Grammar and Writing Instruction in Indiana Public Schools: An Evaluation of the IDOE ELA Academic Standards (6–12)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63385/ipt.v2i1.67Keywords:
English Language Arts, Grammar Instruction, Writing Instruction, Prescriptivism, Indiana Department of EducationAbstract
This study evaluates the Indiana Department of Education’s (IDOE) English Language Arts (ELA) academic standards for grades 6–12 through a linguistic lens to determine their alignment with current research on grammar and writing instruction. Prompted by ongoing concerns about students’ writing performance and college readiness, the paper examines whether the IDOE standards promote linguistically informed pedagogies shown to support writing development. Through a qualitative analysis of the standards, four key themes emerge: prescriptivism vs. descriptivism, the connection between spoken and written language, grammar instruction in isolation vs. in context, and writing as a long-term developmental process. Findings reveal that while the standards include isolated elements consistent with modern linguistic research, they overwhelmingly reflect a traditional, prescriptive approach to grammar and fail to make explicit connections between grammar, language diversity, and writing instruction. Additionally, the standards present a linear view of writing development that contrasts with contemporary understandings of writing as recursive and socially situated. The paper concludes that substantial revisions are needed for the standards to fully support linguistically informed grammar and writing instruction and to better equip Indiana students for academic success.
References
[1] National Center for Education Statistics, 2022. Mathematics and reading scores of fourth- and eighth-graders declined in most states during pandemic, Nation’s Report Card shows. Available from: https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/supportive_files/2022_rm_press_release.docx (cited 14 June 2025).
[2] National Center for Education Statistics, 2011. Reading 2011: National Assessment of Educational Progress at Grades 4 and 8. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences: Washington, DC, USA. Available from: https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012457.pdf (cited 14 June 2025).
[3] Jaggars, S., Stacey, G.W., 2014. What we know about developmental education outcomes. Community College Research Center. 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7916/D8K0729T
[4] ACT, 2022. Profile Report-National, Graduating Class 2022-National. Available from: https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/2022/2022-National-ACT-Profile-Report.pdf (cited 21 June 2025).
[5] Indiana Department of Education, 2022. English/Language Arts. Indiana Department of Education: Indianapolis, IN, USA.
[6] Braddock, R.R., Lloyd-Jones, R., Schoer, L.A., 1963. Research in Written Composition. National Council of Teachers of English: Champaign, IL, USA.
[7] 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. 20, 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2020.20.03.02
[8] Hillocks, G., 1986. Research on Written Composition: New Directions for Teaching. National Conference on Research in English: New York, NY, USA. Available from: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000393448 (cited 21 June 2025).
[9] 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: https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659013514070
[10] Hudson, R., Walmsley, J., 2005. The English patient: English grammar and teaching in the twentieth century. Journal of Linguistics. 41(3), 593–622. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226705003464
[11] Andrews, R., Torgerson, C., Beverton, S., et al., 2006. The effect of grammar teaching on writing development. British Educational Research Journal. 32(1), 39–55. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30032657
[12] van Rijt, J., de Swart, P., Coppen, P.A., 2019. Linguistic concepts in L1 grammar education: A systematic literature review. Research Papers in Education. 34(5), 621–648. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1493742
[13] Myhill, D., 2018. Grammar as a meaning-making resource for improving writing. Curriculum Journal. 29(4), 539–556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2018.18.04.04
[14] Locke, T., 2010. Beyond the Grammar Wars: A Resource for Teachers and Students on Developing Language Knowledge in the English/Literacy Classroom. Routledge: London, UK.
[15] Chatterjee, A., Halder, S., 2022. Teaching grammar in the context of writing: A critical review. Journal of Education. 203(4), 971–983. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574221074308
[16] Weaver, C., 1996. Teaching Grammar in Context. Heinemann: Portsmouth, NH, USA.
[17] Andrews, R., 2005. Knowledge about the teaching of sentence grammar: The state of play. English Teaching: Practice and Critique. 4(3), 69–76.
[18] Watson, A., 2015. 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: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2015.1016955
[19] Graham, S., 2019. Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in Education. 43(1), 277–303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821125
[20] Hacker, D.J., 2018. A metacognitive model of writing: An update from a developmental perspective. Educational Psychologist. 53(4), 220–237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1480373
[21] de Oliveira, L.C., Smith, S.L., 2019. Systemic functional linguistics in teacher education. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. 1–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.494
[22] Delpit, L., 2002. The Skin That We Speak: Thoughts on Language and Culture in the Classroom. The New Press: New York, NY, USA.
[23] Smitherman, G., 2000. Talkin and Testifyin: The Language of Black America. Wayne State University Press: Detroit, MI, USA.
[24] Matsuda, P.K., 2006. The myth of linguistic homogeneity in U.S. college composition. College English. 68(6), 637–651. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/25472180
[25] Myhill, D., Newman, R., Watson, A., 2020. Going meta: Dialogic talk in the writing classroom. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy. 43(1), 5–16.
[26] Myhill, D.A., Jones, S.M., Lines, H., et al., 2012. Re-thinking grammar: The impact of embedded grammar teaching on students’ writing and students’ metalinguistic understanding. Research Papers in Education. 27(2), 139–166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2011.637640
[27] Myhill, D., Jones, S., 2007. More than just error correction: Children’s reflections on their revision processes. Written Communication. 24(4), 323–343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088307305976
[28] Indiana Department of Education, n.d. Indiana Content Standards for Educators: English Language Arts. Indiana Department of Education: Indianapolis, IN, USA.
[29] Indiana Department of Education, 2020. Indiana Academic Standards English Language Arts Vertical Articulation: Grades 6–12. Indiana Department of Education: Indianapolis, IN, USA.
[30] Indiana Department of Education, 2020. Indiana Academic Standards English Language Arts: Grade 6. Indiana Department of Education: Indianapolis, IN, USA.
[31] Indiana Department of Education, 2020. Indiana Academic Standards English Language Arts Vertical Articulation: Kindergarten–Grade 5. Indiana Department of Education: Indianapolis, IN, USA.
PDF