Book contents
- Applications of Corpus Linguistics
- The Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series
- Applications of Corpus Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Editors and Contributors
- 1 Applying Corpus Linguistics
- 2 ‘Cutting Out the Middleman’
- 3 Investigating User Perceptions of a Corpus-Informed DDL Resource
- 4 Applying a Corpus-Based DDL Intervention in the Private English Language Sector in Ireland
- 5 Using Corpus Linguistics in Formulaic Language Learning
- 6 Applying Corpus Research Indirectly to Language Teaching Materials and Assessment Development
- 7 Informing Teaching Practice through Corpus Research
- 8 Building a Longitudinal Learner Corpus for Swiss German Sign Language
- 9 Using CADS Research to Critique Representations of Muslims in the UK Press
- 10 Examining the Uptake of Media Guidelines
- 11 Challenging Online Misogyny
- 12 Using Corpus-Assisted Approaches to Explore UK Police Crisis Negotiation
- 13 Afterword
- Index
- References
7 - Informing Teaching Practice through Corpus Research
The Growth in Grammar Project
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 December 2025
Book contents
- Applications of Corpus Linguistics
- The Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series
- Applications of Corpus Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Editors and Contributors
- 1 Applying Corpus Linguistics
- 2 ‘Cutting Out the Middleman’
- 3 Investigating User Perceptions of a Corpus-Informed DDL Resource
- 4 Applying a Corpus-Based DDL Intervention in the Private English Language Sector in Ireland
- 5 Using Corpus Linguistics in Formulaic Language Learning
- 6 Applying Corpus Research Indirectly to Language Teaching Materials and Assessment Development
- 7 Informing Teaching Practice through Corpus Research
- 8 Building a Longitudinal Learner Corpus for Swiss German Sign Language
- 9 Using CADS Research to Critique Representations of Muslims in the UK Press
- 10 Examining the Uptake of Media Guidelines
- 11 Challenging Online Misogyny
- 12 Using Corpus-Assisted Approaches to Explore UK Police Crisis Negotiation
- 13 Afterword
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter will analyse and reflect upon the generation of impact from a learner corpus study of children’s writing. The study investigated how school students’ use of grammar and vocabulary develops through the course of their academic careers, from age five to sixteen. Findings had evident impact for the teaching writing across all age groups and disciplines. Specifically, they provided evidence which we used to (a) increase professional understanding of the characteristics of syntactic and vocabulary development in writing; and (b) develop professional practice in the teaching of writing. In the chapter, we first summarise previous relevant research on writing development before describing our own study, its key findings, and their implications for teaching practice. We then discuss how we reached a variety of education professionals in the UK and beyond. We emphasise in particular the key concrete steps in generating impact through workshops, online media, and professional publications, and we discuss the importance of partnerships with diverse stakeholders. Finally, we reflect on some of the challenges associated with developing impact from education research, particularly with regard to the ethics of working with government bodies and the difficulties of evaluating impact on educational practice.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Applications of Corpus LinguisticsEstablished and Emergent Contexts, pp. 130 - 147Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2026
References
Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing Words to Life: Robust Vocabulary Instruction. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. & Nir, B. (2010). The lexicon in writing-speech-differentiation. Written Language and Literacy, 13(2), 183–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., Staples, S., & Egbert, J. (2020). Investigating grammatical complexity in L2 English writing research: Linguistic description versus predictive measurement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 46, 1475–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Longman.Google Scholar
Blount, N. S., Johnson, S. L., & Fredrick, W. C. (1969). A Comparison of the Writing of Eighth- and Twelfth-Grade Students. Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Clendon, S. A. & Erikson, K. A. (2008). The vocabulary of beginning writers: Implications for children with complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24(4), 281–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crossley, S. A., Weston, J. L., McLain Sullivan, S. T., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 28(3), 282–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deane, P. & Quinlan, T. (2010). What automated analyses of corpora can tell us about students’ writing skills. Journal of Writing Research, 2(2), 151–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirdal, H., Thue Vold, E., Drange, E. M. D., Durrant, P., Haukås, Å., Evang, K. H. S. Ø., & Wesenberg, M. W. (2022). Interactions between first, second and third languages. Retrieved March 2024 from www.hf.uio.no/ilos/english/research/projects/multiwrite/.Google Scholar
Durrant, P. & Brenchley, M. (2019). Development of vocabulary sophistication across genres in English children’s writing. Reading and Writing, 32(8), 1927–1953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, P. & Brenchley, M. (2021). The development of academic collocations in children’s writing. In Szudarski, P. & Barclay, S. (eds.), Vocabulary Theory, Patterning and Teaching. Multilingual Matters (pp. 99–120).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, P. & Brenchley, M. (2023). Development of noun phrase complexity across genres in children’s writing. Applied Linguistics, 44(2), 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, P. & Durrant, A. (2022). Appropriateness as an aspect of lexical richness: What do quantitative measures tell us about children’s writing? Assessing Writing, 51, 100596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, P., Brenchley, M., & Clarkson, R. (2020). Syntactic development across genres in children’s writing: The case of adverbial clauses. Journal of Writing Research, 12(2), 419–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, P., Brenchley, M., & McCallum, L. (2021). Understanding Development and Proficiency in Writing: Quantitative Corpus Linguistic Approaches. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Economic and Social Research Council (2022). Defining impact. Retrieved March 2024 from www.ukri.org/councils/esrc/impact-toolkit-for-economic-and-social-sciences/defining-impact/#:~:text=The%20Economic%20and%20Social%20Research,to%20society%20and%20the%20economy.Google Scholar
Fang, Z. & Park, J. (2020). Adolescents’ use of academic language in informational writing. Reading & Writing, 33, 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garside, R. & Smith, N. (1997). A hybrid grammatical tagger: CLAWS4. In Garside, R., Leech, G., & McEnery, A. (eds.), Corpus Annotation: Linguistic Information for Computer Text Corpora. Longman (pp. 102–121).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaznieks, A., Frey, J.-C., Stopfner, M., Zanasi, L., & Nicolas, L. (2022). Leonide: A longitudinal trilingual corpus of young learners of Italian, German and English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(1), 97–120. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.21004.gla.Google Scholar
Golub, L. S. & Fredrick, W. C. (1970). An analysis of children’s writing under different stimulus conditions. Research in the Teaching of English, 4(2), 168–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grobe, C. (1981). Syntactic Maturity, mechanics, and vocabulary as predictors of quality ratings. Research in the Teaching of English, 15(1), 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harpin, W. S. (1976). The Second ‘R’: Writing Development in the Junior School. Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Hsiao, Y., Banerji, N., & Nation, K. (2021). Boys write about boys: Androcentrism in children’s reading experience and its emergence in children’s own writing. Child Development, 92, 2194–2204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsiao, Y., Dawson, N., Banerji, N., & Nation, K. (2022). Lexical richness and syntactic complexity in children’s story writing. Paper presented at the 46th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Somerville, MA.Google Scholar
Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels: NCTE Research Report No. 3. National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. J. & Grant, J. O. (1989). Written narratives of normal and disabled children. Annals of Dyslexia, 39, 140–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, S. M., Myhill, D., & Bailey, T. C. (2013). Grammar for writing? An investigation into the effect of contextualised grammar teaching on student writing. Reading and Writing, 26 (8), 1241–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koutsoftas, A. D. & Gray, S. (2012). Comparison of narrative and expository writing in students with and without language-learning disabilities. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 43, 395–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lane, S. E. & Lewandowski, L. J. (1994). Oral and written compositions of students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12(2), 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428299401200204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawton, D. (1963). Social class differences in language development: A study of some samples of written work. Language and Speech, 6(3), 120–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lines, H. E., Myhill, D. A., & Jones, S. M. (2019). The relationship between metalinguistic understanding, student writing and teaching. In Bazerman, C., Pinzon, B.Y.G., Russell, D., Rogers, P., Pena, L. B., Narvaez, E., Carlino, P., & Tapia-Ladino, M. C. M. (eds.), Knowing Writing: Research across Borders. Bogota, Pontificio Universidad Javeriana (pp. 115–134).Google Scholar
Loban, W. (1976). Language Development: Kindergarten through Grade Twelve. NCTE Committee on Research Report No. 18. National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Locke, T. (2010). Beyond the Grammar Wars: A Resource for Teachers and Students on Developing Language Knowledge in the English/Literacy Classroom. RoutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malvern, D., Richards, B. J., Chipere, N., & Duran, P. (2004). Lexical Diversity and Language Development. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, C. D., Surdeanu, M., Bauer, J., Finkel, J., Bethard, S. J., & McClosky, D. (2014). The Stanford CoreNLP Natural Language Processing Toolkit. In Bontcheva, K. & Zhu, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations. Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 55–60).Google Scholar
Moore, E. M. (1977). Lexical characteristics of adolescent prose: Writer and task effects. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 47, 285–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, N. T. & Crump, W. D. (1982). Syntactic and vocabulary development in the written language of learning disabled and non-learning disabled students at four age levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5(2), 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myhill, D. A. (2003). Principled understanding? Teaching the active and passive voice. Language and Education, 17(5), 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myhill, D. (2008). Towards a linguistic model of sentence development in writing. Language and Education, 22(5), 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myhill, D. (2009). From talking to writing: Linguistic development in writing. BJEP Monograph Series II, Number 6 – Teaching and Learning Writing, 27(44), 27–44.Google Scholar
Myhill, D. A., Jones, S. M. & Watson, A. (2013). Grammar matters: How Teachers’ grammatical subject knowledge impacts on the teaching of writing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myhill, D. A., Jones, S. M., & Wilson, A. C. (2016). Writing conversations: Fostering metalinguistic discussion about writing. Research Papers in Education, 31(1), 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myhill, D. A., Jones, S. M., Lines, H., & Watson, A. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myhill, D. A., Jones, S. M., & Lines, H. (2018). Supporting less-proficient writers through linguistically aware teaching. Language and Education, 32(4), 333–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myhill, D. A. & Newman, R. (2016). Metatalk: Enabling metalinguistic discussion about writing. International Journal of Education Research, 80, 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nation, P. (2022). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Newman, R. & Watson, A. (2020). Shaping spaces: Teachers’ orchestration of metatalk about written text. Linguistics and Education, 60, 100860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noyce, R. & Christie, J. (1985). Characteristics of subordinate clauses in children’s free writing. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 18, 68–71.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, R. C., Griffin, W. J., & Norris, R. C. (1967). Syntax of Kindergarten and Elementary School Children: A Transformational Analysis. National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Olinghouse, N. G. & Leaird, J. T. (2009). The relationship between measures of vocabulary and narrative writing quality in second- and fourth-grade students. Reading and Writing, 22, 545–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority [QCA] (1999a). Improving Writing at Key Stages 3 and 4. QCA.Google Scholar
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority [QCA] (1999b). Technical Accuracy in Writing in GCSE English: Research Findings. QCA.Google Scholar
Ravid, D. & Berman, R. A. (2010). Developing noun phrase complexity at school age: A text-embedded cross-linguistic analysis. First Language, 30(1), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reppen, R. (1994). Variation in elementary student language: A multi-dimensional perspective. Doctoral thesis, Philosophy in Applied Linguistics, Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar
Thompson, N. C., Nemanich, D. D., & Bala, A. S. (1967). The Nebraska Study of the Syntax of Children’s Writing, 1966–67, Volume III. University of Nebraska.Google Scholar
UKRI [UK Research and Innovation] (2019). REF 2021 guidance on submissions. Retrieved March 2024 from www.ref.ac.uk/publications-and-reports/guidance-on-submissions-201901/.Google Scholar
UKRI [UK Research and Innovation] (2022). Defining impact. Retrieved March 2024 from www.ukri.org/councils/esrc/impact-toolkit-for-economic-and-social-sciences/defining-impact/.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, L., Aparici, M., Cahana-Amitay, D., van Hell, J. G., Kriz, S., & Viguié-Simon, A. (2002). Clause packaging in writing and speech: A cross-linguistic developmental analysis. Written Language and Literacy, 5(2), 135–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, A. M. & Newman, R. M. C. (2017). Talking grammatically: L1 adolescent metalinguistic reflection on writing. Language Awareness, 26(4), 381–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter
complies with version 2.1 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved
user experiences and achieves the intermediate
(AA)
level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.