teaching philosophy about writing while answering reflect on three questions
What do you value in the teaching of writing? How do you reflect those values as you teach? How does research on social equity support both your values and your teaching methods (often referred to as pedagogy)?

Grammar for writing? An investigation of the effects
of contextualised grammar teaching
on students writing

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Susan Jones Debra Myhill Trevor Bailey

Published online: 14 September 2012

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract The role of grammar instruction in the teaching of writing is contested in

most Anglophone countries, with several robust meta-analyses finding no evidence

of any beneficial effect. However, existing research is limited in that it only con-

siders isolated grammar instruction and offers no theorisation of an instructional

relationship between grammar and writing. This study, drawing on a theorised

understanding of grammar as a meaning-making resource for writing development,

set out to investigate the impact of contextualised grammar instruction on students

writing performance. The study adopted a mixed-methods approach, with a ran-

domised controlled trial and a complementary qualitative study. The statistical

analyses indicate a positive effect on writing performance for the intervention group

(e = 0.21; p \ 0.001); but the study also indicates that the intervention impact

differentially on different sub-groups, benefiting able writers more than weaker

writers. The study is significant in being the first to supply rigorous, theorised

evidence for the potential benefits of teaching grammar to support development in


Keywords Grammar Linguistics Writing Subject knowledge


The instructional benefit of teaching of grammar in first language English curricula

is contested in both research and professional literature in Anglophone countries

(Gordon, 2005; Wyse, 2004) and in the Netherlands (van Gelderen & Oostdam,

S. Jones D. Myhill (&) T. Bailey

Graduate School of Education, University of Exeter, Heavitree Road, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK

e-mail: [emailprotected]

D. Myhill

University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia


Read Writ (2013) 26:12411263

DOI 10.1007/s11145-012-9416-1

2005; van Gelderen, 2006). Indeed, in the 1960s and 1970s, following the

Dartmouth Conference (Dixon, 1975), most Anglophone countries (for example,

England, Australia, New Zealand and the USA) abandoned grammar instruction on

the grounds that it was ineffectual in supporting language development, particularly

writing development (Locke, 2009). More recently, driven principally by policy

imperatives, grammar has been re-introduced into the English curriculum in

England, and a parallel process is currently occurring in Australia. However, there is

no clarity or agreement about the role of grammar in the English curriculum and it

remains a strongly contested issue (Myhill, 2011; Myhill & Jones, 2011; Myhill

et al., 2011). The uncertain role of grammar in the language curriculum is set within

an international context, in Anglophone countries particularly, expressing concerns

about the writing attainment of children (NCW, 2003; OFSTED, 2009; Salahu-Din,

Persky, & Miller, 2008). In England, for example, in 2011, 32 % of boys and 19 %

of girls entering secondary education had not achieved the baseline standard in

writing expected for their age group, compared with 20 % of boys and 13 % of girls

who had not achieved the baseline in reading (DfE, 2011). However, there have

been no systematic studies of whether making meaningful connections between

particular linguistic structures and particular writing tasks supports the development

of students writing. This paper reports on the outcomes of a randomised controlled

trial (RCT), funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, which

investigated the impact of contextualised grammar teaching on students writing


The effectiveness of grammar teaching

Empirical studies investigating the efficacy of grammar teaching provide little

evidence of any beneficial impact upon students competence in writing. Robust

meta-analyses by Braddock, Lloyd-Jones, and Schoer (1963), Hillocks (1986) and

most recently, by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-

ordinating Centre (EPPI) (Andrews et al., 2006; EPPI, 2004) have concluded that

there is no evidence that teaching grammar is of benefit in supporting writing

development. Indeed, Hillocks and Smith (1991, 602) argue that research over a

period of nearly 90 years has consistently shown that the teaching of school

grammar has little or no effect on students.

There are, however, several major difficulties with almost all of the research that

these reviews represent. The first is that studies repeatedly investigate whether

various forms of grammar teaching, such as learning transformational grammar,

grammar exercises and drills, or parsing sentences, improve writing. The emphasis

is on teaching grammar in the hope that it might have an impact on writing

outcomes. In many of the studies (for example, Bateman & Zidonis, 1966; Elley,

Barham, Lamb, & Wylie, 1975, 1979; Robinson, 1959) isolated grammar lessons

are taught as part of a curriculum programme in grammar, and the writing measures

used to draw empirical conclusions are produced in a different teaching context.

Robinson (1959) tested grammatical knowledge and compared this with the quality

of their compositionshe correlated a grammar test with impression marking, and

looked only at word classes. Bateman and Zidonis (1966) taught a transformational

1242 S. Jones et al.


grammar course, with the purpose of determining the effects of a study of

transformational-generative grammar on the language growth of secondary school

pupils (Elley et al., 1979, 98). The Elley et al. study (1975, 1979) had three

treatment groups: the first was a course typical of English classes at that time in

New Zealand using a textbook addressing grammar, comprehension, and writing;

the second was a reading-writing course where students spent 40 % of their time

free reading, 40 % sharing a class reader, and 20 % writing; and the final treatment

group was a transformational grammar course with the intention of helping students

see how they can discover facts about their language and how they use it (1975,

28). Students in this group were taught about such things as sentence combining,

subordination, participial modifiers, and deep and surface structures. A second

difficulty with the few existing studies is that many are small -scale. The Bateman

and Zidonis study, for example, had a sample of 41 students.

A further difficulty is that none of the studies theorise an instructional

relationship between grammar and writing, which might inform the design of an

appropriate pedagogical approach. The studies are all located in very different

educational jurisdictions, with differing pre-existing curricular emphases on

grammar. In New Zealand, for example (Elley et al., 1975, 1979) there was

growing unease about the efficacy of traditional grammar teaching amongst

educational professionals, but also a back-to-basics call at policy level which

appeared to advocate strong doses of English grammar as a cure for some of our

educational ills (Elley et al., 1975, 3). But none directly address the inter-

relationship of grammar and writing, or offer a theoretical account of such an inter-


Contextualised grammar teaching

Thus, there are, to date, no large-scale studies which investigate the benefits or

otherwise of teaching grammar in the context of writing lessons, in which

connections are forged for the student writer between the grammar under focus and

the learning focus for the writing. However, Hudson (2001) draws attention to a

Finnish doctoral study (Laurinen, 1955) which reports improved punctuation scores

for primary students who have been taught clause structures. Hudson argues that the

benefits accrued are because the particular area of grammar taught correlates with

the learning focus for writing, punctuation. Effective punctuation is underpinned by

grammatical understanding and the teaching helped the students to make

connections between the two.

This synergistic relationship between writing and grammatical understanding is

also evident in Fogel and Ehris (2000) study. This is unusual in taking as its starting

point an identified writing problem, the tendency of some ethnic minority children

to use non-standard Black English vernacular (BEV) in their writing. The study set

out to examine how to structure dialect instruction so that it is effective in teaching

SE forms to students who use BEV in their writing (Fogel & Ehri, 2000, 215) and

found a significant improvement in avoidance of BEV in the group who were given

both strategies and guided support. They argue that their results demonstrated that

the approach used had clarified for students the link between features in their own

Grammar for writing? 1243


nonstandard writing and features in SE (2000, 231). The Fogel and Ehri study

moves the field forward by beginning to look at the pedagogical conditions which

support or hinder the transfer of grammatical knowledge into written outputs.

Significantly, too, their study begins with a specific linguistic learning need around

which teaching is designed. Fearn and Farnan (2007) have also investigated

teaching grammar in the context of teaching writing, seeking to examine if there is

a way to teach grammatical structures that will satisfy high-stakes tests and

teachers needs, and at the same time, positively affect writing performance?

(Fearn & Farnan, 2007, 2). Their experimental study encouraged a problem-solving

approach, using oral language, and appears to be focused on the use of particular

linguistic structures or word class: there is no evident attempt to talk about the

construction of meaning or effect through form. Nonetheless, their study did find

positive impact of their intervention and their conclusion is that it is beneficial for

learners when grammar and writing share one instructional context (Fearn &

Farnan, 2007, 16). A recent meta-analysis by Graham and Perin (2007) looking at

effective strategies to teach writing did find that teaching sentence-combining,

helping students to construct more structurally complex sentences, had a positive

effect. In general, however, there is a dearth of studies which address contextualised

grammar teaching probably because grammar has traditionally been taught and

learned in an environment that is devoid of context (Mulder, 2010, 73) or not

taught at all.

Theorising grammar-writing connections

As noted above, a limitation in much of the existing research on grammar teaching

is that there is no clear conceptualisation of a theoretical rationale for why grammar

might support writing development (indeed much of the research is framed by

polemic and ideology). Educational linguists (Carter, 1990; Denham & Lobeck,

2005; Hancock, 2009) contend that a better understanding of how language works in

a variety of contexts supports learning in literacy. They draw particularly on the

principles of contemporary linguistic theories which are descriptive and socio-

cultural in emphasis, or as Carter describes them, functionally oriented, related to

the study of texts and responsive to social purposes (Carter, 1990, 104). This is in

contrast to the more prescriptive approach to grammar which traditional grammars

espoused (Hudson, 2004). In the US, there has been some emphasis on the notion of

grammar in context (Weaver, 1996, for example), but a theoretical relationship

between grammar and writing has never been adequately articulated, and the idea of

in context is problematic, often meaning in practice an isolated mini-grammar

lesson within an English lesson (for a critique of this, see Myhill, 2010a).

The difference between prescriptive and descriptive views of grammar is central to

a consideration of a theoretical rationale for attention to grammar in the teaching of

writing. Prescriptive grammar sets out how language should be used, the rules of

language use; whilst descriptive grammar looks at language in use. Denham and

Lobeck (2010, 3) contrast linguists who have sought to build a grammar that would

be adequate for describing the language with English teachers who have sought to

apply a grammar that is already constructed. Public and political views of grammar

1244 S. Jones et al.


tend strongly towards the prescriptive view, maintaining that the role of the teacher is

to address grammatical accuracy in writing and eradicate error (Myhill, 2011; Myhill

& Jones, 2011; Myhill et al., 2011). Hancock, reflecting on the US educational

context, observed that grammar is error and error is grammar in the public mind

(Hancock, 2009, 175). In England, the same tendency at public and policy level is

evidentgrammar is frequently presented as a remediation tool, a language

corrective. The Queens English Society, whose remit is the preservation of the

English language, maintain that grammar is important for the diagnosing of faults or

problems in ones own writing and in that of others (QES, 2011). Traditional school

grammar is prescriptive and is critiqued by Hudson for having no roots in modern

linguistics and for being fragmentary, dogmatic and prescriptive (Hudson, 2004,

116). Descriptive theories of grammar counterpoint the normative emphasis on

correctness, characteristic of prescriptive grammar, with a more socially-oriented

analysis of how language is used, including in different social, linguistic and cultural

contexts. A prescriptivist theory of a grammar-writing relationship would argue for

the importance of grammar in securing correctness in written expression; a

descriptivist theory of a grammar writing relationship would argue for the importance

of grammar in illuminating how written text generates meaning in different contexts.

The theoretical approach adopted in this study builds on descriptivist views of

grammar. Understanding and analysing how language works in different purposes

and contexts makes connections for learners between language as an object of study

and language in use, as realised in the act of writing. This is, in effect, a theory of

grammar centred upon rhetorical understanding. As a theoretical perspective, this

has at its heart the discussion and analysis of how meaning is crafted and created

through shaping language to achieve the writers rhetorical intentions (Kolln, 2002;

Locke, 2005; Micciche, 2004; Paraskevas, 2006). It aims to foster explicit

understanding and conscious control and conscious choice over language which

enables both to see through language in a systematic way and to use language more

discriminatingly (Carter, 1990, 119).

A theorised view of grammar teaching in the context of writing which builds on the

understandings outlined above, and which focuses on the teaching of writing rather

than the teaching of grammar, incorporates the following principles (Myhill, 2010a).

Firstly, writing is a communicative act supporting writers in understanding the social

purposes and audiences of texts and how language creates meanings and effects;

secondly, grammar is a meaning-making resource: supporting writers in making

appropriate linguistic choices which help them to shape and craft text to satisfy their

rhetorical intentions; and finally, connectivity, supporting writers in making

connections between their various language experiences as readers, writers and

speakers, and in making connections between what they write and how they write it.

Teachers grammatical subject knowledge

The absence of explicit grammar teaching in the English curriculum in Anglophone

countries for nearly 50 years has resulted in many present English teachers not

having the grammatical subject knowledge (GSK) needed to teach grammar

confidently. A survey of teachers in England in 1998 (QCA, 1998) revealed

Grammar for writing? 1245


considerable lack of confidence, in particular with clause structures and syntax. The

report noted a significant gap in teachers knowledge and confidence in

sentence grammar and this has implications for the teaching of language and

style in texts and pupils own writing (QCA, 1998, 35). In the US context, Vavra

(1996) observed the gap between modern linguistics and the prescriptive, rule-

bound grammar taught by most English teachers. Cameron (1997) argued that the

literature degree qualifications of most English teachers not only leaves them ill-

equipped to cope with grammar teaching, but also generates anxiety, hostility, and

lack of confidence towards grammar.

This lack of confidence plays out in English classrooms through inaccurate

teaching of grammar points (Myhill, 2000, 2003) and insecurity in dealing with

students questions (Burgess, Turvey, & Quarshie, 2000). In two studies investi-

gating pre-service teachers engagement with grammar, Cajkler and Hislam (2002,

2004) demonstrate how they struggle with GSK and how to use it appropriately in

the classroom. Hudson (2004) argued that without adequate grammatical knowledge

teachers cannot make the analysis of texts explicit, nor can they structure the

teaching context effectively.

Research questions

The over-arching research question that this study set out to investigate was: what

impact does contextualised grammar teaching have upon students writing and

students metalinguistic understanding? The qualitative study, not reported here,

provides evidence concerning students metalinguistic understanding, as well as

complementary evidence about the implementation of the intervention. The RCT

provides evidence concerning the impact of the intervention. Consequently, the

following hypotheses were formulated: (a) that contextualised grammar teaching

will be positively related to students writing performance, (b) that the quality of

teachers GSK will mediate the impact of contextualised grammar instruction.



The participants were teachers (n = 32) and students (n = 855) of English in 32

different mixed comprehensive schools in the South-West and the Midlands regions

of England. In each school, a class of Year 8 students, aged 1213, formed the

sample for the RCT. In order to avoid selection bias (Cook & Wei, 2002), the school

sample was secured by using local authority data to compile a numbered list of all

mixed comprehensive schools in the South-West and the Midlands. A random

number generator was used to determine a rank order, and each school was

approached in rank order until the desired sample of 32 was reached.

Baseline data about participants were collected at school, teacher and student

level. At school level, data were compiled on national examination performance,

school inspection outcomes, ethnic diversity, Special educational needs (SEN) and

1246 S. Jones et al.


number of students entitled to free school meals (FSM) (as a proxy for socio-

economic status). At teacher level, data were collected on years of teaching

experience, degree subject studied and gender. In addition, teacher participants

undertook a test of GSK at the start of the study and the scores were used as further

baseline data. Student data comprised gender, whether they were students with

English as an additional language (EAL) or entitled to FSM. Attainment data in

English were also collated, drawing on standard national test results in English at

age eleven (including both a writing raw score and writing level) and school

predictions of English results in national tests at age fourteen.


The study sought to investigate whether the use of teaching materials which

embedded grammar teaching within teaching units for writing improved students

performance in writing. Additionally, the study sought to examine whether teachers

GSK was a factor upon the efficacy or otherwise of the intervention.

The sample was first stratified at teacher level according to their GSK scores to

ensure that the two groups were matched, given that GSK is known to be a factor in

the teaching of grammar. The classes were then randomly assigned, using a random

number generator, to either a comparison or an intervention group. Because it is not

possible in a naturalistic educational setting to prevent any teaching of grammar

naturally occurring, we have consistently used the term comparison rather than

control group. The study was blind as participant teachers were not told the

research focus was grammar; instead they were told the focus was on the teaching of

writing (see also Ethical considerations section). Full details of the intervention

and comparison group teaching are provided further below.

Because causal relationships are rarely deterministic, to different degrees, all

causal relationships are context dependent (Shadish, Cook & Campbell, 2002, 5), a

complementary qualitative data set was collated alongside the experimental study to

provide in-depth understanding of the theoretical, pedagogical and contextual

implications of the statistical data. This mixed method approach is important for

RCTs conducted in educational contexts. Indeed, Moore, Graham, and Diamond

(2003) argue that to undertake a trial of an educational or social intervention without

an embedded qualitative process evaluation would be to treat the intervention as a

black box, with no information on how it worked, how it could be improved, or what

the crucial components of the intervention were. Likewise, Shadish et al. (2002, 71)

recommend the addition of qualitative methodologies to experiments to provide

better interpretation and avoid errors in applying research outcomes to practice. In this

study, the data comprised lesson observations, teacher and student interviews, and

writing samples. This paper reports principally from the statistical analysis of the RCT

(for an overview report of the full study, see Myhill et al., 2012).


Three members of the research team (all former secondary English teachers) devised

three teaching units on writing, each addressing a different genre: fictional narrative,

Grammar for writing? 1247


argument, and poetry. These teaching units were in harmony with the requirements of

the National Curriculum for English (DCSF, 2007), a statutory instrument, and

addressed teaching objectives for Writing as set out in the Framework for Teaching

English (DfES, 2001), the recommended policy document guiding English teaching.

Three learning objectives which specifically addressed linguistic knowledge were

common to all three teaching units, giving the opportunity to explore, for example,

how sentence variety may fulfil different purposes in the three genres; the remaining

objectives were chosen for their relevance to the genre under study. Each teaching unit

was designed to take approximately 3 weeks of timetabled English lessons, and the

study period spanned a school year. In this respect, the intervention was wholly

aligned with curriculum and teaching norms and designed for implementation in a

naturalistic setting. The teaching units adopted many of the pedagogic practices

common in secondary English classrooms, such as the use of text models, group work

and discussion, opportunities for planning and drafting, peer assessment. To that

extent, they reflected typical practice in the teaching of writing. However, in addition,

within each unit, grammar teaching was embedded, making connections between a

linguistic feature and its effect in writing. Some of these were genre-specific. For

example, the fictional narrative unit looked at how first or third person are used to

create different voice or viewpoint. Others were more generically related to

improving writing: for example, varying sentence lengths to create textual rhythm

(For more detailed explanation of the teaching activities, see Myhill, 2010b, 2011;

Myhill & Jones, 2011; Myhill et al., 2011 in professional journals). There was no

focus on grammatical error or accuracy: rather the focus was to help writers to

recognise how making grammatical choices could shape their texts for communi-

cative purposes. Table 1 below provides an overview of the learning objectives and

written outcomes for each scheme and provides examples of the embedded grammar


Both the intervention and comparison group were taught the three types of

writing over the same period, addressing the same curriculum teaching objectives,

and producing the same written outcomes (in other words columns 1, 2, and 4 of

Table 1 were the same for both groups). Both groups were given the same set of

stimulus materials and resources, but only the intervention group had detailed

teaching units, planned at lesson level, in which grammar was explicitly taught.

Thus it is reasonable, as far as is possible within a naturalistic context, to conclude

that any differences in writing performance are attributable to the intervention.

Testing materials

The impact of the intervention on students writing performance was determined by

a pre and post test sample of writing. Both the pre and post test writing sample were

first person narratives, drawing on personal experience, and written under controlled

conditions (see Appendix 1). In order to avoid any possible bias created by the

precise choice of writing task, the topic was selected to avoid known gender

preferences in writing and to avoid the need of any specific topic knowledge or

experience. To minimise any possible test effect, a cross-over design was used: half

the sample took Writing Task 1 as the pretest, and the other half took Writing Test 2;

1248 S. Jones et al.


this was reversed for the post test. Both tests were independently marked by

Cambridge Assessment, an independent organisation who was responsible for

setting and marking the national test of writing for 14 year olds until 2006. The

mark schemes, one for each task, were developed based on the generic framework

underpinning the mark schemes used for all national curriculum writing tests. The

model was based specifically on the mark scheme used for the longer writing task in

the former Key Stage 3 English test. This criterion-based mark scheme has three

strands, with a maximum score of 30 marks: sentence structure and punctuation

(max. 8 marks), text structure and organisation (max. 8 marks), and composition and

Table 1 An overview of the three teaching units

Genre Learning objectives Grammar focus

examples (intervention


Written outcomes



Varying sentences and

punctuation for clarity and


Developing varied linguistic and

literary techniques

Improving vocabulary for

precision and effect

Developing viewpoint, voice and


Using grammar accurately and


Using sentence

fragments or short

sentences for


Use of first/third

person to establish


Expanding noun

phrases to create

character description

A story plan, plus writing the

opening, the climax, or the

resolution of the story

Argument Varying sentences and

punctuation for clarity and


Developing varied linguistic and

literary devices

Improving vocabulary for

precision and effect

Developing viewpoint, voice and


Structuring, organising and

presenting texts in a variety of

forms on paper and on screen

Using grammar accurately and


Using modal verbs to

create different

degrees of assertion

Using co-ordination to

create counter


Using subordination to



A written persuasive speech

Poetry Varying sentences and

punctuation for clarity and


Developing varied linguistics

and literary techniques

Improving vocabulary for

precision and impact

Generating ideas, planning and


Using expanded noun

phrases to create a

picture poem

Comparing line length

in poetry with

sentence variety in


Using sentence

patterning for effect

A portfolio of three poems,

plus reflective annotation

Grammar for writing? 1249


effect (max. 14 marks). Each strand is linked to two of the assessment focuses for

writing and the criteria are derived from national curriculum levels. For each set of

scripts, Cambridge Assessment provided a first markers set of marks, a second

markers set and a resolution mark, adjudicated by a third senior marker if the first

two marks were very different. Cambridge Assessment devised training materials

for marking; delivered a training day for each marking round; and ensured the usual

standardisation checks during the marking. The markers did not know from which

treatment group the writing was derived, and the research team was not involved in

the process of marking and assessment at all. A full report was provided by

Cambridge Assessment on the marking process, including a brief commentary on

the writing itself. Markers reported some evidence of carelessness in the post-test

writing, which led to speculation that some students might have been less motivated

than in the first round, perhaps because the task was completed at the end of the

academic year.

Attrition and fidelity

The principle of intervention fidelity is highly problematic in naturalistic educational

settings as it is very difficult to control the key variable of the teacher. There is always

a methodological trade-off between internal validity and ecological validity, and the

study privileged ecological validity. It is important to understand the ways in which

the intervention was mediated by the teachers. Thus, although each teacher in the

intervention had the same training and the same set of materials, it was neither possible

nor ethical to attempt to achieve identical implementation. Teachers were allowed to

adapt materials to suit the needs of their students, but they were asked to maintain the

specified learning focus and the intervention group were asked to remain as close as

possible to the teaching methods in the teaching units. The qualitative study,

particularly the lesson observations and teacher interviews, indicates that all bar one

teacher used the teaching units throughout the research period, and there was a high

level of commitment to the project. In all the lessons observed, the teaching units were

being used. In the teacher interviews just over half of the teachers specifically claimed

they had maintained high fidelity to the teaching schemes, in part because of their

commitment to the research project, or as one teacher put it, Ive tried to be faithful to

your project. They also appeared content to maintain high fidelity to the intervention

because of their approval of the quality of the schemesI think the scheme of work

is really, really good; and the sense that they were being successful with the

studentsI think the lessons are going really well and I think theyre really

learning. However, there were differences in the way they were implemented. Where

adaptations were made, a significant number were pragmatic adaptations in timing,

where tasks or activities had to be truncated because of time limitations. However, of

particular relevance to the research focus of the study, is the fact that some of the

adaptations were altering or omitting the focus on grammar at the heart of the research

because it was felt to be too difficult. One teacher reflected that she found it really

difficult and I adapted it to something else, whilst another just totally left out the

clause part of that exercise, the final element because actually, in the scheme so far we

havent taught, I havent taught them anything about clauses, so it would have just

1250 S. Jones et al.


completely have gone over their head. Another felt that her students would really

struggle with ellipsis. I deliberately didnt use the term, as with a lot of terms in this

scheme, saying a term that theyve not come across before would scare them. These

adaptations to the grammar element of the lessons link to the statistical finding,

reported later in this paper, that teachers GSK was an important factor in mediating

the intervention.

However, one teacher in the comparison group showed such low levels of fidelity

that it was decided to exclude this class from the data analysis (for example, she

taught lessons whi


psych week 7 DQ 1

Discussion: Cultural Influences on Psychological Conditions
Cultures have different views of understanding psychological disorders and psychological maladjustment. For instance, some cultures may view psychological conditions resulting from a bio-medical condition such as a brain condition. Other cultures view psychological conditions deriving from psychosocial stressors from social causes. Still other cultures combine multiple explanations. For this reason, as a working professional, it will be important for you to understand how culture influences the way psychological conditions are treated.
For this Discussion, you will examine the influence of culture on psychological conditions or treatments.
To Prepare:

Review this weeks Learning Resources and consider a psychological condition or treatment you are unfamiliar with and the culture in which it occurs.

By Day 4
Post and describe a psychological condition or treatment that was unfamiliar to you. Then, explain why you think this condition or treatment occurs in the culture you read about but not in others, that you know about.

Learning Resources
Required Readings
Hwang, W., Myers, H. F., Abe-Kim, J., & Ting, J. Y. (2008). A conceptual paradigm for understanding culture’s impact on mental health: The cultural influences on mental health (CIMH) model. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(2), 211227. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2007.05.00.
Abi-Hashem, N. (2018). Trauma, coping, resiliency among Syrian refugees in Lebanon and beyond. In G. Rich & S. Sirikantraporn (Eds.), Human strengths and resilience: Developmental, cross-cultural, and international Perspectives (pp. 105124).Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Credit Line: Human Strengths and Resilience: Developmental, Cross-Cultural, and International Perspectives, by Rich, G.; Sirikantraporn, S. Copyright2018 by Lexington Books. Reprinted by permission ofLexington Books via the Copyright Clearance Center.
Draguns, J. G., & Tanaka-Matsumi, J. (2003). Assessment of psychopathology across and within cultures: Issues and findings. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(7), 755776.
Lewis-Fernandez, R., & Kleinman, A. (1988). Culture, personality, and psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(1), 6771.
Lopez, S. R., & Guarnaccia, P. J. J. (2000). Cultural psychopathology: Uncovering the social world of mental illness. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 571598
Ryder, A. G., Yang, J., & Heine, S. J. (2002). Somatization vs. psychologization of emotional distress: A paradigmatic example for cultural psychopathology. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 10(3).
Credit Line: International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, & Ryder, A. G.; Yang, J.; Heine, S. J. (2002). Somatization vs. Psychologization of Emotional Distress: A Paradigmatic Example for Cultural Psychopathology. Retrieved from Used with permission of International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology.
Optional Resources
Kleinman, A. (1982). Neurasthenia and depression: A study of somatization and culture in China. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, 6(2), 117190. Retrieved from
Lewis-Fernandez, R., et al. (2014). Culture and psychiatric evaluation: Operationalizing cultural formulation for DSM-5. Psychiatry, 77(2), 130154.
Note: Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
Sirikantraporn, S., Rich, G., & Jafari, N. (2018). The concept of posttraumatic growth in a Cambodian sample: A grounded theory study. In G. Rich & S. Sirikantraporn (Eds.), Human strengths and resilience: Developmental, cross-cultural, and international perspectives (pp. 3958).Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Related Post

Decision AnalysisDecision Analysis

  An international manufacturer of electronic products is contemplating introducing a new type of compact disk player. After some analysis of the market, the president of the company concludes that, within


Program ProposalProgram Proposal

  1 2 Public Health Administration Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on Program Proposal Just from $13/Page Order Essay Assignment 4: Community Health Outreach Program Proposal Top of

Open chat
💬 Need help?
Hello 👋
Can we help you?