Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Lazar, Gillian; Barnaby, Beverley (2015)
Publisher: Parlor Press
Languages: English
Types: Part of book or chapter of book
A focus on sentence-level grammar in student writing has often been associated with a top-down prescriptiveness in which ‘peremptory commands’ about correct usage are linked with a negative evaluation of a person’s speech or writing’ (Cameron 2007). Yet, grammar is frequently a concern that pre-occupies both students and the academics assessing their writing.\ud This chapter explores some more transformative ways in which this concern could be addressed by enabling students to investigate the relationship between grammar, their identities and the complex power relationships within the university. It focuses on a small-scale project in which a number of Education Studies students were referred to a writing specialist in order to improve their ‘poor grammar’. Closer examination of the student assignments revealed a complex range of grammatical ‘mistakes’, ranging from grammatical forms frequently considered correct in non-British varieties of English, such as Indian or Nigerian English (Kirkpatrick 2007); non-standard forms of grammar used by students from the local communities in London (Preece 2009) ; and errors which could be attributed to the inter-language of non-native speakers of English (usually international students) still acquiring British standard English (Selinker 1972). Many of the students who were referred felt heavily stigmatised, and in order to redress this, a series of classroom activities were devised. These aimed to foster reflection on different varieties of English and student identities, and provide contrastive analysis and improved strategies for ‘noticing’ of varied grammatical forms and their appropriacy in different contexts.\ud The chapter concludes by suggesting that more dialogic feedback from academic staff regarding grammar will enable students to conceptualise grammar as a tool for making meaning in different contexts.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Bokamba, E. (1992). The Africanization of English. In B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 125-147). Urbana, IL/Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    • Borg, S. (1994). Language awareness as methodology: Implications for teachers and teacher training. Language Awareness, 3(2), 611-71.
    • Cameron, D. (2007). The teacher's guide to grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    • Canagarajah, S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    • Cofin, C., & Donahue, J. P. (2012). Academic literacies and systemic functional linguistics: How do they relate? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 17-25.
    • Deane, M., & O'Neill, P. (Eds.). (2011). Writing in the disciplines. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan Publishing.
    • Hyland, K. (2002). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56/4, 351-358.
    • Jacobs, C. (2005). On being an insider on the outside: New spaces for integrating academic literacies. Teaching in higher education, 10(4), 475-487.
    • Johns, A. (1997). Text, role and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    • Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    • Lea, M., & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education, an academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157-172.
    • Lillis, T. (2003). Student writing as “academic literacies”: Drawing on Bakhtin to move from critique to design. Language and Education, 17(3), 192-207.
    • Preece, S. (2009). Posh talk: Language and identity in higher education. London: Palgrave Macmillan Publishing.
    • Spada, N. (2010). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future research. Language Teaching, 44(2), 225-236.
    • Swales, J., & Feak, C. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
    • hTornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote “noticing.” ELT Journal, 51(4), 326-335.
    • Turner, J. (2004). Language as academic purpose. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(2), 95-109.
    • Turner, J. (2012). Academic literacies: Providing a space for the socio-political dynamics of EAP. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 64-75.
    • Wingate, U. (2011). A comparison of “additional” and “embedded” approaches to teaching writing in the disciplines. In M. Deane & O'Neill, P. (Eds.), Writing in the disciplines (pp. 65-87). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan Publishing.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article