, A. (2013). Grammar matters: How teachers’ grammatical knowledge impacts on the teaching of writing. Teacher and Teacher Education, 361, 77–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myhill, D., & Watson, A. (2014). The role of grammar in the writing curriculum: A review of the literature. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 30(1), 41–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nespor, J. (1987). Academic Tasks in a High School English Class. Curriculum inquiry, 17(2), 203–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2020). Curriculum in Norwegian (NOR01-06). Available at: [URL]
. (2013). Norwegian Subject Curriculum (NOR01-05). Available at: [URL]
Oksfjellelv, B. (2011). Lærarstudentane kan for lite grammatikk. Intervju med Anne Lise Wie. [The teacher students know too little grammar. Interview with Anne Lise Wie]. Norsklæreren (3), 13–14.Google Scholar
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning Up a Messy Construct. Review of educational research, 62(3), 307–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, R. A. (2000). Constructing Effective Questionnaires. United States, California, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System (Linköping), 37(3), 380–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomphrey, C., & Moger, R. (1999). Cross-subject Dialogue About Language: Attitudes and Perceptions of PGCE Students of English and Modern Languages. Language Awareness, 8(3–4), 223–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poulson, L., Avramidis, E., Fox, R., Medwell, J., & Wray, D. (2001). The theoretical beliefs of effective teachers of literacy in primary schools: An exploratory study of orientations to reading and writing. Research Papers in Education, 16(3), 271–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Refsnes, K. G. (2016). Refleksjoner omkring grammatikk og grammatikkundervisning i ungdomsskolen. En kvalitativ studie av et utvalg norsklæreres refleksjoner omkring grammatikk og grammatikkundervisning [Reflections on grammar and grammar teaching. A qualitative study of a samle of Norwegian teachers’ reflections on grammar and grammar teaching]. [Master’s thesis]. NTNU, Trondheim.Google Scholar
Revdal, B. (2017). “For å kunn bruk må du ha lært.”: en kvalitativ studie av tre norsklæreres grammatikkundervisning. [“In order to use it, you must have learnt it.”: a qualitative study of three Norwegian teachers’ grammar teaching] [Master thesis]. NTNU, Trondheim.Google Scholar
Richardson, V. (1996). The Role of Attitudes and Beliefs in Learning to Teach. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery & E. Guyton. (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Teacher Education, (2nd ed.) (pp. 102–119). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Røyneland, Unn. (2009). Dialects in Norway: Catching up with the rest of Europe? International Journal of the Sociology of Language, (196–97), 7–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sahin, C., Bullock, K., & Stables, A. (2002). Teachers’ beliefs and practices in relation to their beliefs about questioning at key stage 2. Educational Studies, 28(4), 371–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sjong, H. K. (2017). Fire norsklæreres syn på grammatikkens posisjon i sin undervisning [Four Norwegian teachers’ view on the position of grammar in their teaching]. (Master’s thesis). NTNU, Trondheim.Google Scholar
Seuren, P. (1998). Western linguistics. An historical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Tiller, M. L. (2016). Med grammatikk som verktøy. En komparativ analyse av to lærebøkers formidling av grammatiske språktrekk som potensielle verktøy i skriving av sakprega tekster [With grammar as a tool. A comparative analysis of two textbooks’ dissemination of grammatical features in language as a potential tool for writing factual prose texts]. (Master’s thesis). NTNU, Trondheim.Google Scholar
Trotzke, A. & Kupisch, T. (Eds.) (2020). Formal Linguistics and Language Education. New Empirical Perspectives. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Rijt, J. H. M. (2020). Understanding grammar. The impact of linguistic metaconcepts on L1 grammar education. (PhD dissertation). Radboud University, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
van Rijt, J., & Coppen, P. -A. (2017). Bridging the gap between linguistic theory and L1 grammar education – experts’ views on essential linguistic concepts. Language Awareness, 26(4), 360–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Rijt, J., Wijnands, A., & Coppen, P. -A. (2019). Dutch teachers’ beliefs on linguistic concepts and reflective judgement in grammar teaching. Special issue What is grammar in L1 Education Today? L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature (19), 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vikøy, A. (2013, 08.03). Grammatikk, takk! [Grammar, thank you!]. Dag og tid.Google Scholar
Watson, A. M. (2015a). Conceptualisations of ‘grammar teaching’: L1 English teachers’ beliefs about teaching grammar for writing. Language Awareness, 24(1), 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watson, A. (2015b). The problem of grammar teaching: a case study of the relationship between a teacher’s beliefs and pedagogical practice. Language and Education, 29(4), 332–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Åfarli, T. A. (2000). Grammatikk – kultur eller natur? Elementær innføring i det generative grammatikkstudiets vitskapsteori. [Grammar – Culture or Nature? A basic introduction to the philosophy of science in generative grammar] Oslo: Samlaget.Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Rankin, Tom & Thomas Wagner
2024. “I usually just rely on my intuition and go from there.” pedagogical rules and metalinguistic awareness of pre-service EFL teachers. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching DOI logo
Van Rijt, Jimmy, Arina Banga & Martijn Goudbeek
2024. Getting a load of linguistic reasoning: How L1 student teachers process rules of thumb and linguistic manipulations in discussions about grammar. Applied Linguistics 45:1 ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo
Walla, Dianna
2024. Metalinguistic awareness in the multilingual EFL classroom: a study of grade 5–7 students in Norway. International Journal of Multilingualism ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Walla, Dianna
2024. Assessing knowledge of English verb placement and subject-verb agreement among multilingual students in grades 5–7 in Norway. Pedagogical Linguistics 5:2 ► pp. 162 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
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 21 september 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.