Showing papers by "Frank Hardman published in 1995"
TL;DR: One hundred and sixty-two secondary teachers were followed through a postgraduate certificate in education course at a university department of education in England to identify, using a variety of methods, changes in their thinking about the teaching and learning process and initial training course as discussed by the authors.
175 citations
TL;DR: This paper investigated the current levels of grammatical knowledge among 99 trainee primary school teachers and found that there are significant gaps which could affect the student-teachers' ability to teach about language and grammar, and to analyse and help develop pupils' use of language.
Abstract: The introduction of the National Curriculum for English in England and Wales has placed an increased demand on primary teachers to promote a greater knowledge about language including the teaching of grammar. Critics of the English curriculum believe, however, that too little attention has been paid to the teaching of grammar and proposals for a revised curriculum which place more emphasis on the teaching of grammatical structure and terminology have been put forward. This study investigates the current levels of some aspects of grammatical knowledge amongst 99 trainee primary school teachers. Results indicate a higher level of grammatical knowledge than some critics might have us suppose. There are, however, significant gaps which could affect the student‐teachers’ ability to teach about language and grammar, and to analyse and help develop pupils’ use of language, which suggest the need for a systematic course of study during initial teacher training and beyond.
47 citations
1 citations
TL;DR: Skidmore and Hardman as mentioned in this paper argue that many pupils will be wrongly identified as having special educational needs and those that do not have such needs will be doubly dis-advantaged.
Abstract: David Skidmore and Frank Hardman take issue with the draft proposals for English issued by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority particularly in respect of ‘standard spoken English’. They accuse the authors of misunderstanding, even prejudice, against pupils whose language is non-standard. They fear that, as a result, many pupils will be wrongly identified as having special educational needs and those that do have such needs will be doubly dis-advantaged. They seek a more linguistically informed and tolerant debate.