Volume 2, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2665-9581
  • E-ISSN: 2665-959X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper explores the conceptions of grammar of first-year teacher students ( = 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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alderson, J. C. & Hudson, R.
    (2013) The metalinguistic knowledge of undergraduate students of English language or linguistics. Language Awareness, 22(4), 320–337. doi:  10.1080/09658416.2012.722644
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2012.722644 [Google Scholar]
  2. 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:  10.1111/eie.12100
    https://doi.org/10.1111/eie.12100 [Google Scholar]
  3. 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 fromhdl.handle.net/2077/24153
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blikstad-Balas, M.
    (2014) Lærebokas hegemoni – et avsluttet kapittel? [The hegemony of the textbook – a finished chapter?]. InR. 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]
  5. 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:  10.1017/S0261444803001903
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444803001903 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2006) The Distinctive Characteristics of Foreign Teachers. Language teaching research: LTR, 10(1), 3–31. 10.1191/1362168806lr182oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr182oa [Google Scholar]
  7. Borg, S., & Burns, A.
    (2008) Integrating Grammar in Adult TESOL Classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 456–482. doi:  10.1093/applin/amn020
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn020 [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. 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]
  10. 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]
  11. 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]
  12. Calderhead, J.
    (1996) Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. InD. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp.709–725). New York: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cajkler, W., & Hislam, J.
    (2002) Trainee Teachers’ Grammatical Knowledge: The Tension Between Public Expectation and Individual Competence. Language Awareness, 11(3), 161–177. doi:  10.1080/09658410208667054
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410208667054 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chomsky, N.
    (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (1886) Knowledge of language. Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Elsner, D.
    (2021) Knowledge about grammar and the role of epistemological beliefs. Pedagogical linguistics2(2). doi:  10.1075/pl.21003.els
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.21003.els [Google Scholar]
  17. 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, 35, 1–13. 10.1017/S0261444801001720
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444801001720 [Google Scholar]
  18. Goodlad, J. I.
    (1979) Curriculum inquiry: the study of curriculum practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1961) Categories of the Theory of Grammar. WORD: Journal of the International Linguistic Association, 17(2), 241–292. doi:  10.1080/00437956.1961.11659756
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1961.11659756 [Google Scholar]
  21. 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. 10.5617/adno.6240
    https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.6240 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hertzberg, F.
    (1995) Norsk grammatikkdebatt i historisk lys [The Norwegian grammar debate through history]. Oslo: Novus.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hillocks, G. J., & Smith, M.
    (1991) Grammar and Usage. InJ. 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]
  24. Hislam, J., & Cajkler, W.
    (2005) Teacher Trainees’ Explicit Knowledge of Grammar and Primary Curriculum Requirements in England. InN. Bartels. (ed.) Applied Linguistics and Language Teacher Education (pp.295–312). New York: Springer. 10.1007/1‑4020‑2954‑3_17
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2954-3_17 [Google Scholar]
  25. 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]
  26. Holmen, S. E.
    (2014) Kvalitet i grammatikkundervisningen i lærerutdanningen [Quality in the grammar teaching in the teacher education]. InJ. Amdam, Ø. Helgesen, & K. W. Sæther. (Eds.), Det mangfaldige kvalitetsomgrepet. Fjordantologien 2013 (pp.83–100). Oslo: Forlag1.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Holt-Reynolds, D.
    (1992) Personal History-Based Beliefs as Relevant Prior Knowledge in Course Work. American educational research journal, 29(2), 325–349. doi:  10.3102/00028312029002325
    https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312029002325 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hsieh, H. -F., & Shannon, S. E.
    (2005) Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. doi:  10.1177/1049732305276687
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hudson, R.
    (2001) Grammar teaching and writing skills: the research evidence. Syntax in the Schools17, 1–6.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 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 fromhttps://www.udir.no/tall-og-forskning/finn-forskning/rapporter/Laremiddelforsking-etter-Kunnskapsloftet---rapport-2010/
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Karavas-Doukas, E.
    (1996) Using Attitude Scales to Investigate Teachers’ Attitudes to the Communicative Approach. ELT journal, 50(3), 187–198. doi:  10.1093/elt/50.3.187
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/50.3.187 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kroksmark, T., Strömqvist, G., & Strömqvist, S.
    (1993) Fem uppsatser om grammatik. [Five texts about grammar]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: 1: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol.1). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 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]
  35. Macken-Horarik, M.
    (2012) Why School English Needs a ‘Good Enough’ Grammatics (and Not More Grammar). Changing English, 19(2), 179–194. doi:  10.1080/1358684X.2012.680760
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1358684X.2012.680760 [Google Scholar]
  36. Myhill, D., Jones, S., & Watson, A.
    (2013) Grammar matters: How teachers’ grammatical knowledge impacts on the teaching of writing. Teacher and Teacher Education, 36, 77–91. 10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  37. 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:  10.1177/0265659013514070
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659013514070 [Google Scholar]
  38. Nespor, J.
    (1987) Academic Tasks in a High School English Class. Curriculum inquiry, 17(2), 203–228. doi:  10.1080/03626784.1987.11075286
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1987.11075286 [Google Scholar]
  39. Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training
    Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2020) Curriculum in Norwegian (NOR01-06). Available at: https://www.udir.no/lk20/nor01-06?lang=eng
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training
    Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2013) Norwegian Subject Curriculum (NOR01-05). Available at: https://www.udir.no/kl06/NOR1-05?lplang=data.udir.no/kl06/eng
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 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]
  42. Pajares, M. F.
    (1992) Teachers’ Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning Up a Messy Construct. Review of educational research, 62(3), 307–332. doi:  10.3102/00346543062003307
    https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307 [Google Scholar]
  43. Peterson, R. A.
    (2000) Constructing Effective Questionnaires. United States, California, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:  10.4135/9781483349022
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483349022 [Google Scholar]
  44. Phipps, S., & Borg, S.
    (2009) Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System (Linköping), 37(3), 380–390. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2009.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  45. 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:  10.1080/09658419908667131
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658419908667131 [Google Scholar]
  46. 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. 10.1080/02671520126827
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520126827 [Google Scholar]
  47. 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]
  48. 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]
  49. Richardson, V.
    (1996) The Role of Attitudes and Beliefs in Learning to Teach. InJ. Sikula, T. J. Buttery & E. Guyton. (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Teacher Education, (2nd ed.) (pp.102–119). New York: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Røyneland, Unn
    (2009) Dialects in Norway: Catching up with the rest of Europe?International Journal of the Sociology of Language, (196–97), 7–30. 10.1515/IJSL.2009.015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IJSL.2009.015 [Google Scholar]
  51. 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. 10.1080/0305569022000042390a
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569022000042390a [Google Scholar]
  52. 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]
  53. Seuren, P.
    (1998) Western linguistics. An historical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 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]
  55. Trotzke, A. & Kupisch, T.
    (Eds.) (2020) Formal Linguistics and Language Education. New Empirical Perspectives. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑39257‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39257-4 [Google Scholar]
  56. van Rijt, J. H. M.
    (2020) Understanding grammar. The impact of linguistic metaconcepts on L1 grammar education. (PhD dissertation). Radboud University, Nijmegen.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 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:  10.1080/09658416.2017.1410552
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2017.1410552 [Google Scholar]
  58. 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:  10.17239/L1ESLL‑2019.19.02.03
    https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2019.19.02.03 [Google Scholar]
  59. Vikøy, A.
    (2013, 08.03). Grammatikk, takk! [Grammar, thank you!]. Dag og tid.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Watson, A. M.
    (2015a) Conceptualisations of ‘grammar teaching’: L1 English teachers’ beliefs about teaching grammar for writing. Language Awareness, 24(1), 1–14. doi:  10.1080/09658416.2013.828736
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.828736 [Google Scholar]
  61. 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:  10.1080/09500782.2015.1016955
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2015.1016955 [Google Scholar]
  62. 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]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error