0% found this document useful (0 votes)

405 views53 pages

Ferris and Hedgcock Ch04

Uploaded by

Meryem MOLDUR

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

405 views53 pages

Ferris and Hedgcock Ch04

Uploaded by

Meryem MOLDUR

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 53

Chapter 4

Reading, Genre
Awareness, and
Task Design in the
L2 Composition
Course

Questions for Reflection

j How have your reading experiences and skills influenced your develop-
ment as an L1 (and L2) writer? Why might reading skill be an especially
important factor in how multilingual students become proficient writers?
j What genres do you encounter as an academic and nonacademic reader?
What features typify these genres? What have you learned from them?
j If you have teaching experience, what features do you seek in instruc-
tional materials (e.g., print and digital texts, software, and so on)? What
distinguishes a good textbook or software application from a poor one?
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

j In what respects might criteria for an L2 literacy or composition textbook

differ from those that we might apply to other types of textbook? Why?
j Under what conditions should a composition teacher augment a text-
book with supplemental materials, tasks, and assignments? Justify your
response.
j What types of in-class and out-of-class activities and exercises are most
productive for inexperienced writers? For experienced writers? Why?

This chapter builds on selected models of composition introduced in Chapter 3

and lays groundwork for the instructional design principles explored in Chap-
ter 5. We will first examine the central role of reading processes in the teaching
and learning of L2 writing and then turn our attention to genre analysis and its

Ferris, Dana R., and John Hedgcock. Teaching L2 Composition : Purpose, Process, and Practice, Routledge, 2013.
ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/asulib-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1434037.
Created from asulib-ebooks on 2019-08-14 17:19:55.
94 Reading, Genre Awareness, and Task Design

practical implications for designing literacy tasks and engaging students in pro-
ducing authentic texts.

L2 Literacy Development and the Sources of

Literate Knowledge
Readers seeking to develop skills for teaching L2 composition might wonder why we
would devote extensive attention to reading development in a book on L2 writing.
Our focus on reading relates to a “commonly established practice and belief: Writ-
ing teachers teach writing, and reading teachers teach reading” (Hirvela, 2004, p. 10).
This view reflects a pervasive yet misguided assumption that reading is somehow
secondary to writing and that—worse yet—writing instruction need not systemati-
cally target or cultivate students’ reading skills and strategies. We fervently reject these
views, as we believe that reading instruction is as much the job of writing instructors
as the teaching of composing skills. Our experience as academic writers and teach-
ers of writing confirms our firm belief that one cannot successfully teach writing
without simultaneously teaching reading (Carson & Leki, 1993; Hirvela, 2004). In
other words, writing should not be isolated as a cognitive or academic activity, as the
process fundamentally depends on writers’ purposeful interactions with texts, with
fellow readers and writers, and with literate communities of practice (see Chapter 3).
Research and practical experience overwhelmingly demonstrate that one can-
not become a proficient writer in any language without also developing an array
of literacy skills, including the ability to comprehend written text both fluently
and accurately (Grabe, 2009; Grabe & Stoller, 2011, 2014; Hedgcock & Ferris,
2009; Hudson, 2007; Tsai, 2006). Describing the literature on reading–writing
connections in L1 literacy and L2 learning, Grabe (2003) observed that “cumula-
tive insights from this body of research have contributed to helping teachers find
a variety of ways to exploit reading and writing connections” (p. 242). Because of
the sheer quantity of this research, our discussion will focus chiefly on its implica-
tions for designing and delivering composition instruction.1
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

As a function of global language proficiency and cognitive development, read-

ing has received considerable attention among researchers and teachers over the
last several decades. Reading in any language was once portrayed as an individual-
ized mental activity involving the decoding of print, “an intrapersonal problem-
solving task that takes place within the brain’s knowledge structures” (Bernhardt,
1991, p. 6). Indeed, the act of reading involves a transformation of the reader’s
state of knowledge. This transformation depends on the information encoded in
text, how long the process takes, sources of error, and the conversion of textual
material to knowledge that will subsequently become available for retrieval from
short- and long-term memory (Bernhardt, 2010; Grabe, 2009; Hudson, 2007;
Just & Carpenter, 1987; Koda, 2005, 2011).
Conversion of text-based information to knowledge is widely believed to
form the basis of how readers become writers. This acquired information con-
tains print-encoded messages as well as clues about how a text-based message’s

grammatical, lexical, semantic, pragmatic, and rhetorical constituents combine to

make the message meaningful. Acquiring proficient literacy skills requires learners
to recognize interconnections among the components and processes of literate
activity. A reader trying to understand a written text must perform three complex,
interdependent activities: “decode the message by recognizing the written signs,
interpret the message by assigning meaning to the string of words, and finally, un-
derstand what the author’s intention was,” a process involving interactions among
writer, text, and reader (Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000, p. 119). Teachers inter-
ested in the learning and teaching of L2 composing skills should therefore under-
stand the dynamic interplay between reading and writing and the implications of
this reciprocal relationship for classroom instruction.

Reading and Writing: Parallel Processes

Research over the last several decades largely supports parallels between reading
and writing processes (Grabe, 2009; Grabe & Stoller, 2011; Hudson, 2007;
Koda & Zehler, 2007). Tierney and Pearson (1983) first introduced a five-
component composing model in which readers build meaning in an ongoing in-
ner dialogue that parallels the processes by which writers construct meaning:

1. Plan—Readers and writers set procedural and content-specific goals.

2. Draft—Like writers, readers construct preliminary mental “drafts” as
they read, searching texts for familiar language and meanings and as-
sembling meanings that cohere and are aligned to a purpose.
3. Align—As writers adjust their stances with respect to their audiences and
topics, readers reshape their roles vis-à-vis the text’s author and content.
4. Revise—Readers and writers examine their emerging mental and physi-
cal texts, reshaping, editing, and correcting them as they advance in the
process.
5. Monitor—Readers, like writers, establish distance from the mental
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

scripts and physical texts that they have constructed in order to evalu-
ate those products, compare them to other texts, and potentially revise
them further.

(Sources: Barnhouse & Vinton, 2012; Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000; Hirvela, 2004;
Hudson, 2007; Shanahan & Tierney, 1990; Tierney & Pearson, 1983)

As readers seek to comprehend a text, they generate meaning by relating textual

content to their background knowledge. Conversely, as writers write, they relate
schematic knowledge to texts. “Both skills involve generating relations among the
text segments—words to sentences, sentences to paragraphs, paragraphs to larger
texts—as well as generating relationships between knowledge and experience and
the text” (Hudson, 2007, p. 265).

The Reciprocity of the Reading–Writing Relationship

Writing and reading involve parallel cognitive operations; they also enjoy a symbi-
otic developmental relationship (McGinley & Tierney, 1989). That is, reading con-
tributes substantively to the development of composing skills (reading to write),
while writing can measurably improve reading skills (writing to read). Findings
that support connections between reading and writing performance have gener-
ated three interrelated models to describe the relationship. A linear view, called the
directional hypothesis (Eisterhold, 1990; Grabe, 2003; Hirvela, 2004), assumes that
composing skills emerge as a result of establishing sound reading skills, presum-
ably through practice and abundant contact with print. Although the directional
model once had strong advocates, research offers at least two alternative means
of describing how reading and writing may be related. The nondirectional model
holds that a single cognitive proficiency underlies both reading and writing pro-
cesses (Eisterhold, 1990). Its chief implication is that instruction should focus on
constructing meaning in both reading and writing tasks (Eisterhold, 1990; Grabe,
2003). In contrast, the bidirectional model (somewhat like the nondirectional
model) holds that practice in writing promotes the development of reading skills,
just as improved reading proficiency can enhance writing skills (Hirvela, 2004; Ol-
son, 2010). The bidirectional model predicts that the reading–writing connection
in both L1 and L2 undergoes qualitative change as learners strengthen and diver-
sify their literacy skills (Heller, 1999; Hudson, 2007; McGinley & Tierney, 1989).
Both the nondirectional and bidirectional hypotheses pose the challenge of de-
termining “precisely where writing and reading begin and end” (Hudson, 2007,
p. 274), as writers read while writing and readers think as writers do as they write
(Hefflin & Hartman, 2002; Smith, 1984). In line with the bidirectional hypothesis,
the perspective taken in this book is that teachers should approach the teaching
of composition as an opportunity to build their students’ academic, professional,
professional, social, cultural, critical, and digital literacies, which are multiple and
which entail many kinds of expertise (Baker, 2010; Baron, 2009; Barton, 2007;
Barton et al., 2000; Beach, Anson, Breuch, & Swiss, 2008; Bedard & Fuhrken, 2013;
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

Burke & Hammett, 2009; Christel & Sullivan, 2010; Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Gee,
2012; Gee & Hayes, 2011; Hoffman & Goodman, 2009; Jensen, 2011; Kalantzis &
Cope, 2012; National Writing Project, 2010; Trifonas, 2011; Warnick, 2002).
As reciprocal reading–writing relationships have become a focal point of re-
search, literacy education has capitalized on interactions between reading and
composing operations. Reading and writing both involve building meaning, de-
veloping cognitive and linguistic skills, controlling thinking, solving problems,
and activating schemata (Birch, 2007; Carson, 1993, 2001; Devine, 1993; Flower
et al., 1990; Jabbour, 2001; Kucer, 2009; Kucer & Silva, 2013; see Chapter 1 for
a discussion of schema theory). As readers read, they enter ideas in the form of
words and sentences into their mental databases, which they subsequently search
and modify as they encounter new textual information (Amsel & Byrnes, 2002;
Carrell, 1983a, 1983b; Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983; Kellogg & Whiteford, 2012).

In activating, reworking, and building schemata, readers dynamically formulate

meaning for a given passage or text. In this process, they construct meaning by
storing new knowledge, sorting through banked knowledge, attending to textual
clues about the author’s intended meaning(s), and assembling these data into co-
herent knowledge structures (Koda, 2005). If successful, readers transform exist-
ing knowledge into new understandings and ideas. Schema theory highlights vital
links between reading and writing by identifying the processes by which readers
discover ideas and perspectives that become available as subject matter for their
writing. As readers consciously and unconsciously build more numerous and
complex schemata, they develop a tacit (and sometimes explicit) awareness of
genres and of the expectations of their readers (Chen & Graves, 1995; Costino &
Hyon, 2011; Dobson & Feak, 2001; Goldman, 1997; Hyland, 2004a; Hyon, 2002;
Johns, 2008, 2009a; Koda, 2005; Pang, 2002).

Reading–Writing Relationships Within and Across Languages

Literacy research has explored numerous literacy connections, including reading–
writing relationships among monolingual and multilingual writers. Studies of both
intra- and interlingual literacy development have focused on learners’ measurable
literacy skills and performance, in addition to variables such as reading habits,
exposure to print, and the like. Numerous investigations of literacy development
across languages have also explored the transfer (and nontransfer) of L1 reading
and writing skills to L2 literacy development (for surveys of this work, see Grabe,
2009; Grabe & Stoller, 2011, 2014; Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009; Hudson, 2007; Koda,
2005, 2007a, 2011; Koda & Zehler, 2007).2
Much of this expanding research demonstrates that effective reading skills
predict and promote effective writing skills, both within languages (Fitzgerald &
Shanahan, 2000; Langer & Flihan, 2000; Pinto, 2004; Stotsky, 1983; Teale & Yokota,
2000) and across languages (Hirvela, 2004). Related research supports positive re-
lationships between L1 and L2 reading skills: Good L1 readers tend to be good
L2 readers who effectively transfer relevant L1 strategies and skills to L2 reading
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

tasks (Grabe, 2003, 2009; Hudson, 2007; Ito, 2011). In contrast, research exploring
relationships between L1 and L2 writing skills has produced mixed results. Some
studies have shown that measures of L1 and L2 writing proficiency are strongly
correlated (Hirose & Sasaki, 1994; Ito, 2004; Kamimura, 2001; Sasaki & Hirose,
1996), whereas comparable investigations have produced data that do not uni-
formly support significant positive relationships (Abu-Akel, 1997; Carson et al.,
1990; Pennington & So, 1993).
With respect to reading–writing relations, L1 studies have largely borne out
strong, positive relationships, in support of nondirectional and bidirectional views
(Crowhurst, 1991; Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000; Krashen, 2004; Langer & Applebee,
1987; Nelson & Calfee, 1998; Perfetti, Rouet, & Britt, 1999; Pressley, 1998; Stotsky,
1983). Similarly, investigations of reading–writing links in L2 learning often sup-
port positive links between reading and writing skills (Cummins, 1979, 1981, 1984).

Ito (2011), for example, explored the contribution of EFL reading proficiency to
academic writing skill. In his study of 68 Japanese secondary students, he reported
strong (and statistically significant) correlations between students’ reading and writ-
ing scores. In line with comparable studies (e.g., Abu-Akel, 1997; Hirose & Sasaki,
1994; Pennington & So, 1993; Sasaki & Hirose, 1996), Ito (2011) concluded that “the
development of L2 reading skills may improve the quality of students’ . . . L2 writing”
(p. 27). Similar research comparing reading and writing performance points toward
a productive interplay between the two operations, particularly when texts and lit-
eracy tasks are related and when learners can integrate textual information in pur-
poseful writing tasks (Ackerman, 1991; Grabe, 2003). As Hudson (2007) observed,
“reading and writing rely on analogous mental processes,” during which “learn-
ing takes place, and the two skills reinforce themselves and each other recursively”
(p. 277). Globally speaking, cumulative evidence from this line of inquiry “indicates
that good writers are good readers” (Chuy, Scardamalia, & Bereiter, 2012, p. 181).3
As argued in Chapters 1 and 2, L2 literacy acquisition involves a more complex
interaction of skills and knowledge than does L1 literacy acquisition, as literate
multilingual writers may bring to the writing course well-developed L1 literacy
skills (and even literacy skills in other languages as well). At the same time, because
L2 writers may have underdeveloped linguistic, rhetorical, academic, and strategic
L2 knowledge, we cannot assume reading-writing relationships to be as clear-cut
for them as they might be for L1 writers (Ferris, 2009; Grabe & Stoller, 2011; Hedg-
cock & Ferris, 2009). We would naturally caution that becoming a skilled reader by
no means guarantees writing proficiency in any language (Shanahan, 1984). None-
theless, strong and controversial claims about the primacy of reading practice over
writing practice can be useful for L2 literacy educators, as they bring to light a
basic premise: To varying degrees, composing skills must emerge from exposure
to—and meaningful interaction with—textual material. Some have argued that
reading may actually make a more significant contribution to writing proficiency
than the practice of writing itself, particularly when reading is self-initiated or
self-selected (Krashen, 1984, 2004, 2011; McQuillan, 1994; Smith, 1984). Under-
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

scoring the fundamental role of reading relative to writing practice, Smith (1988)
observed that “no one writes enough to learn more than a small fraction of what
writers need to know” (p. 19). Such a seemingly commonsense claim should be
qualified when applied to L2 writers, for whom reading itself is often far slower
and more laborious than we commonly recognize (Grabe, 2009; Grabe & Stoller,
2011; Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009; Schmitt, Jiang, & Grabe, 2011). Nonetheless, the
overwhelming evidence for the crucial contributions of reading to the process of
becoming a writer should remind educators that composition instruction must
systematically cultivate students’ reading skills and strategies.

Reading Instruction in the Composition Course

L1 and L2 literacy research generally supports an approach to composition peda-
gogy in which explicit writing instruction is carefully balanced with many types
of literacy tasks, notably reading (Grabe, 2003; Grabe & Stoller, 2011, 2014).
Ferris, Dana R., and John Hedgcock. Teaching L2 Composition : Purpose, Process, and Practice, Routledge, 2013.
ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/asulib-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1434037.
Created from asulib-ebooks on 2019-08-14 17:19:55.
Reading, Genre Awareness, and Task Design 99

The ability to read and make sense of any field’s content knowledge entails a wide
range of microskills that may not be apparent to educators who take such skills
for granted (Grabe, 2001). We can more fully understand the complexity of these
“basic” reading processes and work toward teaching them by recognizing essential
microskills, many of which can be targeted in instructional tasks appropriate for
the composition classroom. Figure 4.1 presents a selective sampling of teachable
microskills and strategies associated with reading development, comprehension,
and information gathering. This list should remind teachers of the breadth and
complexity of the cognitive and metacognitive operations that their writing stu-
dents must manage whenever they read a print or digital text for a writing course
(also see Chapter 5). Writing teachers should recall that students may require sus-
tained practice and explicit instruction in the use of higher-order (and sometimes

R eading S k ills D evelopm ent

Divide words Define high-frequency words_____________
Use a dictionary pronunciation key Decode compound words______________
Draw on and develop a rich vocabulary______Use context clues to understand meaning
Understand polysemy (multiple meanings! Recognize synonyms, antonyms,
identify word roots and affixes (prefixes and homonyms, and other semantic relations
suffixes, plural markers)__________________________________________________________
Reading C om prehension D evelopm ent
Categorize words and information__________ Judge reliability of source________________
Sequence words and infonratinn___________ Compare and contrast__________________
Follow directions________________________ Judge prepositional content______________
Read for information at a rapid speed_______Understand and use figurative language
Retell a story____________________________ Understand literary and academic fcmns
Identify key words_______________________ Evaluate characters, narrators, authors
identify main ideas_______________________ Evaluate narrative settings
Summarize______________________________ Draw factual conclusions_________________
Predict outcomes Distinguish fact from fiction and opinion
Modify incorrect predictions Recognize purposes for reading
Recognize and repair miscomprehension Shill purposes for reading as needed______
identify tone or emotion in e text____________ Read critically__________________________
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

Generate inferences_____________________ Deploy strategies to monitor

Align r*ew material with existing schemata comprehension_________________________
Reading, Research, and S tudy S k ills
Alphabetize Use tabfes of contents, indexes,
Plan for writing while reading_______________glossaries, etc. efficiently________________
Cross-reference_________________________ Use print and digital reference tools (e.g.,
Interpret and use visual input (e.g., images, dictionary, encyclopedia, search engines.
maps, graphs, elc.) effectively______________ate.) efficiently__________________________
Understand and synthesize information Use tevt-based, visual, and interactive
from various sources_____________________ electronic resources to collect and compile
Classify prim and digital texts (e.g.. books, information; apply QUEST model
articles, websiles. blogs, etc.) by genre (Question, Understand Resources,
category_________ Evaluate, Synlhesize, Transform)

FIGURE 4.1 Three sets of reading competencies, microskills, and strategies for
readers and writers of English. Adapted from Hedgcock and Ferris (2009); related
sources include Block and Pressley (2008); Eagleton and Dobler (2007); Grabe
and Stoller (2011); National Writing Project, 2010; Vause and Amberg, (2013).
Ferris, Dana R., and John Hedgcock. Teaching L2 Composition : Purpose, Process, and Practice, Routledge, 2013.
ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/asulib-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1434037.
Created from asulib-ebooks on 2019-08-14 17:19:55.
100 Reading, Genre Awareness, and Task Design

even “basic”) reading subskills, which—as Grabe (2001) stressed—“cannot be by-

passed” (p. 18). Comprehensive resources for teaching and assessing reading can
be found in the Further Reading and Resources section at the end of this chapter.
We would especially recommend Grabe and Stoller (2011), Hedgcock and Ferris
(2009), and Vause and Amberg (2013).
Equipped with the understanding that reading–writing relationships are mul-
tidimensional and evolve as learners develop more sophisticated literacy skills
(Grabe, 2009; Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009; Hudson, 2007), teachers can adjust the
weight given to reading tasks and writing practice according to the needs and ex-
pectations of their learners (see Chapters 2 and 5). For example, low-proficiency
secondary or pre-college learners with limited L2 academic literacy skills may
benefit from extensive and intensive reading coupled with abundant practice in
writing for fluency. Advanced-level university students, on the other hand, may
gain more substantially from intensive, discipline-specific reading, guided prac-
tice in reproducing key genres, and accuracy-oriented instruction (see Chapter 8).
Composition teachers should therefore make decisions about materials, classroom
activities, and assignments based on these needs. Such decisions should also be
informed by the multiple instructional options suggested by the directional, non-
directional, and bidirectional reading–writing models.
Although these models may differ in orientation, they are complementary and
share a core principle: Writing skills cannot emerge by dint of practice alone. Un-
derlying these hypotheses is the premise that composing skill in any language can-
not develop without knowledge of the forms, patterns, and purposes of written
language. The notion that real learning depends on abundant, meaningful input
is virtually axiomatic in L2 learning and teaching (Mikulecky, 2011). In keeping
with both the nondirectional and bidirectional models, Zamel (1992) and Hir-
vela (2004) described tools for maximizing the transactional, mutually supportive
relationship between reading and writing in the composition classroom. Just as
reading is constructive and recursive, “writing our way into reading,” as Zamel
(1992) put it, enables us to reexamine texts and question our understanding. As we
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

engage purposefully with texts, we “reflect on the complexities, deal with the puz-
zlements, and offer approximative readings. By providing us a means for working
out a reading, writing allows insights that may have been inaccessible or inchoate
at the time the text was read” (Zamel, 1992, p. 472).

Integrating Reading and Writing in L2

Composition Instruction
Leading literacy experts have argued that apprentice writers benefit from engaging
in reading-based writing tasks that require them to read like writers (Johns, 1997;
Nation, 2009; Smith, 1984) and write like readers (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1984;
Heller, 1999; Kucer, 2009; Newell, Garriga, & Peterson, 2001). Effective writers “im-
agine reader attributes and . . . use those attributes to assess their [own] writing”
(Beach & Liebman-Kleine, 1986, p. 65). Tasks that engage writers in imagining
reader attributes and expectations include those that require reading for meaning
Ferris, Dana R., and John Hedgcock. Teaching L2 Composition : Purpose, Process, and Practice, Routledge, 2013.
ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/asulib-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1434037.
Created from asulib-ebooks on 2019-08-14 17:19:55.
Reading, Genre Awareness, and Task Design 101

and details, inferencing, predicting, skimming, scanning, critical reasoning, and

reacting. Grabe (2003) proposed 10 guidelines for integrating reading into the
writing curriculum, which we have adapted in Figure 4.2. These guidelines inform

1 A nalyze a u the n tic literacy tasks. C oiled academic and non-academic

literacy tasks and assignments from across the curriculum and the workplace
Examine task requirements, options and methods for completing tasks,
features of successful performances (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010; Dewitt, Reiff, &
Ba wars hi, 2004; Hyland ,2003, 2004a. 2004 b, 2006; Johns, 1997).
2. P ractice and produce many a u th e n tic genres and tasks. These may
include instructional genres such as reading responses, summaries, limed
essay exams, literature reviews, as weli as workplace and professional
genres Such as electron ic correspondence, presentations, reports, and So on.
Skills, genres, and authentic tasks ,:need to be recycled regularly" to promote
“increasingly . . . complex probtem-solving routines1' (Grabe, 2003, p. 256:
also see Bruce, 2005).
3 D evelop rh e to rica l stances w ith respect to te x ts and tasks. To build
reading-writing connections, teach students to adopt "critical perspectives on
text resources,' leam about "textual choices for conveying meaning."
recognize how writers shape texts with linguistic tools, and reflect on "the
stances and perspectives taken in their own writing" (Grabe. £003, p. 256).
4 P rom ote aw areness o f te x t stru ctu re . As students must 'understand how
written discourse is organized to communicate within genre and task
expectations" (Grabe, 2003, p. 256}, provide explicit instruction that "inducts
learners into the linguistic demands of genres [that] are important to
participation in school Seaming and in the wider community" (Macken-Horarik,
2002. p. 26). Focus on rhetorical arrangement, markers of coherence and
cohesion, text and task goals, and audience expectations (Ba wars hi & Reiff,
2010:; Grabe, 2003; Martin & Rose, 2006, 2012).
5. Teach stu d e n ts to read and w rite stra te g ica lly. A primary goal of
academic literacy instruction should be to help students use, manage, and
automatize strategies for reading (see Figure 4.1) and writing (see Chapler 3)
by devoting "extended attentmn to strategic processing and continual student
awareness of planning, monitoring, and repairing" (Grabe, 2003, p. 256; also
see Grabe, 2009; Grabe & Stoller, 2011. Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009).
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

6. C ollect, understand, and a p p ly peer and e xp e rt response. The exchange

and processing of feedback “is an essential component of any curriculum
focusing on reading and writing." The benefits of feedback on writing "also
apply to reading comprehension and critical reading tasks’ (Grabe, 2003, pp.
256-257). Systematic transmission of expert and peer feedback cultivates a
literate community in which students read and respond to their peers' work
while also oomposing their own texts for a real audience (Eibow & Belanoff,
1999, Ferris, in press, Hyland, 2012, Weiser et a l , 2009; also see Chapter 7).
7 Teach stu d e n ts to assem ble and in te rp re t m e a n in g fu l in fo rm a tio n. A
curriculum designed to strengthen reading-writing connections should feature
topics that capture students’ inlerest while providing guidance with data
gathering and analysis (e.g., bibliographic research, Web searches, surveys,
interviews, observations, peer canvassing, etc.). These processes "provide
important practice for analyzing information, critiquing content from texts, and
planning ways to present information" effectively (Grabe. 2003, p. 257),
Writing courses are also ideal sites for developing information and media
literacies, which include efficient strategies for "searching for, managing, and
assessing" digital data (National Writing Project, 2D10- p. 54).
Ferris, Dana R., and John Hedgcock. Teaching L2 Composition : Purpose, Process, and Practice, Routledge, 2013.
ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/asulib-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1434037.
Created from asulib-ebooks on 2019-08-14 17:19:55.
102 Reading, Genre Awareness, and Task Design

. & Focus on e ffective strategies fo r w ritin g fro m sources. Writers must use
; textual resources appropriately as they plan and compose texts. Cultivating
reading strategies such as evaluating arguments and evidence, inferring
latent messages, identifying intertextual relations, and so on (see Figure 4.1)
"requires a considerable commitment to writing from texts" in the form oF
frequent practice and feedback (Grabe. 2003, p 257)
; 9 Teach and practice sum m ary and synthesis shills. Summary and
synthesis "are essential aspects of larger tasks requiring writing firom text
resources," from bibliographic essays and book reviews lo graduate research
papers and doctoral dissertalions (Grabs, 2003, p. 257). As Hirvela (2004)
pointed out ' summarizing is one of the primary contact points between
reading and writing in academic settings; from elementary school Ihrough . . .
graduate school, students are likely to engage in summarizing . . . " (p. 39).
: 10. Integrate reading and w ritin g in the assessm ent plan. Instruction should
provide continual, formal feedback on reading and wnting tasks, as well as
explicit discussion of texts, reading processes, and composing assignments.
Grabe (2003) recommended assessment tools such as “writing portfolios,
limed essay writing that is graded (and then discussed), and larger projects
(posters, reports, [research] papers, etc.) in which formal feedback
mechanisms are used . . along the way" (p. 258). To these options, we
would add digital tasks and tools such as blog entries and comments, wikis,
multimedia products, and so on (see Chapters 5-7).

FIGURE 4.2 Guidelines for designing effective, authentic L2 literacy tasks.

Adapted from Grabe (2003, pp. 255–257).

the reading–writing and genre-based task design recommendations introduced in

the following sections, this chapter’s Application Activities, and the course design
principles outlined in Chapter 5.

Reading to Write
As the label suggests, read-to-write activities can involve any literacy event “in
which readers/writers use text(s) that they read, or have read, as a basis for text(s)
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

that they write” (Carson, 1993, p. 85). Familiar to many writing teachers, read-to-
write tasks can involve popular assignments such as reading journals, summaries,
book reviews, literature reviews, and the like, all of which can contribute meaning-
fully to students’ literacy development. Nonetheless, we encourage readers to avoid
the common but somewhat misguided assumption that reading a text is merely
a means toward the greater end of writing. “Instead of assigning texts because of
the information about a subject they can provide writers,” we should also “take
into account the texts’ value as sources of knowledge or input about writing itself ”
(Hirvela, 2004, p. 113). We should thus devise literacy tasks that require readers to
extract, understand, and interpret textual content while also drawing their atten-
tion to texts’ formal features (e.g., rhetorical arrangement, prototypical grammati-
cal patterns, lexical choices, and so on) (see Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009, Chapter 5;
also see Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010; Hinkel, 2004; Hyland, 2004; Hyon, 2002).

Writing to Read
As literacy research has demonstrated, the reading–writing connection is not uni-
directional. Indeed, we often “make sense of our experience only insofar as we are
able to represent it to ourselves” (Burnham & French, 1999, p. 77). Write-to-read
tasks engage students in representing meanings to themselves and others before
(and sometimes while) they read. Because writing itself is a ready representation
tool, it conveys “a unique power to bring clarity to our thoughts, to soothe our
nerves, to provide new ways of examining situations, [and] to allow us to review
alternative interpretations” of experiences and texts (Hirvela, 2004, p. 77). For ex-
ample, thoughtful reading of journal and blog entry prompts can engage students
in predicting the content and form of a text before they read it; subsequent en-
tries can then direct students to compare their predictions with the text itself. Of
course, reading and writing journals represent but one option among many for
integrating purposeful write-to-read tasks into composition courses. As Hirvela
(2004) noted, “writing before, during, or after reading enables a reader to make
sense of her or his reading, which in turn strengthens the quality of the reading
and contributes to the development of L2 reading skills” (pp. 73–74).

Writing to Learn
Similar in purpose and design to write-to-read tasks, write-to-learn activities “help
students think critically about information” by engaging them in “applying con-
cepts, testing out ideas, and integrating new information into what they already
know” (Craig, 2013, p. 21). These aims are driven by the cognitivist approach to
process and post-process writing pedagogies (see Chapter 3), in which novice writ-
ers (and readers) advance from knowledge-telling to knowledge-transformation as
they become more proficient (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1987; also see Chuy et al.,
2012; Kellogg & Whiteford, 2012). Frequently used in WAC settings, writing to
learn may involve low-stakes writing activities such as “short, unfinished, or per-
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

haps very rough” products that can be generated “on index cards, scraps of paper,
on computers, or on whiteboards” (Craig, 2013, pp. 21–22). Ungraded, informally
assessed—and even playful—write-to-learn tasks can include notes (e.g., from
class lectures and brainstorming sessions), concept maps, spidergrams, outlines,
free-writes, sketches, drawings, and diagrams produced by hand or in digital form
(e.g., with software and web-based visualization tools such as Inspiration, Bubbl.
us, Wordle.net, and Magnetic Poetry). These products might or might not supply
material for formal composing assignments. More involved write-to-read assign-
ments can take the form of journal writing, which provides a “non-intimidating
way to add writing and reflection to a course as a student collects responses to read-
ings, summarizes thoughts, or focuses on questions raised by reading or lectures”
(Craig, 2013, p. 21). The journal tasks described in the next section offer ideas for
capitalizing on the cognitive and rhetorical benefits of writing-to-learn activities.

Reciprocal Literacy Tasks

Options for integrating reading and writing in L2 composition courses are numer-
ous and flexible, ranging from frequent and informal tasks such as journals, blogs,
and tweets to formal, high-stakes assignments such as research reports and grant
applications. In the following passage, we will describe selected reading–writing
tasks that can be sensibly integrated into the writing curriculum. Sources listed in
the Further Reading and Resources section at the end of this chapter provide more
detailed assignment ideas.

Reading response journals. Whereas personal journals may or may not focus on
texts, reading response journals (also called reading logs or literature logs) may ex-
pressly invite L2 writers to respond to assigned and self-selected readings (Camp-
bell & Latimer, 2012; Smagorinsky, 2008). Of course, the purposes and substance
of numerous types of journals can overlap. Reading journals can serve as a natural
component of a voluntary or mandatory reading program in a writing course,
though writers may not immediately appreciate the benefits (Holmes & Moulton,
1995). Zamel (1992) outlined several approaches to giving students “experiences
with the dialogic and dynamic nature of reading” (p. 472) through reading jour-
nals. The journal options outlined below are designed to cultivate students’ writ-
ten fluency, critical reasoning skills, rhetorical awareness, and knowledge of how
written language conveys meaning:

j Ask students to maintain informal, low-stakes reading logs in which they

record and discuss assigned and pleasure reading (e.g., textbooks, liter-
ary fiction and nonfiction, print and online journalistic texts, digital
media, and so on). Instruct students to write about information that
they find interesting, significant, perplexing, moving, or otherwise
striking to help them realize that “their written reflection makes . . . un-
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

derstanding possible” (Zamel, 1992, p. 474). Kucer and Silva (2013)

recommended posing questions such as:
d What did I learn from reading this text?
d Why did the author write this text? What was the author trying to
tell me?
d What parts did I like best? What parts were my favorites? Why did
I like these particular parts?
d Did this text remind me of other texts I have read? How was this
text similar or dissimilar to other texts?
d What would I change in this text if I had written it? What might the
author have done to [make] this text even better, more understand-
able, more interesting?
d Are there things/parts that I did not understand? What can the au-
thor do to . . . explain these parts [better]? (p. 150)

j Assign double-entry or dialectal notebooks, in which pages or word-

processing files are bisected into two vertical columns (Campbell & Lat-
imer, 2012; Smagorinsky, 2008). In the left-hand column, writers copy or
summarize passages that interest them; in the right-hand column, they
respond by posing questions, paraphrasing, commenting, and so on (see
above). Encourage students to respond in the form of images, diagrams,
and metaphors. Digital writing spaces and tools that are accessible on
tablets and Internet-ready mobile phones (e.g., GoogleDocs, Bubble.us,
and so on) can make it easy for students to maintain and share entries
whenever and wherever they read (National Writing Project, 2010).
j Ask students to write entries consisting of brief marginal notations in
the original text, a form of response that “allows students to consider,
weigh, and interpret their reading and gives rise to reactions that they
may not have been aware of ” (Zamel, 1992, p. 477). Students who read
e-books can use e-reader and tablet software (e.g., iAnnotate) to high-
light passages and insert typed and audio annotations (National Writ-
ing Project, 2010).
j Assign predictive entries in which students write about an experience or
weigh their ideas about an issue featured in a text that they are about
to read. Such schema-raising can help students anticipate connections
that they would not otherwise identify (Casanave, 2011; Hirvela, 2004)
and “approach the reading from a position of authority” (Zamel, 1992,
p. 478). To show students that good readers naturally predict meaning,
ask them to compare their predictions with those of their peers and
the original text. “Written predictions of this sort literally transform
student writers into authors of the text” (Zamel, 1992, p. 479). Smago-
rinsky (2008) advised teachers to encourage students not only to view
texts but also to re-view them using their new knowledge.
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

Frequent journal writing can be extraordinarily valuable to writers by giving

them an incentive to read extensively while providing instructors with continu-
ous evidence of students’ comprehension of assigned and self-selected texts. Jour-
nal proponents generally recommend against using reading journals for formal,
summative assessment (Casanave, 2011; Smagorinsky, 2008). Rather than assign-
ing grades for reading journals, teachers may ask students to compose a specified
number of entries based on a choice of prompts (task stimuli). Students whose
entries are complete receive a full mark. Qualitative teacher response to journals
may consist of oral, handwritten, or word-processed comments that acknowl-
edge, affirm, and inquire about students’ entries. Campbell and Latimer (2012)
recommended streamlining teacher response by limiting entry length to a page,
“asking students to highlight their most important question or observation for a
response,” and inviting students to comment on one another’s entries (p. 84).
Ferris, Dana R., and John Hedgcock. Teaching L2 Composition : Purpose, Process, and Practice, Routledge, 2013.
ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/asulib-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1434037.
Created from asulib-ebooks on 2019-08-14 17:19:55.
106 Reading, Genre Awareness, and Task Design

Summaries. As complements to open-ended journal tasks, summaries offer

teachers and writers important vehicles for intensive reading, for practicing pre-
writing and composing subskills, and for assessing essential academic literacy skills
(see Figure 4.1 and Appendix 4.1). Geisler (1995) defined a summary as “the sim-
plest text that attempts to represent in some form what another text says” (p. 105).
Bazerman’s (1985) characterization similarly captures the essence of the genre:
Summary “allows you to reproduce another writer’s thoughts—but in shortened
form” (p. 67). Fairly and accurately reproducing a text, of course, entails complex
cognitive, linguistic, and rhetorical operations, including: (a) thorough compre-
hension of the original source; (b) selection of the text’s most salient information;
(c) deletion of less-than-essential information; (d) compression and integration
of the selected information; and (e) arrangement of selected material in a way that
reflects the rhetorical structure of the original (Bazerman, 1985).
Engaging in these operations can produce several tangible benefits for L2
reader-writers. First, “summary writing is an authentic task used in all content
area instruction across a wide variety of contexts” (Pasquarelli, 2006a, p. 105). Sec-
ond, summary writing, “especially as a means to some larger end (e.g., summariz-
ing several articles read for the eventual writing of a research paper), provides
rich opportunities for writing to enhance reading,” and demonstrates the inter-
dependence of reading and writing in writing instruction (Hirvela, 2004, p. 89).
Third, partly thanks to the brevity of the summary genre, summarization practice
presents a natural context for teaching students to distinguish between legitimate
intertextual practices and text appropriation from inappropriate textual borrow-
ing (plagiarism) (Abasi, Akbari, & Graves, 2006; Hirvela, 2004; National Writing
Project, 2010; Pecorari, 2008; Pennycook, 1996a). Appendix 4.1 presents a class-
room EAP exercise introducing summary writing that aims to provide students
with explicit guidance in recognizing the textual features of this (sub)genre and
practice in reproducing it (as a prelude to similar work with paraphrasing and
quotation). Effective procedures for teaching summarization skills are also widely
available in recent academic writing textbooks (e.g., Swales & Feak, 2012) and
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

in the professional literature (e.g., Bazerman, 2004a; Hirvela, 2004; Pasquarelli,

2006a, 2006b; also see Further Reading and Resources).

Response essays. Somewhat like journal entries that invite writers to record and
reflect on their “perceptions of a reading experience and its natural, spontaneous
consequences” (Bleich, 1978, p. 147), response essays direct students’ attention to
their reading processes, and even to difficulties encountered during reading (Sal-
vatori, 1996). Brief, first-person response essays serve as a medium in which writ-
ers grapple with textual content and their efforts to construct meaning from their
encounters with novel material. Although we have reservations about formulaic
essay genres (see below), response essays “need not be formal or graded papers”
(Hirvela, 2004, p. 99) and generally involve open-ended prompts and flexible ex-
pectations. Response essays generally require writers to cite passages from a text,
but “a student can express anything . . . so long as she demonstrates . . . a careful
reading of the text” (Lent, 1993, p. 239). As writing-to-learn tasks, response essays
Ferris, Dana R., and John Hedgcock. Teaching L2 Composition : Purpose, Process, and Practice, Routledge, 2013.
ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/asulib-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1434037.
Created from asulib-ebooks on 2019-08-14 17:19:55.
Reading, Genre Awareness, and Task Design 107

encourage developing writers to “use writing as a tool for learning rather than a
test of that learning” (McLeod & Maimon, 2000).
We have suggested that L2 writing teachers should systematically endeavor to
strengthen reading–writing interactions by promoting multiple literacy practices
among their students and by integrating reading instruction purposefully and ex-
plicitly into the composition curriculum. We believe that an effective approach
to literacy instruction entails a careful balance between reading and composing
activities. Achieving such a balance requires:

j broad and deep exposure to increasingly difficult texts, print and digital;
j systematic practice with top-down, bottom-up, and interactive read-
ing comprehension strategies and skills to cultivate both speed and
accuracy;
j promotion of a sizable vocabulary;
j scaffolded face-to-face and digital interaction and discussion that fo-
cuses on constructing meaning from texts; and
j “writing about what is to be read or has been read” (Grabe, 2001, p. 19).

Reading, Writing, and Communication in

Socioliterate Communities
L1 and L2 students alike must achieve disciplinary awareness, genre knowledge,
text comprehension, and production skills (Hyland, 2004a; Johns, 1997, 2003,
2008, 2009a, 2009b; Spack, 1997). To meet these objectives, learners must first
understand that classroom instruction will involve them in reading and writing
for tangible purposes. These purposes are often grounded in established ways of
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

being and thinking, many of which may be tacit and socially transmitted. Freed-
man (1987) wrote that learners may engage in novel literacy activities with only
a “dimly felt sense” of the task or genre (p. 102), which they may subsequently
modify and expand as they read and write (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010; Leki, 2011).
Eskey (1993) observed that, because Discourses and literacies are “composed of
the work of the people who read and write [their] texts,” discursive processes and
literacy learning must have “a social as well as a cognitive dimension, a dimension
that plays a major role in shaping the literate behavior of readers and writers in
any real-world context” (p. 224). L2 educators play a crucial role in bringing their
learners into such Discourses and literacies, given their responsibility for prepar-
ing their students to meet the demands and challenges of academic institutions
(Johns, 1997, 2003). Facilitating this socialization process assumes that reading,
as a central component of academic literacy, involves cultural and sociocognitive
interactions among readers, writers, and texts (Barton & Hamilton, 2004; Blom-
maert, Street, & Turner, 2007; Street, 2010).
Ferris, Dana R., and John Hedgcock. Teaching L2 Composition : Purpose, Process, and Practice, Routledge, 2013.
ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/asulib-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1434037.
Created from asulib-ebooks on 2019-08-14 17:19:55.
108 Reading, Genre Awareness, and Task Design

Socialization into academic literacy also presupposes that writing is a com-

munication “technology” (see Chapter 1). Further, as we noted in Chapter 3, writ-
ing also encompasses complex social and cognitive practices (Bazerman, 2004b,
2006; Bracewell & Witte, 2008; Flower, 1994; Freedman & Medway, 1994a, 1994b;
Gee, 2012; Geisler, 1994; Ivaniþ, 1998; Kress, 1993; McCutchen et al., 2008; Miller,
1994a, 1994b; Prior, 1998, 2006). These precepts coincide with the socioliterate
perspective, in which students encounter Discourses and literacies, observe their
practices, and “gradually develop theories of genre” (Johns, 1997, p. 14; see Chap-
ter 3). A socioliterate view suggests practical strategies for literacy instruction,
which include helping students:

j investigate their own histories and literacy practices;

j identify strategies for future rhetorical situations;
j study “the literacy practices of . . . advanced students and faculty”; and
j examine texts, roles, and contexts to promote “awareness and critique of
communities and their textual contracts.” (Johns, 1997, p. 19)

Building Socioliterate Knowledge Through

Work with Genres
Socioliterate L2 instruction aims to apprentice writers into established communi-
ties of readers, writers, and digital citizens (National Writing Project, 2010). As
noted in Chapter 3, these collective entities are sometimes called Discourses (“with
a capital ‘D’”)(Gee, 2011, 2012). Literate communities are also called literacies
(Gee, 2012) and literacy clubs (Smith, 1988). A related term used by some genre
analysts and social constructionist researchers is community of practice, “a set of
relations among persons, activity, and world, over time and in relation with other
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

tangential and overlapping communities of practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 98).
Sometimes called situated learning, the social and cognitive development under-
gone by learners in communities of practice amounts to a form of apprenticeship
(Guleff, 2002; Rogoff, 1990; Wenger, 1998; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).
As apprentices, learners “pick up . . . practices through joint action with more
advanced peers, and advance their abilities to engage and work with others in car-
rying out such practices” (Gee, 2004, p. 77).
Many literate practices (e.g., reading, writing, talking about texts) unfold for-
mally and explicitly in classrooms, offices, and meeting rooms. They also take
place informally and implicitly in the course of daily human activity, such as when
we learn to cook in the family kitchen, fold laundry, throw a ball, play video games
with a guild, compose a text message, replace a SIM card, create a blog or wiki, or
take part in an online chat. Apprenticeship into these practices can be mediated
in real-time, face-to-face interaction, as well as in digital spaces such as Facebook,

YouTube, and Twitter, where communities of practice also thrive (Gee, 2004; Gee &
Hayes, 2011; Geertz, 1983; Hawisher & Selfe, 2007; National Writing Project, 2010;
Seo, 2012; Snyder, 2007; Warschauer, 1997; Wilbur, 2010).
Genre studies and socioliterate research emphasize the pedagogical imperative to
demonstrate that reading, writing, and building reading–writing connections can en-
able students to develop knowledge, display it, and become participants in literacies.
As seasoned members of literacy clubs and academic communities of practice—“old
timers,” as Lave and Wenger (1991) called them—educators are perhaps the most
accessible models of literate behavior, or “surrogates,” that their students encounter
in the educational process (Smith, 1988). As surrogates and facilitators, composition
teachers can familiarize students with the personal, social, educational, and profes-
sional uses of written language, bringing them into communities of experts and nov-
ices who produce, consume, and interact around texts (Hyland, 2000, 2004a, 2009).
We observed in Chapter 3 that instructors can achieve this aim by featuring materials
that exemplify the texts used, valued, and created by expert readers and writers for the
purposes of acquiring and creating new knowledge. It is only by understanding and
selectively adopting the behaviors and values of academic and professional disciplines
and communities of practice that L2 students can join the ranks of expert readers and
writers (Dias & Paré, 2000; Hedgcock, 2008; Tardy, 2009).
The majority of L1 and L2 reading–writing studies cited in this chapter suggest
that composing skills develop in strength and range as students work meaningfully
with multiple genres, subgenres, and text types (Grabe, 2001, 2002, 2003; Hyland,
2004a; Martin, 2000, 2002; Martin & Rose, 2008; Rose & Martin, 2012). Informed
by these socially grounded perspectives, we encourage L2 composition profession-
als to adopt an approach to writing instruction that nurtures learners’ participation
in a rich diversity of academic, professional, and even popular literacies (print and
digital), as well as proficiency in producing appropriate genres. The following dis-
cussion will focus on cultivating awareness of formal (i.e., rhetorical and linguistic)
conventions of text-based and multimodal genres to promote the comprehension,
analysis, reproduction, and critique of texts associated with those genres. We will
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

thus examine tools for integrating reading tasks and skills practice into the teach-
ing of written genres in L2 composition instruction. Developing genre awareness
and the ability to (re)produce genres necessitates mastery of forms and mechanical
operations, as well as (perhaps more importantly) an appreciation of the complex
psychological, sociocultural, educational, political, and ideological contexts in which
texts are produced, transacted, challenged, and reformed (Bhatia, 1993, 2004; Bowen &
Whithaus, 2013; Casanave, 2002; Christie & Martin, 1997; Devitt, 2004; Dias et al.,
1999; Dias & Paré, 2000; Freedman & Adam, 2000; Hyland, 2004a; Johns, 199y, 2003,
2008, 2009a; Molle & Prior, 2008; Nesi & Gardner, 2012; Paltridge, 2001).

Approaches to Genre
Traditional definitions of genre focused mainly on categories of literary text and sub-
sequently on the lexical, grammatical, rhetorical, and discursive features of written

forms (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010; Costino & Hyon, 2011; Devitt, 2004; Halliday &
Hasan, 1989; Hyland, 2002; Johns, 2003; Swales, 1990). As we noted in Chapter 3,
although these functions still represent important aspects of genre studies, genre is
better understood in dynamic, socially complex terms. Because we embrace a genre-
oriented approach to writing instruction, it will be helpful to consider the diverse
ways in which genre has been defined in order to enrich our understanding of this
highly productive conceptual and pedagogical tool. Rose and Martin (2012) proposed
a deceptively simple view of genre, describing it as a “staged goal-oriented social pro-
cess” (p. 1), a definition that has generated strategies “designed to guide students to
write the genres of schooling” (p. 2). Genre further entails “configurations of meaning
that are recurrently phased together to enact social practices” (Martin, 2002, p. 269).
Though “abstract and schematic,” genre knowledge is “systematic” and “conventional,
in that form and style may be repeated” (Johns, 1997, pp. 21–22).
As contemporary genre studies represent a range of theoretical and ideologi-
cal sources, it is difficult to present a fair, accurate overview of the field’s breadth,
influence, and vitality. It is similarly challenging to settle on a single or even uni-
fied definition of genre itself. To sort out the theoretical and ideological origins of
genre theory, it will be helpful to identify the leading approaches, which have been
examined by Hyon (1996), Johns (1997, 2002b), and Bawarshi and Reiff (2010),
among others. The following summary presents an overview:

1. The Sydney School, or Systemic-Functional Linguistics (SFL) approach. A

“carefully developed and sequential curriculum” informed by Systemic-
Functional Linguistics, genre pedagogy in this tradition begins “by
modeling genres and explicating the features of those genres” within the
framework of “the Hallidayan socially based system of textual analysis”
(Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010, p. 176). Teachers and learners analyze com-
mon, “elemental” genres to highlight “how the organization of language
is related to its use, since . . . language construes, is construed by, and
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

(over time) reconstrues social context” (Martin, 1997, p. 2). In SFL ped-
agogy, learners are guided in the reproduction of these genres, a process
in which they ultimately acquire these genres as their own (Hyon, 1996;
Johns, 2002a, 2009a; Rose & Martin, 2012).
2. English for Specific Purposes (ESP). A model of “specific-learner-centered
language instruction,” ESP aims to teach discipline-specific oral and written
genres based on careful analyses of L2 learner needs (Belcher, 2009b, p. 2).
Central to the ESP approach is Swales’s (1990) theory of rhetorical moves,
analysis of textual features, and “relating those features to the values and
rhetorical purposes of discourse communities” (Johns, 2002b, p. 7).
3. The New Rhetoric (NR). The NR tradition contextualizes genre with the
aim of teaching students to analyze “genres and their rhetorical and so-
cial purposes and ideologies” critically (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010, p. 176).

As observed in Chapter 3, NR views genre as dynamic and evolving; in-

struction tends to assign priority to rhetorical situations over the analy-
sis of lexico-grammatical features (Freedman & Medway, 1994a, 1994b;
Gage, 2011b; Johns, 2002a, 2009a, 2009b; Perelman, 2001).
4. The Brazilian didactic approach. Curricular initiatives and genre pedago-
gies in Brazil have been informed by SFL, interactional approaches to dis-
course, and theorists such as Bakhtin (1981) and Vygotsky (1978, 2012)
(see Chapter 3). The Brazilian approach explores: (a) the spheres in which
genres operate; (b) the social history of genre development; (c) contexts
for genre production; (d) the thematic content of texts; and (e) the stylis-
tic features that typify genres and their authors (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010).

These approaches share a number of characteristics and goals while exhibiting

distinct methods and purposes. For example, SFL and ESP approaches generally
move from context to text, whereas NR typically begins with text analysis and
advances to exploration of the socio-rhetorical contexts in which genres function
(Belcher, 2009b; Johns, 2009a). Brazilian genre pedagogy, in contrast, may focus
early on producing target genres based on students’ existing schemata, moving to
genre analysis in social contexts (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010).

Defining Genre
These diverse approaches to genre theory and pedagogy have predictably gener-
ated a range of operational definitions of genre itself. Indeed, “genre means dif-
ferent things to different scholars,” though experts widely agree that the construct
refers to “recurring or characteristic textual (oral or written) responses to the
requirements of the social context” (Polio & Williams, 2011, p. 496). Although
we can hardly capture the depth, breadth, or complexity of genre theories and
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

pedagogies here, the following discussion will present a sampling of working defi-
nitions of genre, followed by implications of genre theory for designing literacy
tasks and instructional units. The following list captures how selected theorists
and researchers have described genres and genre production:

j Genres represent regularities of staged, goal-oriented social processes

(Halliday & Martin, 1993; Martin, 1992; Martin & Rose, 2003, 2008;
Rose & Martin, 2012) and “abstract, socially recognised ways of using
language” (Hyland, 2002, p. 114);
j As exemplifications of sociocognitive schemata, or scripts, genres reflect
mental structures shared by members of Discourses and literacies (Bax,
2011a; Hyland, 2009).

j Genres consist of shared sets of communicative purposes (Hyland, 2004a,

2009, 2012; Swales, 1990, 1998, 2004) and “diverse ways of acting, of pro-
ducing social life, in the semiotic mode,” including conversations, board
meetings, political interviews, and book reviews (Fairclough, 2003, p. 206).
j Genres embody typified rhetorical action (Miller, 1984, 1994a, 1994b) and
recognizable “frames for social action” that provide “guiding principles
for achieving particular . . . purposes” with language (Hyland, 2009, p. 26).

These complementary categories enable us to envision genre as a concrete label

for structural dimensions of oral performances and written products:

j “A staged, goal-oriented, purposeful activity in which speakers engage

as members of our culture.” Staged activities might include “making a
dental appointment, buying vegetables, telling a story, writing an essay,
applying for a job, writing a letter to the editor, inviting someone to
dinner, and so on” (Martin, 2001, p. 155);
j “A kind of text,” such as an academic lecture, a casual conversation, a
newspaper report, or an academic essay (Paltridge, 2006);
j “[A] class of communicative events, the members of which share some
set of communicative purposes . . . [that] are recognized by the expert
members of the parent discourse community and thereby constitute the
rationale for the genre” (Swales, 1990, p. 58);
j “[A]n orientation to action for both producers and receivers” that sug-
gests “ways to do things using language [that] are recognizable to those
we interact with” (Hyland, 2009, p. 26).

As we can see from these diverse definitions and examples, genres pervade our
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

daily lives, providing tools for naming and enacting recurring, socially constructed
activities that index participants, purposes, and textual practices. The genre con-
struct presents a practical and highly productive tool for literacy instruction for
numerous reasons, listed below. Specifically, genres:

j Endure because of the functions that they perform;

j Gain and maintain legitimacy as a result of recognition;
j Exhibit features that are guided, shaped, and determined by these
functions;
j Reflect idealized, prototypical, and repeated formal conventions;
j Are identifiable because of their social and contextual utility;
j May or may not manifest linguistically;

j Index formal expectations shared within (and across) communities of

users;
j Often (but not always) have labels;
j Frequently exhibit intertextual relations and can be aligned with genre
sets, clusters, or chains (see below); and
j Tend to be stable, but are typically flexible and hybrid (that is, they
change, blend, evolve, and die out).

(Sources: Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010; Bax, 2011a, 2011b; Bhatia, 2002; Devitt, 1991, 2004;
Halliday & Martin, 1993; Hyland, 2004, 2009, 2012; Johns, 1997, 2003; Miller, 1984;
NCTE, 2008; Rose & Martin, 2012; Swales, 1990, 1998)

We all encounter numerous genres in the course of a day, and though we may
recognize high-prestige literary and academic genres, the full array of genres
across Discourses, literacies, and communities of practice supplies teachers and
learners with extraordinarily productive tools for learning and teaching. Appendix
4.2 presents a partial list of oral, written, digital, and multimodal genres designed
to stimulate readers’ thinking about the rich variety of genres available for analy-
sis, imitation, and experimentation. To narrow our focus on the implementation
of a socioliterate genre pedagogy, we can identify and explore a cluster of high-
frequency academic genres such as those listed in Figure 4.3.
As Swales (2004) observed, the genres of academic communities of practice rep-
resent a broad assortment, a constellation of academic discourse; a few representa-
tive genres appear in Figure 4.3. Collectively, these genres (among others), represent

Some Academic Genres

W ritten Genres OraiJ3enres _
Research Articles _________ Lectures ____ __
Conference Abstrac ts ________ Seminars__________
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

Grant Proposals ^ .................Collofluia...................

Literature_Revjews_ Conference Presentations
Undergraduate Essays Master's and PhD Defenses
_R_eading Response Journals Student Presentations____
Lab Reports ..Tutonais.................
Submission Letters_ Admissions Interviews
Book Reviews O ffice Hour Consultations
_PhD_Dissertations W riting Center Appointments
....... Textbooks : Peer Study Groups
Reprint Requests Group Project Meetings
Editor Response Letters-—
—
FIGURE 4.3 A genre cluster. Adapted from Hyland (2009, p. 27).
Ferris, Dana R., and John Hedgcock. Teaching L2 Composition : Purpose, Process, and Practice, Routledge, 2013.
ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/asulib-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1434037.
Created from asulib-ebooks on 2019-08-14 17:19:55.
114 Reading, Genre Awareness, and Task Design

a genre cluster, a tool that describes “how spoken and written texts can cluster to-
gether in a given social context” (Hyland, 2009, p. 27).4 These genres draw from,
respond to, and interact with one another in intertextual webs (Bakhtin, 1986).
Intertextual connections can be overt, such as when writers and speakers quote,
paraphrase, and cite the work of others, a construct that Fairclough (1992, 2003)
called manifest intertextuality. Intertextual relations can also be covert and implicit,
such as when a text “is shaped by borrowing generic or rhetorical conventions from
other genres” (Hyland, 2009, p. 27), a pattern known as constitutive intertextual-
ity, or interdiscursivity (Fairclough, 1992, 2003). The paragraph that you are now
reading, for example, exhibits manifest intertextuality by quoting passages from
the work of experts and constitutive intertextuality by following a conventional
form of rhetorical arrangement (i.e., a deductive pattern of definition and exem-
plification). In the next section, we will introduce a framework for systematically
engaging L2 students in interdiscursive activity by analyzing genres and literacies,
developing genre awareness, producing genre-appropriate texts, and participating
in literate communities.

Genres, Genre Awareness, and Genre Production

in L2 Writing Instruction
As Tardy (2008) observed, “to use a genre is to participate in an intertextual sys-
tem” (p. 193). To equip novice writers with skills for participating meaningfully
in intertextual systems, L2 composition instruction should systematically help
students use, analyze, critique, and produce a range of genres. Genre-oriented
pedagogies have evolved in L2 composition instruction “as a response to process
pedagogies, as an outcome of communicative methods, and in consequence of our
growing understanding of literacy” (Hyland, 2004a, p. 7). To go beyond the tradi-
tional, current-traditional, and process-based paradigms surveyed in Chapter 3,
we encourage teachers to investigate the theories, materials, and strategies de-
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

veloped by experts in socioliterate pedagogies, genre studies, EAP, and ESP. The
sources listed in the Further Reading and Resources section offer extensive and
detailed tools for instructional design, teaching, and assessment that explore the
principles and procedures in this book in further depth.
Among the principles underlying socioliterate approaches is the simple observa-
tion that, to become fluent readers and writers, L2 learners must become efficient,
critical consumers and producers of the genres valued in the literacies that they
wish to join (e.g., academic disciplines, professions, workplaces, virtual communi-
ties, and so on). Essential to mastering these skills and claiming new roles are recog-
nition and reproduction of conventions: “Expectations for particular conventions
of layout and language,” wrote Hyland (2009), “imply some constraint on choice
and so tend towards conformity among genre users, [leading] to some genre stabil-
ity. Choice, in fact, is actually defined by constraint, and there can be no meaning
without it” (Hyland, 2009, p. 27, emphasis added). Constraints are observable at all

levels of textual form, from macro-level elements of rhetorical arrangement (see

Chapters 1 and 3) to micro-level features such as sentence structure, word choice,
spelling, and mechanics (see Chapters 8 and 9).
Devitt (1997) characterized these constraints as a “language standard” of so-
cially, rhetorically, and linguistically appropriate conventions within a Discourse,
literacy, or community of practice. These constraints and standards may change
over time, yet novices inevitably discover “rewards for playing the game,” as well
as “consequences for violation” (Hyland, 2009, p. 27). For example, L2 writers as-
signed to compose a narrative must recognize that their texts will not exist in
isolation; rather, their products must exhibit overt and covert (manifest and con-
stitutive) intertextual features. In their narratives, students must write in ways that
reflect a recognizable structure and engage readers by portraying common expe-
riences and interpretations. With the aid of genre analysis, students develop an
explicit awareness that their texts are not disconnected from other texts and that
their work fits into a “background of other opinions, viewpoints, and experiences
on the same theme” (Hyland, 2004a, p. 81).
Before we explore genre analysis and its implications for L2 literacy education,
it will be helpful to address reservations about genre pedagogies, including ESP
and EAP. As we noted in Chapter 3, a prevailing objection to genre-based mod-
els, with their pragmatic goal of helping students succeed as readers and writers
in classroom and workplace settings, can lead to a narrow focus on reproducing
high-prestige academic and professional genres. Critics have held that analyzing
and imitating genres can lead to a kind of indoctrination that imposes certain
sociocultural norms and ideologies on students. Benesch (2001), for example,
challenged an assumption among EAP educators that “students should accommo-
date . . . to the demands of academic assignments, behaviors expected in academic
classes, and hierarchical arrangements within academic institutions” (p. 41).
Canagarajah (2002a) similarly asserted that genre pedagogy de-emphasizes “criti-
cal awareness of . . . underlying knowledge-making processes,” thereby encourag-
ing students “to adopt a passive and dependent relationship toward the activities
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

of . . . academic communities” (p. 131).

We readily acknowledge that a tool as powerful as genre can be reduced to
formulaic structures, yet certain objections to genre pedagogies are overstated and
consequently unfair. Indeed, as we pointed out in Chapter 3, contemporary genre
pedagogies involve students in situating genres socially, sometimes destabilizing
and renovating them (Johns, 1997, 2002a). Further, systematic exploration of text
construction processes, language choices, and metalanguage “facilitates critical
analysis” of texts (Hammond & Macken-Horarik, 1999, p. 529). Moreover, learn-
ing the genres of a culture “is both part of entering into it with understanding
and . . . developing the necessary ability to change it” (Christie, 1987, p. 30). Finally,
Hyland (2004a) stressed the responsibility of literacy educators to develop stu-
dents’ genre knowledge: He argued that “to fail to provide learners with what we
know about how language works . . . denies them the means of both communicat-
ing effectively in writing and of analyzing texts critically” (p. 42).

Genre analysis. A fundamental source, inspiration, and tool for genre pedagogies,
genre analysis situates oral and written texts with respect to their textual and so-
ciocultural contexts. Bhatia (2002) defined genre analysis as “the study of situated
linguistic behavior in institutionalized academic or professional settings” (p. 22).
The process connects texts and contexts with the social nature of the production,
reproduction, and reading of texts. Genre analysis entails “a range of tools and atti-
tudes to texts, from detailed qualitative analyses of a single text to more quantitative
counts of language features,” enabling researchers, teachers, and students to explore
the actions of writers and speakers as they construct written and oral texts (Hyland,
2009, p. 25). Models of genre analysis differ with respect to the particular genre tra-
dition embraced (i.e., SFL, ESP, NR, or Brazilian didactic approach) and their core
focal areas. Genre analysis in the NR tradition, for example, may focus on the deci-
sions made by writers as a function of the social context and purpose for writing.
In SFL and ESP approaches, genre analysis may examine the relative frequency of
prototypical genre features (i.e., rhetorical, linguistic, and lexical patterns) to deter-
mine how they cluster within and across texts, genres, genre clusters, and Discourses.
Figure 4.4 presents a widely known template describing a high-frequency aca-
demic genre, the research paper (RP) introduction. Introduced by Swales (1981,
1990, 2004), the Create a Research Space (CARS) model is widely used by research-
ers and teachers as a framework for characterizing prototypical features of the
introduction genre. The result of careful and extensive analysis of a wide range of
RP introductions, the CARS model features three distinctive rhetorical “moves”:
(1) establishing a research territory; (2) establishing a niche; and (3) occupying

MOVE P rio rity FliWCTIOfJ

MOVE 1 E s ta b lis h a R esearch T e rrito ry
a Optional Show that the general research area is important,
central, interesting, problematic, or relevant
b Obligatory Introduce and review items o f previous research in
___________________________ the area____________________________________________
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

M OV£ 2 E s ta b lis h a N iche (nrc^e = a kind o f space or gap

in the existing knowledge base where new
research would be helpful)
a Obligatory Indicate a gap in previous research or extend prior
___________________________ know ledge in some way____________________________
MOVE 3 O c c u p y th e N iche
a Obligatory Outline purposes or stale the nalure of the present
research
b PISF* List research questions or hypotheses
c PISF" Announce principal findings
d PISF* S late the value of the present research
e__________ PISF' Inflicate th e structure of the R P_____________________
"PISF = Probable in some fields; rare in others

FIGURE 4.4 The CARS (Create a Research Space) model: Moves in research
paper (RP) introductions. Adapted from Swales (1990, 2004) and Swales and
Feak (2012).
Ferris, Dana R., and John Hedgcock. Teaching L2 Composition : Purpose, Process, and Practice, Routledge, 2013.
ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/asulib-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1434037.
Created from asulib-ebooks on 2019-08-14 17:19:55.
Reading, Genre Awareness, and Task Design 117

the niche. As a pedagogical tool, the CARS model can effectively acquaint student
writers with the prototypical sequencing of information in introductory passages
before and while they read RPs.
Applications for the CARS model and similar genre-analytic tools include
preparing students for intensive reading and systematic analysis of genres in the
classroom. Major goals of socioliterate and genre-oriented pedagogies entail
equipping L2 students to analyze texts, develop their genre awareness, and nurture
their ability to produce texts that exhibit required elements of target genres and
genre clusters (see Figure 4.3). Like Swales’s CARS model, Figure 4.5 summarizes
selected rhetorical and linguistic tendencies that typify many genres of academic
writing. Teachers can make productive use of findings such as these to engage
students in evidence-based approaches to analyzing and comparing genres, identi-
fying obligatory and optional features, and exploring the practices of literate com-
munities in which certain genres thrive and enjoy prestige. These processes can
lead to critical exploration of texts, genres, and the literacies and Discourses whose
members produce and consume them (see Chapter 3).

Socioliterate classroom practices. Although the sources cited in this chapter can
provide readers with tangible resources for building their own socioliterate reper-
toires, we can sketch a general framework for executing a socioliterate pedagogy.
At its core, “genre-based writing instruction lays bare the linguistic and rhetorical
bones of different registers in order to facilitate . . . mastery” (Polio & Williams,
2011, p. 497). Recognizing the practical challenges of embracing a socioliterate
approach, Johns (1997) posed this question on behalf of literacy teachers: “Given
the short time I have to work with my students, how can I best prepare them for
the varied and unpredictable literacy challenges that they will confront in their
academic and professional lives?” (p. 114).

: 1. A cadem ic texts should exhibit formal features that satisfy the genre
requirem ents o f the target literate community, discipline, or classroom.
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

I 2. A cadem ic texts should present argum ents explicitly and define key terms
I for the reader.
| 3. Introductory passages should generally pre-reveal a text's topic and
argument, though some genres may not require an explicit preface,
j 4. W riters should provide explicit signals (i.e., linguistic “ signposts"
throughout their texts to inform readers of the direction of the argum ent.
E 5. Texts should maintain a distance between w riter and content to convey
; Objectivity (e.g., by adopting a fairly high register referring only
infrequently to the writer with first^person pronouns, etc.).
! 6. W hen presenting research and synthesizing published work, writers
\ should adopt a guarded stance by hedging
| 7 Texts shouW acknowledge the social roles o f readers and writers.
! 6. Texts m ust acknowledge intertextual relationships to support their
I arg u ments a nd encou rage discu ssion.

FIGURE 4.5 Prototypical features of academic genres. Adapted from Johns (1997,
2003); additional sources include: Hyland (1998, 2000, 2004a, 2008, 2009, 2012);
Leki (2011); Swales (1990, 2004); Swales and Feak (2012).
Ferris, Dana R., and John Hedgcock. Teaching L2 Composition : Purpose, Process, and Practice, Routledge, 2013.
ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/asulib-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1434037.
Created from asulib-ebooks on 2019-08-14 17:19:55.
118 Reading, Genre Awareness, and Task Design

By involving students in exploring, understanding, and questioning texts and

genres through genre analysis, we provide them with strategies and skills for pro-
ducing texts that exhibit the requisite features of targeted genres (Hammond &
Macken-Horarik, 1999). Johns (1997) outlined broad goals for socioliterate in-
struction, which lend themselves particularly well to integrating reading system-
atically into writing instruction and to promoting genre awareness:

j Demystify texts, genres, literacies, literate practices, readers, and writers;

j Organize literacy instruction around prototypical genres, text struc-
tures, practices, and value systems;
j Cultivate a culture of discovery and analysis, rather than simple replication.
Socioliterate instruction develops “researchers, not dogmatists—students
who explore ideas and literacies rather than seek simple answers” (p. 69).

Teachers can pursue these goals by designing units, assignments, and activities
that engage students directly in purposeful encounters with authentic genres. To
guide teachers in selecting suitable materials and crafting literacy activities for
classroom use, experts have proposed a number of instructional practices, which
are perhaps most effectively executed cyclically:

j Gather representative texts (written, oral, hybrid) from the target lit-
eracy or literacies, situating them with respect to their genre categories
or clusters.
j Identify the contexts in which target texts and genres are transacted; ex-
plore the literacy practices of genre producers and consumers, as well as
their roles in those contexts.
j Explore the purposes of texts and genres by investigating reader expecta-
tions for those texts and the goals that writers wish to achieve in produc-
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

ing them.
j Build literacy activities, assignments, and units around the genre goals
associated with these reader and writer purposes (see Chapter 5).
j Involve students in guided genre analysis tasks that focus on the rhetori-
cal, lexical, syntactic, and stylistic conventions of target genres. Consider
the prototypical formal properties of high-value genres, obligatory con-
ventions, optional features, and the degree of variation allowed.
j Investigate the textual materials, explicit knowledge, and cognitive skills
required to produce high-value genres. Examine texts and literacy prac-
tices to understand how successful writers generate successful texts.

(Sources: Burns & Joyce, 1997; Hyland, 2004a; Johns, 1997; Nesi & Gardner, 2012;
Tardy, 2009; Tribble, 2010)

Feez (1998) proposed a five-stage teaching–learning cycle for devising instruc-

tional units (see Chapter 5) and individual literacy tasks and assignments, which
are the primary focus of the remainder of this chapter. Grounded in SFL pedagogy,
Feez’s scheme can inform the planning and execution of classroom activities by
“showing the process of learning a genre as a series of linked stages” and leading
learners toward “a critical understanding of texts” (Hyland, 2004a, p. 128):

1. Context-setting. Help students understand the target genre’s purposes and

the context for writing. For instance, science students required to prepare a
procedure might visit a lab, view recordings of how experts work in this oral
genre, and undergo scaffolded instruction (e.g., teacher questioning, direct
teaching, lexical enhancement, role plays, jigsaw reading, and so on).
2. Modeling. Students learn to deconstruct texts by analyzing textual mod-
els generated by experts and peers. Scaffolded instruction focuses on how
stages, purposes, and language interact in the creation and maintenance of
genres and texts. Grammar and lexis are never treated in isolation; formal
features are always functionally related to genres, purposes, and participants.
3. Joint construction. Students collaboratively construct target texts (Vy-
gotsky, 1978), incorporating data and experience from context-building
steps and other sources. Students thus learn to write collaboratively, a
common educational and professional practice.
4. Independent construction. The teacher guides students in the indepen-
dent construction of texts, providing feedback as needed.
5. Comparison. Writers link and compare their emergent texts with other
texts in the target genre, often sharing and critiquing one another’s pro-
duction as their knowledge of disciplinary practice progresses (Feez, 2002).
(Adapted from Feez, 1998, p. 28; also see Hyland, 2004a)
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

Designing Tasks and Assignments for

Socioliterate Instruction
With these principles and practical guidelines in mind, we can undertake the work
of conceptualizing and developing authentic, genre-appropriate tasks for reading
and writing. In line with our strong view that writing instruction should system-
atically integrate reading practice and skills development, we encourage teachers
to follow Johns’s (1997) recommendations:

j “Draw from all possible resources” (p. 115);

j “Select texts carefully” (p. 117); and
j “Design carefully crafted writing assignments” (p. 122).

These guidelines for socioliterate instruction exemplify the socially embedded

nature of text construction and the genre systems that enable teachers and learn-
ers to penetrate disciplines and literacies, explore and adopt literacy practices, and
understand the ideological underpinnings of genres. These principles further sug-
gest that responsible L2 composition instruction need not rely principally or solely
on traditional, academic genres such as textbooks and literature. In the following
discussion, we will discuss options for maximizing literacy resources for teaching,
selecting suitably authentic and challenging materials, and constructing situation-
ally appropriate reading, writing, and integrated tasks.

Maximizing Literacy Resources

To maximize literacy resources in a writing course, we must take great care in
choosing materials for reading and writing; to fulfill this aim, we must frame texts
and tasks in a sociocultural framework by involving students in the investigation
of literacy practices and genre production processes. Johns (1997, 2003, 2009a),
for example, suggested activities such as consulting and interviewing experts (e.g.,
faculty and staff members on campus, professionals in the disciplines, employees
in workplaces, and so on) and apprentices (e.g., advanced students). In addition
to preparing students to plan, conduct, and report interviews, we can help them
develop and conduct surveys among experts and apprentices. We can likewise
guide students in the collection of sample texts and other artifacts that represent
targeted genres.
Once compiled, these materials can undergo genre analysis and deconstruction,
processes that the instructor can carefully scaffold (e.g., by exploring rhetorical
moves). These collection and analysis procedures can simultaneously teach skills
for evaluating the validity and credibility of source material and online research. In
wired environments, teachers can assign and lead guided online searches and critical
reading tasks. For instance, teachers might create portals (pages of links) from which
students can engage in online research using search engines and online databases
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

(National Writing Project, 2010). Search exercises can include problem-solving ac-
tivities, puzzles, and prompts requiring students to think individually and collabora-
tively as they use digital technology to address particular queries about topics, texts,
writers, and readers. “Have students explore different information and communica-
tion technologies and choose the best technology to facilitate the task at hand and
the situation to which they are responding” (National Writing Project, 2010, p. 58).
A particular benefit of capitalizing on technological resources in writing in-
struction is that collaboration with digital technology enables students to engage in
teaching one another, thus creating a zone of proximal development (ZPD). We can
thus encourage learners with particular technological literacy skills to lead the way
in executing tasks and projects. In writing groups, for instance, student writers with
expertise in conducting online searches, video or audio editing, or graphic design
can assume appropriate leadership roles as teachers and mentors. By teaching and
learning from one another and sharing their experiences as writers, “students will

learn to make knowledge from their experiences . . . and transfer that knowledge to
new problems and challenges” (National Writing Project, 2010, p. 58).

Text Selection
Because of the staggering quantity of online and print materials available for teach-
ing, evaluating instructional materials can be an intimidating experience. Thanks
to widespread Internet access, collecting authentic materials is much less difficult
than selecting and presenting them in a pedagogically sound way. We concur with
Johns (1997), who argued that we should first choose texts for “authenticity and
completeness,” aiming for samples that are “full and unabridged, preserved just as
they have been written” (p. 118). Figure 4.3 presents an array of authentic written
and oral academic genres; Appendix 4.2 offers a list of nonacademic, professional,
and popular genres. We should complement authenticity by choosing texts for their
“teachability and appropriateness” (Johns, 1997, p. 118). We can meet both goals by
drawing selections from genre categories that reflect the target literacy or Discourse
and that best match students’ literacy and linguistic needs (Craig, 2013). Choosing
materials that are accessible to students and that don’t overtax their reading abilities
is crucial: There is simply no point in designing an assignment, activity, or lesson
around a text that students do not understand. We strongly encourage teachers to
consider a text’s readability by carefully evaluating its content, rhetorical arrange-
ment, syntactic complexity, and vocabulary range before assigning it. Also essential
is providing students with tools for reading efficiently (e.g., pre-, during-, and post-
reading questions about content and structure; comprehension aids and checks; vo-
cabulary support) and allowing sufficient time for careful reading (see the Further
Reading and Resources section for sources on scaffolding the L2 reading process).
Also crucial in text selection is assessing “specific text-external factors” such as
audience and purpose (Johns, 1997, p. 119). In surveying prospective materials, we
can consider text samples produced for general as well as specialist readers. Students
unfamiliar with a discipline may need to learn about its domain content and value
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

systems before exploring its genres and discursive conventions. “Community-specific

academic texts” (p. 119), on the other hand, enable students to analyze and decode
specialized rhetorical, grammatical, and lexical features unique to the Discourse. Johns
(1997) also recommended locating text samples with “visuals and other text-internal
features” (p. 120), such as photographs, drawings, graphs, formulae, charts, and
unique formatting features. In presenting authentic texts, we should provide guidance
in exposing “language-related text-internal factors” that might “prereveal information
about textual content, organization, and argumentation” (p. 120). Language-related
features might include topic sentences, thesis statements, conclusions, headings, bold-
face and italicized type, and so on. Application Activity 4.3 presents a text analysis task
designed to engage students in attending to such prototypical formal features.
Recommendations for text selection would be incomplete without discuss-
ing commercial textbooks, which continue to be pervasive in educational systems
throughout the world. Indeed, for many educators, textbooks provide the backbone

for the courses they teach. We urge literacy teachers to develop their own materials
and to supplement textbooks, yet we recognize that “many teachers are required
to use textbooks.” Indeed, “a majority of teachers don’t have the time or resources
to prepare their own materials, and so textbooks are a necessity” (Graves, 2000,
p. 173). We will briefly consider arguments for and against relying on commercial
course books in literacy courses.
Content-area textbooks should admittedly be considered fair game in socio-
literate instruction, although teachers should view them critically. Geisler (1994),
for example, cautioned against allowing the textbook genre to serve as a surrogate
for prevailing academic genres and subgenres: “Textbooks, still the mainstay of
the curriculum, are interpreted as containing the domain content upon which
students will be tested. Writing, on the rare occasions it is used, serves to duplicate
the knowledge structure of those texts” (p. 87). At the same time, “textbooks are
socially constructed . . . [and] can be analyzed and used for the advancement of
genre knowledge” (Johns, 1997, p. 125). Literature, also a prominent component
of many composition curricula, can likewise be approached from an exploratory,
socioliterate, and critical perspective, which differs significantly from its treatment
in traditional, current-traditional, and process-based models (Hedgcock & Ferris,
2009; Hirvela, 2001; McKay, 2014; Vandrick, 2003; also see Chapter 3).
The following summary presents arguments for and against basing literacy courses
on published textbooks:

Benefits of Relying on a Textbook

j A textbook reflects its author’s decisions about course goals and learn-
ing objectives, providing a framework for a course. Content and skills
to be targeted in the course are explained and sequenced for the teacher,
facilitating instructional planning.
j Students may enjoy the sense of security provided by a textbook, which
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

helps students understand what will be expected of them in the course.

j Inexperienced and untrained teachers may find a commercial textbook
to be a valuable tool for planning, instruction, and assessment.
j A textbook may provide teachers and learners with reading material, ac-
tivities, exercises, and visual aids, a self-contained package that can spare
the teacher valuable time in locating and adapting authentic materials.
j Some textbooks offer assessment tools such as quizzes, tests, assign-
ments, and projects that directly reflect the textbook’s content and ped-
agogical aims.
j Supporting materials such as companion websites, PowerPoint slides,
worksheets, scoring guides, teachers’ manuals, and the like frequently
accompany commercial textbooks.

j Textbooks can offer a common point of reference in delivering a curricu-

lum. When used by all instructors in a program, a textbook can ensure
that a course adheres to institutional goals across a given level of instruc-
tion. A textbook series used in a program can similarly provide continuity
and coherence among levels of instruction.

Drawbacks of Relying on a Textbook

j A textbook’s approach, content, and tasks may not be relevant or ap-
propriate to a particular cohort of students.
j Texts and tasks might not match students’ language proficiency, literacy
skills, needs, or goals.
j A textbook may reflect a philosophy that conflicts with that of the teacher.
j A textbook may focus too much or too little on selected dimensions of
language and literacy, serving too narrow or too broad a range of needs.
j The combination of task and activity types might be ill-suited to a stu-
dent population (e.g., too many or too few grammar-focused exercises,
discovery tasks that are too open ended, and so forth).
j Some textbooks are designed according to a linear, mechanical sequence,
making creative deviations difficult.
j Reading selections, activities, exercises, and multimedia enhancements
may lack authenticity and appeal, thereby boring and demotivating
students.
j Textbooks may present material (e.g., topical or thematic reading selec-
tions, journalistic texts, and so on) that quickly loses its currency.
j A textbook’s prescribed sequence and coverage may be overly ambitious
or unrealistic, resulting in the teacher’s failure to complete a portion of
the material.

(Sources: Byrd & Schuemann, 2014; Graves, 2000; Nation & Macalister, 2010)
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

Given these considerations, we would encourage teachers to approach textbook

selection critically and with reasonable expectations in mind. First, there is no
reason to presuppose that an L2 literacy course must be based on a textbook; in
fact, many instructors manage without any textbooks at all. Second, a textbook
(or textbook package) simply cannot provide each and every feature that teachers
and students might want, as the needs of students, teachers, and institutions vary
so widely. “There is no such thing as a perfect textbook” (Brown, 1995, p. 166). We
should always anticipate the need to adapt and supplement even the best com-
mercial materials to accommodate evolving student learning needs and interests.
Teachers must learn to supplement and adapt textbooks and develop techniques
for deploying them effectively (Nation & Macalister, 2010).

It is sometimes possible to eliminate from consideration materials that fail to

meet most or all of your general requirements. We suggest asking the following
simple yes or no questions as part of your preliminary screening:

Does the Textbook . . .

j Cover topics, genres, and literacy skills targeted in your course?
j Present suitable samples of the genres and text types that you want your
students to read, analyze, interpret, critique, and reproduce?
j Contain clear, well-constructed activities, tasks, exercises, and assign-
ments that will help your students develop the L2 literacy skills targeted
in the curriculum plan and course objectives?
j Provide an adequate number of useful, productive, provocative, and
socioculturally appropriate discussion topics, classroom activities, and
composing assignments?
j Present information, explanations, procedures, strategies, and supple-
mental material that will help you effectively present new material, skill
incentives, and composing strategies to your students?
j Appeal to you in terms of its underlying philosophy, organization, com-
prehensiveness, visual features, and ease of use?

If you are unsure about any of these issues, review the questions from your stu-
dents’ point of view: How confidently can you predict that a textbook’s approach,
design, content, and tasks will enable your students to achieve your learning ob-
jectives? If your answer to one or more of these questions is “no,” then you might
legitimately eliminate the book from further appraisal.

Formal Task and Assignment Design

This section outlines principles and procedures for constructing formal prompts,
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

tasks, and assignments for literacy instruction and assessment, some of which in-
corporate authentic genres such as those described earlier in this chapter. In con-
trast to practice and invention activities (e.g., brainstorming, listing, clustering,
freewriting, and so forth; see Chapter 3), instructional tasks provide a structure
for designing goal-oriented processes leading to measurable products. Though
task has been defined in ways too numerous to catalogue here, a few fundamental
characteristics underlie divergent definitions:

A Task . . .
j is guided or driven by an implicit or explicit goal;
j demands cognitive and communicative processes required for interac-
tion and work in the “real world”;

j focuses learners chiefly (though not exclusively) on expressing (and per-

haps negotiating) meaning, solving a problem, or arriving at a discovery;
j requires learners to select from and use an array of material, cognitive,
and linguistic resources (e.g., oral, written, and multimodal texts) in the
task’s planning and execution;
j targets a clearly defined outcome in the form of a performance or prod-
uct (e.g., a writing assignment, presentation, role-play, discovery, and so
on), the success of which can be measured.

(Sources: Craig, 2013; Ellis, 2003, 2006; Nassaji & Fotos, 2011; Samuda & Bygate,
2008; Skehan, 1996; Willis & Willis, 2007)

Largely geared toward multiskill L2 instruction, research on tasks and task-

based instruction has been conducted in second language acquisition (SLA),
though L1 and L2 literacy educators have much to gain from applying task-based
principles in constructing assignments, classroom activities, and lessons (see
Chapter 5). In reading and writing instruction, a task can specify: (a) the product
and genre category that we expect learners to formulate (e.g., a summary, a pres-
entation, a peer review, a report); (b) the operations required to generate the
target product (e.g., extraction of information from print and online sources,
memorization, classification, synthesis, and so forth); and (c) the tools, resources,
and “givens” available to students as they plan and generate their products (e.g.,
texts, model products, advance organizers, software, peers, tutors, and so on)
(Doyle, 1983).
This view of the task as a procedural unit parallels social constructionist ap-
proaches to academic and disciplinary literacies, incorporating essential learn-
ing and composing processes (Bax, 2011a, 2011b; Coe, 1987; Johns, 1997, 2003;
Kalantzis & Cope, 2012). Contemporary definitions of task purposefully integrate
process and product, enabling us to avoid a misleading, artificial separation be-
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

tween the two (see Chapter 3). In practical terms, a task minimally contains verbal
input data (e.g., a reading passage from one or multiple sources, a dialogue) and/
or a nonverbal stimulus (e.g., a video clip, a picture sequence), along with an activ-
ity requiring processing of the input. A task likewise spells out how learners might
go about understanding and processing the input, as well as the task’s purposes,
audiences, and participant roles (Johns, 1997, 2009a, 2009b).
Authentic composing tasks should aim to achieve several broad goals:

j Develop students’ formal, content, and cultural schemata (see Chapter 1);
j Cultivate sociocultural awareness of contexts for writing, including the
roles of readers and writers (see Chapter 3);
j Encourage writers to write from a variety of prompts and under diverse
conditions (e.g., under time pressure, with or without peers, and so on);

j Promote intertextual skills (e.g., by integrating material from what stu-

dents have read into their own texts through quotation, paraphrase, and
summary);
j Require the use of diverse tools for writing, including digital technology;
j Build genre awareness and rhetorical arrangement skills; and
j Develop writers’ control of the conventions of written language.

(Sources: Carter, 2007; Johns, 1997, 2003, 2009a, 2009b; McKay, 1994; National Writing
Project, 2010; Pasquarelli, 2006b; Tardy, 2009)

To identiy and target manageable subsets of reading–writing skills and strate-

gies, literacy tasks and assignments should naturally be informed by—and explicitly
geared toward—a course’s learning and performance goals. We introduce goal- and
objective-setting principles in Chapter 5, which recommends procedures for artic-
ulating learning outcomes. For example, a learning outcome for a university com-
position or WAC course might read: “Master the most widely used documentation
styles (APA, MLA, and scientific method)” (Williams, 2003, p. 282). A performance
standard presented in Chapter 5 reads: “Use technology, including the Internet, to
produce and publish writing and to interact and collaborate with others” (Com-
mon Core State Standards Initiative, 2010, p. 41). This goal suggests numerous lit-
eracy tasks that would engage students in searching for information, understanding
it, synthesizing it with peers and for an audience, and assembling a text that adheres
to desired genre conventions. As noted in Chapter 5, well-constructed, measurable
performance objectives and goals should scaffold course design and assessment.
Similarly, we should regularly consult stated course aims as we create, adapt, and
implement assignments, tasks, and activities for literacy teaching and learning.

The Mechanics of Task Design and Implementation

Before constructing and integrating a task or assignment into a lesson or unit,

teachers should first consider the extent to which the exercise will enable students
to practice dimensions of the composing process (e.g., reading from sources, pre-
writing, drafting, revision, editing, and so on) and to test their developing com-
posing strategies (White, 2007; Williams, 2003). Figure 4.6 lists criteria that target
both general and specific features to consider when selecting content matter, iden-
tifying a socioliterate context, specifying genre expectations, writing directions,
and presenting assessment standards. Items in this checklist can be used selectively
for devising day-to-day tasks as well as formal writing assignments—in particular,
those that will require advance planning, writing from sources, multi-drafting,
and formal assessment (see Chapter 6).
Admittedly, it would be difficult to develop tasks and activities that uniformly
meet all of these expectations. However, we should recall that meaningful literacy

A s s ig n m e n t a n d T a sk G u id e lin e s
1. Practical. Procedural, and Mechanical Requirements
□A carefuiiy and dearly constructed prompt or stimulus (see Figure 4 9)
□A timetable for drafts, feedback, self-evalualion, final submission, etc.
uExplicit reference to the genre category (e.g., m a y , editorial, summary, lab report,
critical rev bdw. memorandum, research paper, etc.; see ApuendKX 4^2)
U Indication ol whether writers have a ChoiCB of topics and tasks
u Succinct, imammguous, and easy-to-follow directions and procedures (i.e., step-by-step
descriptions of the stages required to complete the assignment successfully)
u Noles concerning recommended or required rength
a A description of required or preferred medium (eg., digital print, multimodal)
□ A description of presentation requirements (e.g text format and document design.
preferred style sheet, mechanical conventions, etc.)
□ A description of required documentation (e.g., bibliographic sources. primary data, etc.)
2. Socio literate C ontext and Core C ontent
□ A task that fairly and authentically represents or approximates the genre knowledge and
skills, that students must display m the communicative, educational, or workplace salting
0 A characterization of the text's intended audience and audience expectalbns (i.e., a
portrayal of the sociolilerate context for ihe assig nmenl)
u An explanation of ttie text's purposes (L.e why writers of lhat genre compose such texts)
a A topic, theme, subject, or range of options that will interest, motivate, and appeal to
student writers at all proficiency levels in the course
□ A topic, iheme, subject, or range of options that covers a sufficiently wide band of
content and ski'Is to engage all students without unfairly pnvileging some over others
(i.e., a topic lhat can be written aboul with equal ease by using available resources)
□ A task that necessifates fha production of connected written discourse and presents
options leacirsg jo comparable product) (i.e.. samples that can be fairly compared in
terms of complexity, length, rhelDiica! oonlral, lluency. grammatical accuracy, etc.)
U A task that requires cognitive and i riguistio skills that tap into wrilers' current schemata
and competencies, lakes them beyond Iheir current level of expertise. and diversifies
their rhetorical and stylistic repertoires
a A rationale (i.e., a description of the assignment's purpose and the fiteracy skills thal
writers wilt develop and demonstrate by completing the assignment}
3. Resources
□ Notes concerning the sourccs to consult for ideas and assistance, such as reading
materials, motlel texts (anchor samples), class discussions, lectures, project work, etc.
j Description of t'H ph.il and relevant preventing, drafting, revision, and editing Strategies
□ Guidelines governing oulsida help such as peers, writing center tutors, librarians, word
processing and composing software, online tools, etc.
u Description of roles to be played by instructor and peer feedback in the revision process
□ Notes about how wriiers should manage their time to complete the wori< on deadiine
4. A ssessm ent Criteria
a An account of fealunes and criteria that will determine writers' success m completing the
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

assignment (e.g., topical focus, essential content, adherence to prespecified rhetorical

conventions. grammateal and stylistic features, length, etc.; see Chapter 6)
□ Explicit reference to a scoring rubric to be applied In evaluating the product and the
process (see Chapter 6}

FIGURE 4.6 Writing assignment checklist. Adapted from Campbell and Latimer
(2012); Craig (2013); Crusan (2010); Gardner (2008); Johns (1997, 2009b); Reid
and Kroll (1995); Weigle (2002, 2007).

assignments are often more difficult for students than teachers think and should
thus be devised with great care (Adler-Kassner & O’Neill, 2010; Carson, 2001;
Coombe, Folse, & Hubley, 2007; Crusan, 2010; Hamp-Lyons, 2002; Leki, 1995;
Reinders & White, 2010; Way, Joiner, & Seaman, 2000; Weigle, 2002, 2007).

Guidelines for Devising Writing Prompts

Systematic composing tasks should recycle students’ current knowledge and skill,
build on this developing expertise, diversify their skill repertoires, and require students
to select the right genre options and medium for writing (see Figure 4.6). A well-
designed assignment can stimulate a range of varied and productive classroom activi-
ties, writing tasks, and feedback processes (see Chapters 6–9). Central to the success of
a composing assignment is writing the prompt and assignment specifications in a way
that writers readily understand. As Crusan (2010) acknowledged, “creating explicit,
nonambiguous prompts for writing tasks and timed essay exams can be . . . daunting”
(p. 68). She recommended three simple steps for creating suitable prompts for timed
writing, which just as readily apply to more elaborate composing assignments:

1. “State a context in one to two sentences.”

2. Present directions separately, specifying genre, audience, and topic.
3. Define the target genre and requirements for rhetorical arrangement with
representative verbs such as argue, compare, contrast, convince, defend, de-
fine, evaluate, persuade, summarize, and so forth. (Crusan, 2010, p. 68)

To illustrate, Crusan proposed the following sample prompt, which we have

slightly adapted:

Assignment: Persuasive Letter

Context: Many parents and policymakers believe that public education does
not produce the quality or quantity of learning needed for success in the
21st century workplace. Some critics have proposed shortening school vaca-
tions, lengthening the academic year, and extending the school day. Mean-
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

while, others believe that these measures would be a bad idea, as children
and adolescents learn important skills outside of school.
Directions: Individually or with a peer, write a letter of about 500 words to
your school board, PTO newsletter, or local newspaper. Argue for or against
proposals to lengthen the academic year and school day. Try to convince
your readers to adopt your position by supporting your opinion with reli-
able evidence. (Adapted from Crusan, 2010, p. 68)

This prompt describes a socioliterate context, establishes a role of the writer,

defines the text’s audience, and involves a topic that could potentially pertain to
students’ lives (White, 2007). Moreover, the directions specify a known genre, re-
veal expectations, and identify the resources needed to generate a suitable text.
The assignment outlined in Figure 4.7 exemplifies similar components but is

EAP 2170: W riting fo r th e S ocial S ciences I t I

Writing Assignment 1 Op-Ed (Opinion/Editorial)
Topic
Im m ig ra tio n P o lic y R e fo rm
B ackground
Our recen! readings, videos, and discussions have revealed that immigration
policy has again become an urgent concern. In some countnes. efforts to reform
immigration policy and the agencies that enforce it have ignited spirited debates.
Ahtl-lmmigrant sentiment has simmered and even erupted in some countries,
alarming immigrants and raising worries about nationalistic fervor and racism. In
the U.S., ongoing controversy surrounds immigration reform legislation proposed
by Congress and the White House. Meanwhile, several state governments have
implemented policies designed to detect and penalize undocumented workers by
denying them access to public services; some of these policies have been
challenged in the courts. Because of the significant political, legal, social,
economic, and educational implications of Immigration policy and enforcement,
elected officials and judges face numerous dilemmas and pressure from voters
and immigrant communities lo enact laws that satisfy diverse constituencies
while treating documented and undocumented immigranis fairly and equitably
Op-Ed A ssig n m e n t
Based on our course readings, videos, and your developing knowledge of the
national and global immigration issues we have explored, analyze the current
immigration policy of (be government of your choice. In a 400- lo 600-word op-ed
column, consider how this policy might change In the near or dislant future.
Because many societies are currently grappling wilb immigration issues, you may
refer to the official policies of other governments, though you are not required to
make extensive comparisons. In your analysis, identify a salient problem (or sel
of problems) in the policy or proposed legislation that you analyze. Propose a
plausible solulion to that problem, outlining recommended steps leading to its
implementation. In describing your solution, discuss how it would ameliorate the
central pioblem{s} and acknowledge likely objections and counterarguments.
Keep in mind that op-ed columns often address many kinds o f readers, including
news subscribers, public officials, policy analysts, and journalists.
G etting Started
You have already explored immigration controversies in our course readings,
discussed these texts in class, and whtten several blog enlries on the issue.
Review our source readings, our course blog, and reflections in your reading
journal. You can collect further materia! to support the arguments in your op-ed.
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

You should also examine the op-eds on our course blog. We will analyse and
compare two of Ihese samples in class using Swales’s move analysis lo help you
understand the key elements of successful op-ed columns.
R esources
□ The bibliography on our course Website
□ Sample op-ed pieces in the Op-Ed Folder on our Website
□ Recent digital or print issues of The Econom ist. The New York Times. The
Financial Times, and other current news and opinion sources
□ Scholarly sources available through the Library's online databases.

T im eline
Week 4 Day 1 Bring your materials and notes ta class for brainstorming session.
Begin draft in class
Week 4 Day 2 Exchange Op-Ed (Draft 1) with classmates
Week 4 Day 3 After writing careful comments on your peer's draft, present your
suggestions In class
Week 5 Day 1 Submil Op-Ed (Draft 2 - first revision) for Instructor feedback
Week 5 Day 2 Individual conferences w ilti instructor
Week 6 Day 1 Submil Op-Ed (Draft 3 - second revision) via Google Docs for
editing and proofreading in peer groups
Week 6 Day 2 Submil Op-Ed (Draft 4 - final revision with self-analysis checklist)
to course Website for class review
A ssessm e nt C riteria
We wilt use the EAP 2170 Assignm ent Scoring Rubric and the genre-specific
features below to evaluate the final version of your Op-Ed column;
□ A title that effectively conveys the central argument of your column
□ A c o n c is e in tro d u c tio n to th e p o lic y p ro b le m (s ) a n d y o u r so lu tio n (s)
□ M ethodical analysis of policy points and s o lu tio n s ), organized as you like
□ Explicit distinctions between opinion and factual evidence
□ Explicit distinctions between your opinions and those of Ihe experts you cite
□ A synthesis of the mam elements of your analysis, arguments, and solutions
□ References and citations that follow Ihe conventions of the Style Book.
□ Adherence to formal conventions of grammar, diction, spelling, and
mechanics as .detailed in the Sty/e Book..

FIGURE 4.7 Sample op-ed assignment for an advanced EAP course.

considerably more elaborate. The task, designed for advanced multilingual uni-
versity students in a genre-based EAP course, supplies noticeably greater detail
with regard to context, genre features, resources, and assessment standards.
In contrast to these examples, poorly devised and incomplete prompts tend to
omit or overlook one or more of these features (see Figure 4.6). To demonstrate
how ineffective and incomplete prompts can confuse students and generate un-
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

intended responses, Crusan (2010) presented the following writing assignments

from university essay examinations:

j “Indian armed resistance after 1760 was pointless. Discuss.”

j “Discuss the use of metaphor in To Kill a Mockingbird.”
j “Discuss the following: The Prince of Tides was neither about princes
nor tides.” (p. 69)

Although these prompts identify topics for writing, they neglect to inform writers
about required textual features, rhetorical arrangement, and length. Also lacking
are indications of a purpose for writing or the product’s intended audience.
Ferris, Dana R., and John Hedgcock. Teaching L2 Composition : Purpose, Process, and Practice, Routledge, 2013.
ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/asulib-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1434037.
Created from asulib-ebooks on 2019-08-14 17:19:55.
Reading, Genre Awareness, and Task Design 131

Choice
Related to issues of topical focus and genre is the question of choice. Assignment
writers and assessors must weigh the advantages of giving students a single prompt
or offering them multiple options. A convincing argument can be made for as-
signing a single prompt, as it gives students a uniform stimulus to produce texts
that can be fairly and reliably compared in the feedback and assessment process.
Designing a single genre-oriented task is also a viable pedagogical option when
working with beginning- and intermediate-level writers who may work best with
a confined topical area and a limited set of rhetorical and grammatical patterns. A
single question or prompt is also appropriate when introducing intermediate- and
advanced-level writers to unfamiliar genres and rhetorical patterns, particularly
when the course syllabus involves unfamiliar content.
On the other hand, providing students with a choice offers notable advantages.
First, students may be more interested in, and motivated by, a prompt that they
have selected from a short menu; students who select tasks that appeal to them
may thus exercise more agency and autonomy than they otherwise would. A re-
lated benefit for both teacher and students is that students’ products are likely
to represent a wider variety, making peer feedback more appealing and teacher
response a bit less predictable. At the same time, it is worth recalling one of the
criteria listed in the checklist in Figure 4.3: When students are presented with two
or more options, the prompts should be written so that student texts can be fairly
compared on the basis of context, content, genre, complexity, and so on.

Genre Authenticity: Avoiding Formulaic Assignments

As our exploration of genre pedagogies and task construction suggests, we
strongly favor building writing processes and products around authentic genres
and the socioliterate communities that value them. Our recommendations for de-
signing literacy assignments have thus deliberately avoided reference to the for-
mulaic five-paragraph essay, or five-paragraph theme (FPT), which Smagorinsky
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

(2008) described as “one of those school assignments that is reviled by writing

theorists yet ubiquitous in U.S. classrooms” (p. 13). Despite the pervasiveness of
the FPT in North American educational settings and its perceived teachability, our
socioliterate perspective prompts us to discourage L2 educators from replicating
it. As Johns (2003) pointed out, “there is no place for dull repetition of the clas-
sic, autonomous, North American Five-Paragraph Essay in the Sydney School”
or in genre-based instruction (p. 204). In addition to its incompatibility with the
leading genre traditions, the FPT’s perceived pedagogical benefits are highly ques-
tionable. In a broad survey of classroom investigations of K–12 instruction and
writing performance, Campbell and Latimer (2012) concluded that “thirty years
of research confirm the failure of the five-paragraph formula” (p. 4). Although
space limitations prevent us from exploring the literature on the FPT in depth
here,5 our discussion will refute common “myths” that continue to justify basing
composition instruction on reproduction of the FPT (Campbell & Latimer, 2012).
Ferris, Dana R., and John Hedgcock. Teaching L2 Composition : Purpose, Process, and Practice, Routledge, 2013.
ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/asulib-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1434037.
Created from asulib-ebooks on 2019-08-14 17:19:55.
132 Reading, Genre Awareness, and Task Design

A frequent claim made by FPT defenders is that the formula “is an actual
form” or genre, yet most writers would be “hard-pressed to find essays written
in the five-paragraph formula beyond . . . school walls” (Campbell & Latimer,
2012, p. 5). Genre research persuasively demonstrates that formulae consisting of
an introduction that narrows to a “thesis,” three “body” paragraphs that present
“support,” and a final paragraph that restates the “thesis” simply do not exist in
academic disciplines, workplaces, or even classrooms (with the glaring excep-
tion of many English classrooms) (Brannon et al., 2008; Johns, 2003; Swales,
2004). Critics maintain that the FPT is not a genre; rather, it is a synthetic model
designed mainly to stimulate written production that teachers can easily assess.
Perhaps more worrying than the FPT’s obvious inauthenticity is its potential
for short-circuiting the learning process by leading teachers and students to be-
lieve that producing a FPT is really writing. After all, a “successful” FPT requires
“simply slotting information into prefabricated formulas” while failing to engage
writers in “a complex process of meaning-making and negotiation between a
writer’s purposes and audiences’ needs” (Brannon et al., 2008, p. 16). Indeed, the
rigid formula “forces premature closure on complicated interpretive issues and
stifles ongoing exploration” (Wiley, 2000, p. 61), ultimately “stunts the growth
of human minds” (Wesley, 2000, p. 57), and limits the “development of complex
thinking” (Argys, 2008, p. 99).
A common assumption underlying the FPT is that it serves merely as “a start-
ing point . . . a necessary first step that supports students in moving to more so-
phisticated writing” (Campbell & Latimer, 2012, p. 5). In fact, many instructors
routinely model the FPT “to teach the basic concepts of essay structure, intending
students to build on that base as their writing skills expand.” A frequent conse-
quence, however, is that L1 and L2 writers become “unable to leave that tangible
model,” finding the task of composing a longer, more complex text difficult (if
not impossible) “because they truly don’t understand that content and form work
together” (Vause & Amberg, 2013, p. 68). Novice writers who come to believe that
the FPT is an authentic genre situated in a socioliterate community tend to repli-
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

cate the formula when called on to produce real genres for real readers. In fact, the
authors can recall instances in their careers when it became necessary to “unteach”
the FPT in order to persuade student writers to stop relying on the formula and
instead to interrogate real academic and professional genres (Fanetti, Bushrow, &
DeWeese, 2010).
Unlike the FPT replication model, genre pedagogy invites writers to “think
about each element of their developing text in terms of the rhetorical situation,” as
well as “rhetorical moves, specific cognitive structures . . . used across a genre to or-
ganize information and help fulfill the . . . purpose of the text” (Vause & Amberg,
2013, p. 68). In disappointing contrast, the FPT focuses on arbitrary, vaguely de-
fined components (e.g., “introduction,” “body,” “conclusion”) that fail to provide
the guidance and genre awareness that developing writers need when they read
and produce authentic texts for learning, communicating, and displaying knowl-
edge. “Championing the five-paragraph essay as authentic,” wrote Crusan (2010),

“misleads students about the kinds of writing that is expected of them as they
enter colleges and universities” (p. 128).
Another pervasive belief is that the FPT offers novice and struggling writers an
accessible, manageable structure for sequencing information and for using language
skillfully. Though the goal to help beginners by giving them an easily reproducible
model (or shortcut) is laudable, reproducing the FPT teaches students that “writing
is about sentence placement, not about discovery and ideas” (Campbell & Latimer,
2012, p. 6). Brannon and colleagues (2008) further argued that, because the FPT
spoon-feeds struggling writers an arbitrary formula, teaching it “merely sustains the
deficit perception” (p. 18). Reproducing the FPT can tangibly handicap writers, for
whom the sole audience for writing becomes the teacher and for whom “successful”
writing means repeating the formula (Rorschach, 2004). The mechanical repetition
of the FPT in every task is unlikely to help writers “advance beyond a kind of . . . code-
pendence on teachers who have agreed in advance that this sort of formulaic essay”
will be rewarded (Wiley, 2000, p. 65). The rigid form itself becomes the priority, as
“that’s what the teacher will grade on” (Smagorinsky, 2008, p. 74), minimizing the
importance and value of textual content, original ideas, experimentation, autonomy,
voice, authenticity, and complex writing and revision processes (Argys, 2008; Camp-
bell & Latimer, 2012; Courtney, 2008; Kane, 2005; Romano, 2000; Rorschach, 2004).

Chapter Summary
This chapter has situated L2 composition instruction in a framework informed
by contemporary approaches to literacy, including genre research and pedagogy,
which view reading and writing as both social and cognitive practices that emerge
in parallel. We explored research and theory demonstrating that reading and writ-
ing in L1 and L2 are reciprocal, socially constructed processes that can involve pro-
ductive transfer across skills and languages. The comprehension, use, and creation
of text thus serve as tools for achieving membership in socioliterate communities,
which comprise both expert and novice readers and writers. Because of interde-
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

pendencies across languages and skills, composition instruction is most likely to

succeed when it systematically cultivates efficient reading skills, along with profi-
ciency in writing in multiple authentic genres. To promote reading skill, writing
skill, and genre awareness, literacy education must engage L2 students in authen-
tic literacy events, which require carefully designed tasks that involve students in
exploring the genre landscapes of academic disciplines, professions, workplaces,
popular culture, and social media. Tasks and assignments must likewise supply
writers with guidance as they analyze target genres and learn to produce texts that
align with genre conventions.

j Extensive Reading website: http://www.extensivereading.net; International

Reading Association website: http://www.reading.org
j Online prewriting and visualization tools: http://www.bubble.us; http://www
.Inspiration.com; http://www.MagneticPoetry.com; http://www.Wordle.net

Reflection and Review

1. Consider your history as a reader and writer in your L1. Of the directional,
nondirectional, and bidirectional models, which best account(s) for your de-
velopment as a writer? Explain.
2. If you have L2 literacy experience, how would you compare the development
of your L2 literacy skills to your development as an L1 reader and writer?

If you do not have L2 literacy experience, ask an L2 learner to describe the

sources of knowledge that have contributed to his or her L2 literacy skills.
3. Reflecting on your experiences as an academic reader and writer, describe the
genres that you have most often produced (e.g., summaries, reports, reviews,
research papers, and so on). Have you been given explicit instruction in how
to construct such texts? If not, how did you learn to compose them?
4. What literacy clubs, Discourses, literacies, or communities of practice do
you belong to? For example, do you consider yourself to be a member of
the TESL/TEFL literacy club or community of practice? Are you a parent,
a cook, a surfer, a bird watcher, or a community volunteer? Identify the
practices, values, and literate skills that expert members of these Discourses
demonstrate.
5. Compare the four traditions of genre research and pedagogy introduced in
this chapter: the Sydney School (SFL), ESP, NR, and Brazilian didactics. What
can L2 writing instructors learn from their principles and methods?
6. Of the multiple definitions of genre offered in this chapter, which are most fa-
miliar? Which provide the greatest potential for promoting functional literacy
skills among your population of student L2 writers?
7. In your opinion, why is the notion of genre a fundamental consideration for
composition educators? Identify the pedagogical advantages of addressing the
genres and text types that students must read and reproduce. What are the
potential benefits of raising students’ genre awareness?
8. Consider the literacy needs of a group of students that you know. Identify
genres that they might encounter in their studies and beyond. What principles
would you use to select and sequence these genres in a writing course?
9. Of the principles for designing tasks recommended in this chapter, which
would you characterize as the most important for you? For L2 students?

Application Activity 4.1

Writing From Texts
Consider how you might put one or more of the following classroom task ideas
into practice in an L2 literacy course. Using Figures 4.2 and 4.6 as reference points,
assess the potential effectiveness of each procedure.

1. Ask students to maintain reading journals or logs where they record and elab-
orate on what they read for school or for pleasure.
2. Invite students to write about information that they find interesting, signifi-
cant, perplexing, moving, or otherwise striking.
3. Ask students to maintain double-entry or dialectal notebooks in which
they divide pages into two vertical columns. In one column, they copy or

summarize interesting passages; in another, they respond to these entries by

posing questions, paraphrasing, or commenting.
4. To activate students’ content schemata before they read, ask students to write
journal entries about an experience featured in a text that they are about to
read to help them anticipate connections with their prior knowledge.
5. To promote prediction strategies and demonstrate that readers make meaning
as they read, ask students to speculate about what will happen in a text and to
compare their predictions with those of their peers and with the original text.
6. Sequence journal entries around readings so that students address texts from
diverse perspectives. Encourage students not only to view texts but also to re-
view them using their new knowledge.

Application Activity 4.2

Writing From Sources Assignment
Select a sample text appropriate for use in a low, intermediate, or advanced L2
literacy course (see Figure 4.2 and Appendix 4.2). Using the sequence outlined be-
low, sketch a simple unit plan that would address the needs of your student writers
(see Chapter 5 for lesson planning guidelines).

1. Design and assign a write-to-read activity: Ask students to produce a freewrite,

journal entry, or response essay about an issue, idea, or experience featured in
the text.
2. Assign your text(s) as homework, allowing time for students to begin reading
in class. Before they begin, instruct students to annotate the text as a means of
encouraging them to preview and predict text content (see Figures 4.1–4.2).
If students are unfamiliar with annotation, model the process.
3. Ask students to compose reading journal entries using some of the proce-
dures suggested in this chapter (also see Application Activity 4.1). To deepen
engagement with the text, encourage students to react to the contents of the
reading selection (e.g., by questioning, agreeing, disagreeing, critiquing).
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

4. To deepen students’ understanding of the text and its meaning, instruct them
to compose a summary, which they share with peer groups in class or online
(see Appendix 4.1 and Swales & Feak, 2012).
5. Plan and oversee peer-group discussions of their summaries to send students
“back into the text” (Spack, 1993, p. 191) and demonstrate that the exchange
of ideas, reactions, criticisms, and opinions is an integral literacy practice. As
they review their peers’ summaries, encourage students to compare the sum-
maries to the original text and to one another.
6. Introduce a formal composing assignment in writing (see Figures 4.6–4.7).
Ask students to analyze the directions and identify the genre. Review strategies
for exploring audience expectations for rhetorical arrangement, register, tone,
evidence, length, citation style, language choice, and so forth. The assignment
should require students to delve into the original text, to reflect on it critically,
and to situate it with respect to a literacy or discipline.
Ferris, Dana R., and John Hedgcock. Teaching L2 Composition : Purpose, Process, and Practice, Routledge, 2013.
ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/asulib-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1434037.
Created from asulib-ebooks on 2019-08-14 17:19:55.
Reading, Genre Awareness, and Task Design 137

7. Ask students to draft a version of the assignment to present to their peers (and
possibly to you). Set aside class time for this procedure.
8. Plan and monitor peer review sessions or teacher conferences (see Chapter 7
for peer response strategies). As a prelude, ask students to review their an-
notated reading selections and their pre- and during-reading journal entries.
Peer and teacher response should focus on how fully the writer has fulfilled
the assignment, used the reading selection, and constructed the text to meet
reader expectations. After the feedback session, ensure that students under-
stand the feedback. The revision cycle then continues at the teacher’s discre-
tion (see Chapters 3 and 7).

Application Activity 4.3

Text Analysis
The text analysis task below asks students to read intensively as they examine the
rhetorical structure of an excerpt from a university-level textbook. As part of a
series of linked assignments, the exercise aims to sensitize students to deductive
paragraph structure as preparation for a writing assignment in which students will
incorporate the conventions that they identify in the passage.
Step 1. Simulation and Practice
a. Assume the role of a student, then complete the task below.
b. After you finish, compare your responses to those of a peer.
c. Devise a follow-up activity that could lead to a genre-based writing assign-
ment in a literacy course that you are familiar with (e.g., a summary or para-
phrase, a memo, an editorial, an informative blog page or Wikipedia entry, a
literature review) (see Figures 4.2–4.7, as well as Appendix 4.1).

Text Analysis Task

Textbook Passage for Analysis: Definition Structure

Directions to students: The following passage appears in a popular text-
book on the history of Modern English. Read the questions below the pas-
sage, then read the text carefully, noting the sequence of information and
unfamiliar vocabulary.

Semantics and Change of Meaning

The meaning of a word is what those who use it intend or understand that it
represents. Semantics is the study of meaning in all of its aspects. The Whorf
hypothesis, which was mentioned in Chapter 1, proposes that the way our
language formulates meaning affects the way we respond to the world or
even perceive it. On an ordinary level, language clearly influences our daily
activities and habits of thought. Because two persons can be referred to by

the same word—for example, Irish—we assume that they must be alike in
certain stereotyped ways. Thus we may unconsciously believe that all the
Irish have red hair, drink too much, and are quarrelsome. General Seman-
tics, a study founded by Alfred Korzybski, is an effort to pay attention to
such traps that language sets for us (Hayakawa and Hayakawa). Our concern
in this chapter, however, is not with such studies, but rather with the ways in
which the meanings of words change over time to allow us to talk about new
things or about old things in a new light. (Algeo, 2010, pp. 207–209)

Questions for Analysis

1. What are the primary purposes of this passage? For example, do you
think the author’s main objectives are to inform, persuade, or defend a
position? Why?
2. Can you locate the following elements in the passage? How do you know
where to look for them? What functions do they serve?
a. topic sentence
b. references to other passages in the book or chapter
c. definitions, explanations, paraphrases, and examples.
3. What evidence does the author use to develop and illustrate his main
points?

Step 2. Authentic Task Development

Locate an authentic text or passage from any academic, literary, or popular genre
category or cluster (see Figure 4.3 and Appendix 4.2). Using the sample exercise
in Step 1 (above) as an example, design an original exercise to: (a) facilitate genre
analysis, (b) help students explore reader–writer roles and the contexts associated
with the genre, and (c) produce a text that exhibits genre conventions.
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

Application Activity 4.4

Genre Analysis Task
1. Collect some authentic texts representing an array of academic, professional,
and everyday genres (see Figure 4.3 and Appendix 4.2).
2. Select two or three samples that exhibit contrasting prototypical features (e.g.,
a print or digital advertisement, film review, recipe, e-mail message, cover let-
ter, science lab report, academic article).
3. For each sample text, complete a column in the Genre Analysis and Comparison
Grid below (we recommend enlarging it).
4. Compare and contrast your text samples and genres; discuss how you might
use or adapt this task in an L2 writing course.

Samples
Features
1. 2. 3.
Genre

Location

Topical focus

Layout

Length

Rhetorical arrangement

Participants
(agents, subjects, audience)
Functions
(social and communicative)
Style and register

Grammatical features

Lexical features

Genre Analysis and Comparison Grid

(Adapted from Bax, 2011a, Table 3.1, p. 50)

5. As an optional step, describe how you might design assignments and instruc-
tion to help students understand and reproduce target genres using implicit
and explicit socioliterate tools.
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

Application Activity 4.5

Writing Prompt Critique
The writing prompts below were drawn from a variety of postsecondary literacy
and content courses. Examine the prompts, identifying their flaws and weaknesses
based on the criteria presented in this chapter (especially Figure 4.6). Identify
prompts that you think could be salvaged after careful revision, then rewrite two
or more so that they conform to guidelines that you find acceptable.

1. Take-home essay exam for an undergraduate comparative philosophy course:

Do you believe in fate or free will? Explain.
2. Timed essay exam item for an undergraduate geology course:
In a short essay, describe tectonic plate movement. Include a drawing.

3. In-class writing prompt for an intermediate-level IEP reading–writing course:

Define friendship.
4. Take-home exam item for a community college U.S. history course:
Choose one: (a) Using a contemporary federal political issue, discuss aspects of
the separation of powers doctrine that should be changed; (b) Explore how the
American Republic evolved from 1782 to 1789.
5. Essay assignment for a freshman composition course:
U.S. consumer food companies have aggressively marketed products containing
dangerous quantities of fat, sugar, and salt to children and adolescents. Should
corporations be allowed to target young people who may lack the judgment
needed to avoid adopting unhealthful dietary habits?
6. Bibliographic assignment for an undergraduate history of science course:
Write a five- to six-page biographical report on a 20th century chemist, physicist,
or astronomer who has strongly influenced an applied science such as genetics,
bioengineering, climatology, or computer science. Your paper must cite at least
three separate sources and be well-written.

Alternatively, locate samples of writing tasks and assignments from a literacy or

disciplinary course. Using the socioliterate and task design principles presented in
this chapter, analyze and evaluate your sample assignments (see Figures 4.6–4.7).
If you believe that an assignment merits revision or further development, modify
it and justify your revisions in a brief prose commentary.

Application Activity 4.6

Writing Task Construction
Using any of the suggestions below (or an alternative of your choosing), construct
a socioliterate writing task for an L2 literacy course. Craft your prompt and task
guidelines with authentic genres, functions, social practices, and audiences in
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

mind. Consider how your task might follow from and lead to work with other
genres and literacy processes (see Figures 4.2, 4.3, 4.6 and Appendix 4.2).

j An e-mail message to a professor or academic adviser requesting an appointment

j A focus essay or key passage essay that directs students to select a significant
passage from a literary text “and explore its implications for characterization,
theme, or another literary element” (Campbell & Latimer, 2012, p. 85)
j A FAQ sheet for a new product, service, organization, student club, company,
software upgrade, or smart phone or tablet app
j A script for an informational or instructional demonstration video
j An interview with an influential historical or contemporary figure (e.g., an ac-
tor, author, artist, celebrity, composer, entrepreneur, musician, political leader,
scientist)

j A college or graduate school application essay

j A book review
j A literature review.

Appendix 4.1
Summary Exercise for an Advanced
EAP Writing Course
Directions: Individually or with a partner, review the information below, then com-
plete the exercise.
A summary “briefly captures the main ideas of a text and omits information
that is less important,” explains the contents “concisely and fairly,” and is written
in your own words (Lunsford, 2011, p. 151).

Principal Features of a Summary

1. A summary represents the original text in a balanced way. Summary writers
sometimes devote more coverage to earlier parts of the main source, but they
should avoid this tendency: A summary should represent a fair sampling of
the information presented in the original text.
2. A summary should characterize the original material neutrally (i.e., without
critique or evaluation).
3. A summary’s organization should reflect the arrangement of material in the
original text.
4. A summary should condense the original information and be cast in the sum-
mary writer’s own words. Summaries that consist partly or largely of quota-
tions rarely succeed.
5. A summary must acknowledge its original source.
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

Steps Toward Composing a Successful Summary

1. Read The St. Martin’s Handbook, Sections 7c (pp. 151–152) and 13d (pp. 282–283).
2. Skim the original text. Note headings and subheadings. If there are no head-
ings, divide the text into thematic sections. Identify the text’s purpose and
audience to help you focus on essential material.
3. As you reread the text more carefully, highlight important passages or take notes.
4. Paraphrase the main point of each of the sections that you identified in Step 1
(above). Draft a one-sentence summary of each section.
5. Write out the supporting points for the main topic or argument, avoiding minor
details.
6. Check that you have not copied more than three or four words from the original
text.
7. Go through this process again to make appropriate changes.

Summary Language
Summaries may open with a sentence in the present tense that contains two ele-
ments: the source and the main idea. Here are some examples of how first sen-
tences may begin:

1. In Tyson’s article, “Mapping Dark Matter with Gravitational Lenses,” . . .

2. In his book The Dumbest Generation, Bauerlein asserts that . . .

Here are some introductory statements that students have written for a sum-
mary of a research article:

1. Author S. Goodman in “Transformation of the Nile River Basin” states that

the Nile Basin has changed as a result of continuous irrigation.
2. In “Transformation of the Nile River Basin,” Goodman suggests that the Nile
River basin has changed mainly as a result of continuous irrigation.

Though summaries are usually supposed to be neutral, summary writers may

use a range of reporting verbs, some of which may convey evaluative meaning.
Some reporting verbs are more objective than others, indirectly reflecting the
summary writer’s biases and personal opinions. Evaluative verbs should be used
sparingly. The following list presents a few examples of these useful verbs:

Letter toLett
t Letter toLett
t
argue demonstrate * explain reveal allege irreinuale
assert________ describe_________ hold state assume________ instel
rl? n- disajss_______indicate suggest he iev= presume
MinjLifla emphasize maintain contervi______ ejpposa
reveal
maintain maintain
reveal reveal
maintain maintain
reveal

maintain maintain maintain

Exercise
Read the following passage from Baron’s popular book, A Better Pencil, then draft a
one- to three-sentence summary. Use the suggestions in the preceding sections to select
the most important information from the text to develop an informative, accurate
summary.

Besides the web page, computers have spawned a number of other

new genres: email, which is neither phone call nor letter; instant messag-
ing, which goes a step beyond email; and the latest, the blog, a kind of
web page on steroids. We’ve had the rare opportunity of watching these
genres from in our own lifetime—it’s a little bit like being present at the birth
of stars. Like stars, each new genre emerged from an initial chaotic state
and coalesced over time, developing its own structures, conventions, and
standards as its community of users grew and began both to organize and
Ferris, Dana R., and John Hedgcock. Teaching L2 Composition : Purpose, Process, and Practice, Routledge, 2013.
ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/asulib-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1434037.
Created from asulib-ebooks on 2019-08-14 17:19:55.
Reading, Genre Awareness, and Task Design 143

regulate itself. Email was one of the first digital genres, and it has had a tre-
mendous impact on our communication practices. (Baron, 2009, p. 139)

Appendix 4.2
Partial List of Academic and Nonacademic Genres and Subgenres

!_Adventure■jria g a zln e sto ry Letter toLett t

!_Adventure■jria g a zln e ' sto ry i Letter
Letter to
Letter edito
to the
Lettt t r
toLett
!_Adventure■
Letter to thejria g a rzln e sto ry
edito Letter toLett t
Letter to the edito r LetterLetter
toLettt toLettt
Letter to the edito r Letter toLett t Letter toLett t
!_Adventure■
to thejria
LetterLetter to gthe
editoa zln e sto
redito r ry Letter toLettLetter
t toLett
t
| Biqgraph<
Letter ta
tol the
to the
!_Adventure■
Letter jria edito ri^arijr
g a zlnr e sto
edito r ry ; Letter
M ap wtofLett
i Tt s ^Letter
a r i s tto
kLett
^t sn d analysis
Letter toLett
t
Letter to the edito r Letter toLett t
Letter to the edito r Letter toLett t Letter toLett t
LetterLetter
to theto edito
the edito
r r Letter toLett t
Letter to the edito r Letter toLett t
M ap w f i T sjria
!_Adventure■ ^ agr iaszlntk e^ snstodryanalysis Letter toLett t
I Broadcast
M ap w f i T nsjria
!_Adventure■ e^wag's
r iad vt kee
szln ^'itl^
stondry
sn ieanalysis
rV " I Letter
Newsletter"
toLettt
I_Broad
M ap cast
w f i T. nse^ ^ajiu
r i smt ka^n sn jn ta
d re s t sto ry [ N
analysis 0iwspager
Letter toLett t faartu
Letter ne tostoryt i _i
Lett
j !_Adventure■
Broadcast
Letter to the news
jria g asto
edito r ry
zln j _M
Napev/sp
Letter fap
w to Tter
iLett s ^haLetter
urman i^Letter
i s t k tonterest
sn
Lett tostoQ/
t d analysis
Lett
t
Letter to t Letter toLett t
Letter to t Letter toLett t
Letter to t Letter toLett t
j Business''article
Letter Letter
to t to t i PLetter
ersonaiadvertisem
toLettLetter
t ent
toLett
t
LetterLetter
to t to t LetterLetter
toLett t toLett
t
Letter to t Letter
LettertoLettto
t Lett
t
Letter to t Letter to t Letter toLett t
Letter to Lt etter to t Letter toLett t
M ap w f i T s ^ a r i s t k ^ sn d analysis Letter toLett t
Letter to t LetterLetter
to t to t Letter toLetter
t to t
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

Letter to t Letter to t Letter toLettert to t

i . Letter Letter
to ™
t ) to
' r st l ' '. L pLetter
i rM ntati
^ aaptowLetter
tfoi T s ^to
n jj& a t,r F
.g, i sct ^k £^ osn
indt . analysis
Ke^ioto)
Letter to t Letter toLett
t
Letter to t Letter Letter
to t to t Letter toLett
t
L Letter to t LetterLetter
to t to t LetterLetter
toLetter
t toLetter
tto t to t
Letter to t Letter toLetter
t to t
i Court
M ap proceeding
w f i T s ^ a r i s(e.^., hearing,
t k ^ sn tria ij j RLetter
d analysis estaurant t review
toLetter to t
Letter to t Letter to t
Letter to Letter
t to t Letter toLetter
t to t
I M
Criiicjue ofsa"published
ap w f i T ^ a r i s t k ^ snsource
d analysis j Scene from
Letter to a stage
t Letter to t fjiay
Letter to t
Letter to t Letter to t
Letter to t LetterLetter
to t to t
M ap w f i T s ^ a r i s t k ^ sn d analysis Letter to t
Letter to t Letter to Lt etter to t
Letter to t Letter to t
Ferris, Dana R., and John Hedgcock. Teaching L2 Composition : Purpose, Process, and Practice, Routledge, 2013.
ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/asulib-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1434037.
Created from asulib-ebooks on 2019-08-14 17:19:55.
144 Reading, Genre Awareness, and Task Design

!. Editorial ■ Songl^ricfi ._
j E-mail m essage j Speech
i Encyclopedia or W ikipedia eni’ry : Summons
i .Jt^Jtuy. LT^J?Jsi maintain
I Facebook post I Talk show segment
! Facebook wail j Tall taie
i. !r.?j.ry.M ? . maintain maintain
I FAQ sheet EJe xt message
j Film poster j Textbook chapter
i Film review i Tim eline
j Film scene i To^do list
j Financial report j Top ten list
j GhOSt story I Transportation schedule
{ Glossary ! Travel brochuire lj _
! Graphic novel [ Travel itinerary
{ G reeling card { Tribute
; H andbook r TV advertis a m 6h t
I Infomercial I TV program review
{ inform ational video ! Tweet
j Inner..^Bnologue j_User's manual_
{ Interview i Lrtilrtjr bill,
j Invitation [ Vignette
I Joke I V d o e m a il [passage
I Journal entry ! W ebsite
I L ast wiif and teslam ent I W orship service
I. maintain
!?.rM 1. maintain .video.

Notes
1. A state-of-the-art treatment of L2 reading research and instruction is regrettably beyond
the scope of this volume, but we encourage readers to consult leading sources explor-
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

ing the interdependence of reading and writing processes (see the Further Reading and
Resources section at the end of this chapter).
2. Primary sources examining the interlingual transfer of reading skills include: Alderson
(1984); Bossers (1991); Carrell (1991); Hayashi (2004, 2009); Hulstijn (1991); Hulstijn
and Bossers (1992); Koda (1995, 2007b, 2011); Lee and Schallert (1997); Shokrpour and
Gibbons (2000).
3. Further sources on interlingual reading–writing relationships include: Belanger (1987);
Bernhardt and Kamil (1995); Carson (1993); Carson et al. (1990); Cumming (1989);
Cummins (1981); Day and Bamford (1998); Elley and Mangubhai (1983); Fakhri
(1994); Flahive and Bailey (1993); Frodesen and Holten (2003); Grabe (2009); Grabe
and Stoller (2011); Hedgcock and Atkinson (1993); Hirose and Sasaki (1994); Hyon
(2002); Ito (2004); James (2009); Janopoulos (1986); Johns (1995b, 2008); Jones and
Tetroe (1987); Krashen (1984, 1985, 2004); McQuillan (1994); Mikulecky (2011);
Mustafa (1995); Nation (1997, 2009); Nelson and Calfee (1998); Pennington and So
(1993); and Stotsky (1983).

4. Genre theorists distinguish genre clusters from related genre collectives. Devitt (1991)
defined the genre set as a complete array of texts that a particular literacy or discourse
community produces and consumes. For instance, science students and teachers work
with a genre set including textbooks, lab reports, lectures, and demonstrations. A genre
chain, in contrast, can comprise a succession of genres in a given context. Swales (2004)
provided this example: “a formal invitation to speak at a . . . colloquium, an accept-
ance (perhaps by e-mail), the presentation itself, and then perhaps a thank-you letter—
possibly enclosing a check” (p. 18).
5. Papers and technical reports describing this research, archived by the National Center for
the Study of Writing and Literacy, are available at the National Writing Project website:
http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/doc/resources/techreports.csp
Copyright © 2013. Routledge. All rights reserved.

Finals Lesson 2 Development of Motivation and Self-Regulation, Moral Development Theories
100% (2)
Finals Lesson 2 Development of Motivation and Self-Regulation, Moral Development Theories
18 pages
Teaching English As Second Language Theory, Techniques and Technology (Aarati R. Mujumdar) (Z-Library)
100% (2)
Teaching English As Second Language Theory, Techniques and Technology (Aarati R. Mujumdar) (Z-Library)
331 pages
Counselling and Its Types of Approaches.
100% (2)
Counselling and Its Types of Approaches.
27 pages
Ghafouri Et Al (2024) From Virtual Assistant To Writing Mentor Exploring The Impact of A Chatgpt Based Writing
No ratings yet
Ghafouri Et Al (2024) From Virtual Assistant To Writing Mentor Exploring The Impact of A Chatgpt Based Writing
23 pages
Liu & Braine 2005 Cohesive Features in Argumentative Writing Produced by Chinese Undergraduates
100% (3)
Liu & Braine 2005 Cohesive Features in Argumentative Writing Produced by Chinese Undergraduates
14 pages
Previewpdf
No ratings yet
Previewpdf
25 pages
English As A Medium of Instruction - Intro
No ratings yet
English As A Medium of Instruction - Intro
34 pages
Ielts Writing Task 2
100% (1)
Ielts Writing Task 2
17 pages
Understanding Language Tests and Testing Practices
No ratings yet
Understanding Language Tests and Testing Practices
24 pages
Previewpdf
No ratings yet
Previewpdf
116 pages
Guariento Morley 2001
No ratings yet
Guariento Morley 2001
8 pages
A Dozen Heads Are Better Than One Collaborative Writing in Genre Based Pedagogy Nigel Caplan, Monica Farling
No ratings yet
A Dozen Heads Are Better Than One Collaborative Writing in Genre Based Pedagogy Nigel Caplan, Monica Farling
18 pages
ESP - Ch7 - Assessment and Testing in ESP
No ratings yet
ESP - Ch7 - Assessment and Testing in ESP
30 pages
AI and Formative Assessments
No ratings yet
AI and Formative Assessments
9 pages
Reading Comprenhension Strategies Scrivener
No ratings yet
Reading Comprenhension Strategies Scrivener
65 pages
Paper of How To Teach Writing
100% (1)
Paper of How To Teach Writing
29 pages
Towards Acquiring Communicative Competence Through Writing
67% (3)
Towards Acquiring Communicative Competence Through Writing
27 pages
Teachers' Viewpoint: Translanguaging in English-Instructed Classes
No ratings yet
Teachers' Viewpoint: Translanguaging in English-Instructed Classes
6 pages
Theoretical Perspectives and Strategies For Teaching and Learning Writing
100% (1)
Theoretical Perspectives and Strategies For Teaching and Learning Writing
25 pages
Components of Reading Comprehension in Adolescent First-Language and Second-Language Students From Low-Track Schools
100% (1)
Components of Reading Comprehension in Adolescent First-Language and Second-Language Students From Low-Track Schools
25 pages
Theory Into Practice: Click For Updates
No ratings yet
Theory Into Practice: Click For Updates
12 pages
Wallace.M.Training Foreign Language Teachers
No ratings yet
Wallace.M.Training Foreign Language Teachers
14 pages
Grabe 1991
No ratings yet
Grabe 1991
32 pages
Curriculum Design (EAP: Academic Writing)
50% (2)
Curriculum Design (EAP: Academic Writing)
49 pages
Ellis Rod
100% (1)
Ellis Rod
15 pages
Conditions For Learning Process of Learning
No ratings yet
Conditions For Learning Process of Learning
41 pages
Program Book NileTESOL 2018 Final Jan-3
No ratings yet
Program Book NileTESOL 2018 Final Jan-3
68 pages
Ferris and Hedgcock CH05
No ratings yet
Ferris and Hedgcock CH05
50 pages
Badger R White G 1999 A Process Genre Approach To Teaching Writing
No ratings yet
Badger R White G 1999 A Process Genre Approach To Teaching Writing
8 pages
Reading Horizons Vol. 37 No. 2
0% (1)
Reading Horizons Vol. 37 No. 2
88 pages
Ellis Moura o 2021 ETP
No ratings yet
Ellis Moura o 2021 ETP
4 pages
Text Messaging and Literacy - The Evidence
0% (1)
Text Messaging and Literacy - The Evidence
38 pages
Writing - Penny Ur-Harmer-Scrivener Resumen
No ratings yet
Writing - Penny Ur-Harmer-Scrivener Resumen
18 pages
Teaching Reading in The Foreign Language Classroom: Resumo
No ratings yet
Teaching Reading in The Foreign Language Classroom: Resumo
8 pages
A Comparison Between Deductive and Inductive Appro
No ratings yet
A Comparison Between Deductive and Inductive Appro
13 pages
Polysemy in Qur'an
0% (1)
Polysemy in Qur'an
7 pages
The Functional Approach To Second Langua PDF
No ratings yet
The Functional Approach To Second Langua PDF
14 pages
Content Language Integrated Learning Glossary
100% (1)
Content Language Integrated Learning Glossary
13 pages
Psycho Linguistics
100% (1)
Psycho Linguistics
7 pages
Language Systems Assessment 2: Skills: Helping Learners Write Semi-Formal Emails
No ratings yet
Language Systems Assessment 2: Skills: Helping Learners Write Semi-Formal Emails
13 pages
Customer Service Executive
100% (1)
Customer Service Executive
54 pages
Cohesive Features in Argumentative Writing Produced by Chinese Undergraduates
No ratings yet
Cohesive Features in Argumentative Writing Produced by Chinese Undergraduates
14 pages
Constructing A Language Assessment Knowledge Base
100% (1)
Constructing A Language Assessment Knowledge Base
19 pages
Out of The Woods in Writing
No ratings yet
Out of The Woods in Writing
25 pages
Breen, M. (1987) - Learner Contributions To Task Design. in C. Candlin and D. Murphy (Eds.)
No ratings yet
Breen, M. (1987) - Learner Contributions To Task Design. in C. Candlin and D. Murphy (Eds.)
2 pages
Legal Philosophy As Practical Philosophy: Revus
No ratings yet
Legal Philosophy As Practical Philosophy: Revus
25 pages
AW Guide Critical Analysis Explained
No ratings yet
AW Guide Critical Analysis Explained
6 pages
Evaluating English For Intermediate Level's Coursebook Using Cunningsworth's Checklist
No ratings yet
Evaluating English For Intermediate Level's Coursebook Using Cunningsworth's Checklist
19 pages
A. B. C. D. A. B. C. D.: Câu 1: Which of The Following Is NOT A Minimal Pair?
No ratings yet
A. B. C. D. A. B. C. D.: Câu 1: Which of The Following Is NOT A Minimal Pair?
9 pages
Creative Speech
No ratings yet
Creative Speech
9 pages
Grammar Teaching-Practice or Consciousness-Raising - Ellis - Sem Comentários...
No ratings yet
Grammar Teaching-Practice or Consciousness-Raising - Ellis - Sem Comentários...
5 pages
Review of From Rules To Reasons by Danny Norrington-Davies (Pavilion 2016)
No ratings yet
Review of From Rules To Reasons by Danny Norrington-Davies (Pavilion 2016)
3 pages
Reading Principles and Teaching
No ratings yet
Reading Principles and Teaching
2 pages
Review - Teaching Second Language Reading
No ratings yet
Review - Teaching Second Language Reading
3 pages
Task Based Learning
No ratings yet
Task Based Learning
13 pages
(Review) William Grabe - Insights Into Second Language Reading by Keiko Koda
No ratings yet
(Review) William Grabe - Insights Into Second Language Reading by Keiko Koda
6 pages
Inference Making While Reading Narrative and Expository Texts
No ratings yet
Inference Making While Reading Narrative and Expository Texts
9 pages
Danielson Framework Rubric School Counselors
No ratings yet
Danielson Framework Rubric School Counselors
7 pages
C - Fakepathsyl - Inter.solutions Autumn2022
No ratings yet
C - Fakepathsyl - Inter.solutions Autumn2022
12 pages
Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing
No ratings yet
Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing
1 page
PHYSIOLOGY OF lEARNING AND MEMORY PDF
No ratings yet
PHYSIOLOGY OF lEARNING AND MEMORY PDF
17 pages
Anum Saddique 0000762728 General Methods of Teaching 8601 B.ED (1.5 YEARS) SPRING 2024 1 2
No ratings yet
Anum Saddique 0000762728 General Methods of Teaching 8601 B.ED (1.5 YEARS) SPRING 2024 1 2
22 pages
Contoh Paper Tugas Studi Kasus Pancasila
No ratings yet
Contoh Paper Tugas Studi Kasus Pancasila
9 pages
Recommender System
No ratings yet
Recommender System
26 pages
Section 13: Teachig Writing
No ratings yet
Section 13: Teachig Writing
26 pages
Social Networking and Interpersonal Communication and Conflict Re
No ratings yet
Social Networking and Interpersonal Communication and Conflict Re
62 pages
Writing in A Second Language
No ratings yet
Writing in A Second Language
10 pages
What Are The Different Forces of Change in The Workplace
No ratings yet
What Are The Different Forces of Change in The Workplace
2 pages
H G Widdowson Article Review
100% (1)
H G Widdowson Article Review
2 pages
Psychology: History & Perspectives
No ratings yet
Psychology: History & Perspectives
32 pages
The Role of Repetition in CLIL Teacher Discoursce
No ratings yet
The Role of Repetition in CLIL Teacher Discoursce
10 pages
English Grammar - Wish: Wishes About The Present and Future
No ratings yet
English Grammar - Wish: Wishes About The Present and Future
2 pages
Learning Outcomes:: Lesson I Basic Concepts of The Self
No ratings yet
Learning Outcomes:: Lesson I Basic Concepts of The Self
8 pages
Rubric-Descriptive Writing-Setting
No ratings yet
Rubric-Descriptive Writing-Setting
1 page
ACW Test 1 Task 1 Band 6.0
No ratings yet
ACW Test 1 Task 1 Band 6.0
2 pages
Reading Writing and Learning in Esl
0% (4)
Reading Writing and Learning in Esl
11 pages
The Sounds of Language: An Introduction To Phonetics and Phonology by Elizabeth C. Zsiga
No ratings yet
The Sounds of Language: An Introduction To Phonetics and Phonology by Elizabeth C. Zsiga
6 pages
Leadership Theories and Styles With KSB
No ratings yet
Leadership Theories and Styles With KSB
21 pages
Phillip Kevin Lane: Kotler - Keller
No ratings yet
Phillip Kevin Lane: Kotler - Keller
32 pages
Lecture 2
No ratings yet
Lecture 2
22 pages
A Dangerous Method Film Analysis
No ratings yet
A Dangerous Method Film Analysis
2 pages
Harmony in Family
No ratings yet
Harmony in Family
16 pages
Shadows Learner Guide
No ratings yet
Shadows Learner Guide
2 pages
Teaching Writing Through Genre Analysis
No ratings yet
Teaching Writing Through Genre Analysis
8 pages
Bba 106
No ratings yet
Bba 106
2 pages
Act 1
No ratings yet
Act 1
2 pages
What Is Programming
No ratings yet
What Is Programming
1 page
Teaching Collocation
From Everand
Teaching Collocation
Carol Nelson
No ratings yet
Teaching English to Adult Second Language Learners
From Everand
Teaching English to Adult Second Language Learners
James Poon
No ratings yet
English as a Language of Teaching and Learning for Community Secondary Schools in Tanzania: A Critical Analysis
From Everand
English as a Language of Teaching and Learning for Community Secondary Schools in Tanzania: A Critical Analysis
Elia Shabani Mligo
No ratings yet

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.