02 Genre Based Literacy Programmes JR Martin (1)

8/13/2019 02 Genre Based Literacy Programmes JR Martin (1)

1/24

()

()

doi : 10.1558/lhs.v7i1-3.5

Article

Genre-based literacy programmes:

contextualizing the SLATE project

J. R. Martin

Abstract

Tis paper positions the work o the SLAE project within the general theoreticalramework o the genre-based literacy programmes ofen reerred to as the SydneySchool. Te Schools general approach to genre is outlined, including the way it

positions genre theory as part o a systemic unctional model o language and

semiosis. Te paper reviews the ways in which this genre theory has been used toanalyse texts, renovate curriculum and design pedagogy with a view to providingall students with access to academic literacy. Te importance and challenges oembedding literacy programmes o this kind within subject areas and disciplines

is canvassed in relation to unctional linguistic perspectives on field and socialrealist sociological work on knowledge structure. Finally the challenges aced by

the SLAE project in adapting Sydney school initiatives to an on-line environmentare introduced.

K: ; ; ; S S

1. Background

In educational linguistics, reerence to the Sydney School draws attention

to the emergence o genre-based literacy programmes in Australia, as cata-

lysed by a language in education workshop organized by Michael Halliday

Affiliation

University of Sydney, Australia.

email: [email protected]


2/24

6 G-

at the University o Sydney in 1979. Tis meeting spawned the Writing Pro-

ject, directed by mysel and Joan Rothery, with a ocus on describing types

o writing in inants and primary school. By 1984 Rothery had begun to

address the pedagogical implications o this work, developing new class-room strategies or getting students to write in a range o genres across the

curriculum.

In 1986 Mike Callaghan o the Metropolitan East Regions Disadvan-

taged Schools Program (hereafer DSP) approached Rothery and mysel

with a view to developing this seminal work in inants and primary schools

which had high concentrations o indigenous, migrant and working class

students. Tis invitation grew into the Language and Social Power Project,

which developed materials or introducing teachers and studies to a range

o genres, and refined the pedagogy used or teaching them. By 1990, Sue

Doran (rom the same DSP centre) had secured unding to push this action

research initiative into secondary school and the workplace. Tis unding

supported the Write it Right project (Veel, 2006), with its ocus on genre

writing across a range o secondary school subjects and selected workplace

sites (science industry, media and administration); in addition the pedagogy

was urther refined.

In late 2000, David Rose returned to Sydney rom Adelaide, where he had

been working with Brian Gray on reading programmes or indigenous stu-dents. Tis work developed into his Reading to Learn initiatives, expand-

ing on the writing ocus o the earlier phases o Sydney School research.Rose and Martin (2012) develops this history in more detail, underscoring

the ways in which the designation o the work as Sydney School becomesan every increasing misnomer as genre-based literacy programmes spread

across Australia and around the world (as reflected or example very early

on in the proceedings o the Writing to Mean conerence held in Sydney in1985; Painter and Martin (1986)). For complementary accounts o the devel-

opment o this educational linguistics, inormed as it was by systemic unc-

tional linguistic (hereafer SFL) theory, see Rothery (1996), Martin (2000),Feez (2002), Macken-Horarik (2002), Christie and Unsworth (2005), Veel

(2006); or a comprehensive introduction and reerences to key publicationssee Rose and Martin (2012).

It was in late 2007 that the Sydney School first engaged with the Language

Companion Course (hereafer LCC) then underway at City University Hong

Kong. LCC, as it was operating at the time, provided on-line support or

undergraduate students in the orm o tutor eedback on drafs o their writ-ten assignments beore submission. Tis support involved either the insertion

o numerical indices linked to a comment bank rom which students could

recover eedback, or written advice inserted directly into students texts. A


3/24

J. R. M 7

screen shot o the interace students and on-line tutors were viewing is pre-

sented as Figure 1.

Figure 1:Screen interface for LCC feedback, including comment bank.

Although a small percentage o comments in the LCC comment bank

were oriented to coherence (e.g. unclear introduction, logical sequence,

mismatch between topic sentences and illustration), the vast majority o

comments indexed on student writing dealt with low level spelling, punc-tuation and grammar issues. High requency comments rom LCC tutors

during this initial phase o its development are displayed in able 1 and

represent a very traditional editing orientation to student writing. An

example o indexed and written eedback is presented as text [1] (with

written eedback enclosed in square brackets). A second draf, with more

eedback, is presented as text [1'], and the final submitted assignment as

[1'']. As il lustrated, the basic instructional strategy at play here is repair

students are expected to learn rom the mistakes they make how to write abetter text.


4/24

8 G-

Table 1:High frequency comment bank selections by LCC tutors

[1] IntroductionTis is an [15]email rom the Barack Obama campaign that [15]isabout donation request. By using systemic unctional analysis, and rhetorical struc-

ture theory analysis, we can find that how its [29] [its not very clear what you arereerring to here when you use its] grammatical realization fits the writers purpose

and the situation. Besides[14], we also discuss similarities and differences in styleto compare [use either compared with or in comparison to] with the two previous

emails rom the campaign.

[1'] IntroductionTis email [what email are you talking about?] rom the Barack

Obama is to ask [is asking or] or [01]donation. By using systemic unctional analy-sis, and rhetorical structure theory analysis, these analyses can find [58] [demon-strate] how grammatical realization fits the writers purpose and the situation. In

addition, the similarities and differences in style compared with the two previous

emails rom the campaign will be discussed. Te intention o Obama writing this text

is to ask or donation rom Americans and reject to accept money rom the Wash-ington lobbyists and special interest groups. [this final sentence should be the second

sentence o the introduction] [you also need to summarise what you are going to talk

about in your essay in this section].

[1''] Introduction Tis is the third Barack Obamas letter about asking or a dona-

tion. Te intention o Obama writing this text and the previous two emails is to ask

or donation rom Americans and reject money rom the Washington lobbyists and

special interest groups. By using systemic unctional analysis and rhetorical struc-

ture theory analysis, these analyses can demonstrate how grammatical realization fits

the writers purpose and the situation. In addition, the similarities and differences in

grammar and style compared with the two previous emails rom the campaign will

be discussed.


5/24

J. R. M 9

From the perspective o the Sydney School this kind o writing instructionseemed the wrong way round. Rather than letting students make mistakes andinvolving instructors in time-consuming and painstaking processes o repair, its

genre-based literacy programmes invest heavily in a ront-loaded pedagogy. Tisinvolves presenting students with models o the kind o writing they are assigned,and writing additional models with students beore asking them to write on theirown all the while developing shared understandings o text structure, romglobal patterns right through to local design (eed orward i you will). Sections 25 o this paper develop the basic understandings inorming aliteracy pedagogy o this kind. Section 6 then addresses the challenges this lit-eracy programme aced in the context o moving on-line and renovating LCCpedagogy and curriculum.

2. Genre

Sydney School action research is generally characterized as genre-based becauseof the role played by SFL genre theory (Feez, 1998; Martin and Rose, 2008; de Silva

Joyce and Feez, 2012). Tis unctional linguistic approach to genre was inspiredin part by Rotherys work, alongside key contributions by Plum on spoken storygenres (e.g. Martin and Plum, 1997) and Ventola (e.g. 1987) on service encoun-ters. It characterizes genre as a recurrent configuration o meaning, phased in

discourse as a staged, goal-oriented social process. ext 2 below exemplifies thisapproach; it is a actorial explanation rom an Australian junior secondary geog-raphy textbook, explaining how mulga trees survive in their desert environment.Its stages have been labelled (as the relational categories Outcome, Factors), eacho which is a recurrent sub-configuration o meaning within this genre.

[2] Outcome

Surviving the long drought

Te mulga tree likes long droughts i it is too wet mulga trees will not grow.

Factor

Te shape o the mulga tree is a key to it surviving dry times. Te branches o the

mulga an out rom the bottom like a huge hal moon. Te branching leaves and

stems catch the rain and it trickles down to the soil. Tis traps more rainall than i

the tree grew straight up. Te mulga catches more water than a gum tree. Tis water

is stored in the soil to be used by the tree during the next drought.

Factor

Even the mulgas leaves help it survive the drought. Tey are a silver grey colour. Te

suns rays bounce off the leaves helping the plant to stay cool.

Factor

Also the mulga tree makes its own ood by dropping thousands o leaves. (Scott and

Robinson 1993: 22)


6/24

10 G-

Te distinguishing eature o our approach to genre was that it was based onconfigurations o meaning, inormed by SFL accounts o language as a social

semiotic system or phonology (Halliday and Greaves, 2008), lexicogram-

mar (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004), discourse semantics (Martin, 1992;Martin and Rose, 2003/2007), register (Christie and Martin, 1997; Martin,

1992), genre (Martin and Rose, 2008) and attendant images (Kress and vanLeeuwen, 1996/2006).

Tis kind o orientation to what students have to learn to read and write

has challenged SFL researchers to map curricula as systems o genres. Exem-plary explorations include history (Veel and Coffin, 1996; Coffin, 1997, 2006),

science (Halliday and Martin, 1993; Unsworth, 1997; Veel, 1997; Martin andVeel, 1998), English (Rothery and Stenglin, 1997), academic discourse (Hood,

2010) and mathematics (OHalloran, 2005). It has also challenged researchersto explore classroom discourse rom the perspective o what Christie (2002)calls curriculum genres. Tis perspective on teacher/student interaction has

proven invaluable as ar as the design o innovative literacy pedagogy is con-cerned (see section 4 below).

3. Genre and curriculum

With respect to curriculum, the Sydney School challenges educators to makedecisions about which genres are introduced to students and when. Our ownresearch showed that students can be introduced to a range o actual and storygenres, beginning in inants and primary school and that each genre can bedeveloped through inants, primary, junior secondary, senior secondary andtertiary sectors. Unortunately, since not every genre can be covered in a singleschool year, curriculum designers have tended to make under-inormed deci-sions about which genres are most appropriate or students o different ages. Inspite o having no basis in research, the childist idea that story genres need to be

introduced beore actual ones has ofen taken hold. Schleppegrell (2004) andChristie and Derewianka (2008) exempliy the kind o research which gives thelie to suppositions o this kind.

What really matters as ar as genre curricula are concerned is disciplinarity.Whatever the genre, students need something to write about; and whether one

is engaging students by tuning in to their lie outside o school or apprentic-

ing them into a particular school subject, there are genres which will and wontacilitate the task. What really matters in other words is embedded literacy

the idea that genres enact their social purpose in relation to spheres o domes-

tic, recreational, occupational, spiritual and academic lie. I or example wetake the discipline o history, as it is recontextualized in Australian second-

ary schools, we can design a spiral curriculum based on linguistic principleswhich moves students systematically rom genres they are likely to be amiliar


7/24

J. R. M 11

within the spoken culture they have been part o and continue to participatein outside o school through those required or high stakes reading and writ-

ing in ancient and modern history. A genre pathway o this kind is outlined

or secondary school history in Figure 2, based on research outlined in Coffin(1997, 2006), Martin (2002, 2003) and Veel and Coffin (1996) (c. de Oliveira,

2011). For an introduction to the genres construing this pathway and the con-figurations o meaning constituting them, see Chapter 3 o Martin and Rose

(2008). For comparable work on science see Veel (1997), and or English see

Rothery and Stenglin (1997).

sequence

in time

settingin timestory to history

recount to account

account to explanation

explanation to argument

exposition through discussion

time

causechronology

rhetoricexternal

cause

internalcause

one sided

multi-sided

Figure 2:A spiral curriculum for secondary school history genres.

4. Genre and pedagogy

As ar as pedagogy is concerned, the Sydney School challenges educators

to change the ways in which students are introduced to genres. raditional

writing pedagogy (with a sage on a stage) typically involves a short lecture,

sometimes accompanied by a model text, on the basis o which students are

expected to write on their own and make progress in relation to eedback

rom teachers typically with a prescriptive ocus on spelling, punctuation

and low level grammar eatures (e.g. subject-verb agreement). Progressivist/

constructivist writing pedagogy (with a guide on the side) typically involves

an invitation or students to write, seldom accompanied by a model text,with progress acilitated by teachers encouraging students to engage with rel-

evant and supposedly motivating subject matter. Te basic opposition here is

between what Bernstein (1975) calls visible and invisible pedagogy. Bernstein


8/24

12 G-

sources these to actions o the middle class (old and new respectively), and

suggests that neither pedagogy is likely to work in the interests o students

rom other social backgrounds, a point strongly confirmed in our research

(Martin, 1999; c. Alexander, 2000; Hattie, 2009). Accordingly, our educational linguists worked closely with teachers to

renovate literacy pedagogy in the direction o a curriculum genre with the

potential to successully apprentice all students into high stakes genre writ-

ing, regardless o their background. Te best-known model o the curricu-

lum genres deriving rom this action research is presented as Figure 3 below

(or discussion see Rothery, 1989, 1996; Martin, 1999). As the building field

bricks and mortar moti indicates, we are dealing here with an embedded lit-

eracy programme in which relevant content is assembled and shared as part o

learning to write a genre. In addition, as the setting context prosody affirms,

the role played in the culture by the genre being taught is continually ore-

grounded so that the purpose or writing remains clear. And as the nucleus o

the diagram attests, the ultimate goal o the pedagogy is to give students both

control o and a critical orientation to the genre.

Figure 3:Sydney School teaching/learning cycle for teaching genre writing

As a curriculum genre, the teaching/learning cycle (hereafer LC) movesthrough three main steps Deconstruction, Joint Construction and Independ-

ent Construction. Deconstruction involves field building activities leading toteachers explaining a model text to students. Te ocus is on its social unction,its name (e.g. actorial explanation), its canonical staging (e.g. Outcome andFactors) and where shared knowledge about language is available, discussion


9/24

J. R. M 13

o sub-staging including the key linguistic eatures composing the text. Jointconstruction involves building up a related field ollowed by teachers acting as akind o scribe composing (on a black or white board or smart board, or using

an OHP or butchers paper), in ront o the class, another model o the genrebased on oral suggestions by students during the scribing process. Tis stepis designed to make learning to write more like learning to talk, based on theprinciple o guidance through interaction in the context o shared experience,derived rom Painters studies o spoken language development by pre-schoolchildren and their carers in the home (1984, 1986, 1998; c. Gibbons, 2002, 2006,2009 and Hammond, 2001 on scaffolding). Te power o the pedagogy dependscrucially on this step (or urther discussion see Hunt, 1994). Ten, providingteachers judge students to be ready, another related field is built up and students

try writing on their own. Te basic principle is or teachers never to ask studentsto write anything until they have discussed a model o the genre at stake withthem, jointly constructed another model o that genre with them and decidedthey are ready or the independent writing task. Where students are not ready,urther cycles o deconstruction and joint construction can be undertaken, withsmaller groups o students. For students at all levels, one o the major challenges posed by the Figure3 LC just outlined is the problem o having to read relevant materials or

building field as well as read the model texts that are being deconstructed andjointly constructed. Te Reading to Learn programmes developed by Roseand his colleagues (Rose, 2007, 2008, 2011a, 2011b; Rose and Martin, 2012)have addressed these challenges by designing curriculum genres that providespace or reading instruction. Tis has involved both global and local design. Globally, the Reading to Learn programme takes learning a curriculum fieldthrough reading as its starting point, and writing or evaluation as its goal, via aflexible sequence o nine activities. Preparing or Reading supports all studentsin a class to ollow a text with general understanding as it is read aloud, identiy

its key inormation, and make notes i it is a actual text. Tese notes may laterbe used or a Joint Construction, as described above. Where time permits, JointConstruction is ollowed by Individual Construction, in which students may usethe same notes to write texts o their own in the same genre. Conversely, i thegenre under ocus is a story, Individual Construction ollows the same genericpatterns as the Joint Construction, but with the students own ideas or charac-ters, events and settings. One or two Joint and Individual Constructions are pro-grammed or each genre, beore students are expected to write independently. o ensure that all students can independently read curriculum texts with ull

comprehension, and use their language resources in their own writing, passagesare selected rom the reading and model texts or Detailed Reading and Rewrit-ing. Detailed Reading involves careully designed sentence-by-sentence guid-ance. Each sentence in the selected passage is first paraphrased or students, in


10/24

14 G-

terms that all can understand, and read aloud. Students are then guided to readeach salient element o the sentence through interaction cycles o the kind out-lined in Figure 4 (c. Martin and Rose 2005, 2007; Martin, 2007).

Figure 4:The local design of Reading to Learn detailed reading interactions

Te Prepare move gives the meaning o the element to the class as a whole, in

terms that all can understand. A Focus question is then addressed to a particu-

lar student, whose task is to Identiy the element and read it aloud. As a result o

the preparation, the evaluation can always Affirm the chosen student, ensuring

that all are successully engaged in the interaction around the text. Te teacher

then directs the class to highlight the exact wording in the sentence. Teir suc-

cess in turn ensures that all students benefit rom the Elaborate move, in which

the meaning is urther defined, explained or discussed (e.g. unpacking unamil-

iar terms, abstract nominalizations and lexical metaphors) and related to stu-dents experience. A micro-interaction o this kind might unold as ollows:

Teacher Prepare sentence This sentence tells us the first factor that helps mulga

survive droughts. The shape of the mulga tree is a key to

it surviving dry times.

Prepare Its starts by telling us what that factor is.

Focus Jane, can you see what the first factor is?

Student Identify The shape of the mulga tree.Teacher Affirm Thats exactly right, its shape.

Direct Lets highlight the word shape.

Elaborate So its shape is one factor that helps mulga survive

droughts.

Note that just one or more paragraphs may be selected or Detailed Reading ones that are particularly dense or technical or example. Te preparationabove assumes that the term actor has already been introduced, as the texts

field and genre have been discussed. Trough such guidance, key inormationin the passage is highlighted. Students then take turns scribing this inorma-tion as notes on the class board, and the teacher guides them to rewrite thesenotes as a new text, in Joint Rewriting. Students can then use the same notes


11/24

J. R. M 15

or Individual Rewriting o a text as different as possible rom the joint text,with the teacher circulating and providing as much guidance as needed. Teocus here is on developing the grammatical resources or writing technical

discourse, embedded in learning the curiculum. With stories and persuasivegenres, Detailed Reading ocuses on literary or evaluative language patternso a selected passage, and Joint and Individual Rewriting ollow the same lan-guage patterns with different content. Particularly in primary school, support may proceed to Sentence Making,Spelling and Sentence Writing activities. One or more sentences rom theDetailed Reading passage are written on cardboard strips, which students areguided to cut up and re-arrange, strengthening their control over the grammat-ical patterns. Individual words are then cut up into their letter patterns, which

students practise spelling on individual whiteboards. Tey then use this spellingknowledge to practise writing the whole sentences on their boards. Te ocusat this level is thus on oundation literacy skills, embedded in reading and writ-ing curriculum texts. Tis level o intensive language activities can be especiallyhelpul or students who are just beginning to read and write, who have beenstruggling with literacy, or are learning English as an additional language (theseactivities can be useully supplemented in ESL/EFL contexts by drawing thetext-based grammar building suggestions in Jones and Lock (2010)).

Tese nine sets o strategies are schematized in Figure 5, as three cyclesproviding different levels o scaffolding support or reading and writing thecurriculum.

Figure 5:Reading to Learn teaching/learning cycles


12/24

16 G-

As with all Sydney School curriculum genres, movement around or betweencycles is at the discretion o the teacher, depending on students literacy levelsin relation to the challenge o the genres in ocus. Educators concerned about

the relevance o the various cycles considered here or able students need tokeep in mind that literacy learning is a lielong process, and that in these LCstexts are generally chosen which challenge the whole class. In various publications (e.g. Martin, 1999; Rose and Martin, 2012), SydneySchool pedagogy has been positioned in relation to an adaptation o Bernsteins(1990) topology o pedagogies (extending the visible/invisible pedagogy oppo-sition noted above). In Figure 6, his vertical axis positions pedagogies accord-ing to the degree to which they emphasize changing individuals or changingsociety; his horizontal axis positions pedagogies according to whether they

emphasize acquisition or transmission. Tis places the Sydney School in thelower right-hand quadrant, as a visible pedagogy ocusing on apprenticeshipinto high stakes genres that students can use to make a difference not only orsuccess in their own education but in the world outside. Martin (1999) accord-ingly tags this apparently conservative pedagogic practice as subversive (com-plemented in Figure 6 by liberal, conservative and radical alternatives).

Progressivist/construc.vist

pedagogies (Rousseau, Piaget,

Chomsky, Goodman)

Tradi.onal pedagogies

Behaviourist theories

Cri.cal pedagogic theories(Freire, Giroux, Illich,

Bourdieu)

Social-psychological pedagogictheories (Vygotsky, Bruner,

Gray, Rothery, Mar.n, Rose)

intra-individual

inter-group

acquisi3on transmission focus of

pedagogy

invisible pedagogy visible pedagogy

liberal conserva.ve

subversiveradical

focus of

change

Figure 6:Types of pedagogy (after Bernstein 1990: 213214)

5. Beyond genre register and languageAs an embedded literacy programme the Sydney School challenges educatorsto always think about genre in relation to the register variable field, which,ollowing Martin (1992), ocuses on the sequences o activity pursued in one


13/24

J. R. M 17

or another walk o lie and the relevant taxonomies o the people, places andthings participating in these activities. Bernstein 1996/2000 suggests a map-ping o fields in which common sense (horizontal discourse) is distinguished

rom uncommon sense (vertical discourse); and within vertical discourse, thehierarchical knowledge structures o the sciences are opposed to the horizon-tal knowledge structures o the humanities.

Based on discussions documented in Christie and Martin (2007) andChristie and Maton (2011), Martin (2011) develops this cartography o fieldsas Figure 7, positioning social science on a cline between science and humani-ties. In this image, the triangles represent the tendency o science (and specifictheories within social science) to progress by developing more abstract prin-ciples subsuming additional data. In contrast the humanities tend to develop

by proposing new ways o interpreting relevant texts, with privileging gazes(the Ls, representing Bernsteins languages o description, in Figure 7) pass-ing in and out o ashion over time. Te multiple triangles proposed or socialscience in Figure 7 indicate the general inability o these disciplines to achieveconsensus about the subsumption o additional data into deeper theory; theyalso reflect the tendency or social sciences to develop new theories o thesame or expanded data or even an adjusted object o enquiry. Te bigger tri-angle (like the bigger Ls) symbolizes the way in which one or another theory

gains institutional ascendency or a period o time. Te SLAE project hasconcentrated on undergraduate tertiary apprenticeship into one hierarchicalknowledge structure (biology) and one horizontal one (linguistics). For oun-dational SFL work on science see Halliday and Martin (1993) and Halliday(2004); or social science see Wignell (2007a, b).

Figure 7:Martins (2011) adaptation of Bernsteins proposals for mapping academic fields.

As a rule o thumb, the more hierarchical a knowledge structure, the moretechnicality it deploys to accumulate knowledge its technical terms in other


14/24

18 G-

words construe the field (along with abstract diagrams and mathematicalsymbolism as required; OHalloran (2005)). From the perspective o unctional linguistics, however, it is also important to

ocus on the register variable mode since vertical discourses, however techni-cal, are ar more abstract than horizontal ones. Crucial here is consideration othe role o grammatical metaphor in the texture o vertical discourse, enabling asit does the construal o uncommon sense knowledge across disciplines. Supposeor example with reerence to text 1s mulga tree we write thatAdaptations haveenabled drought survival. In doing so we are relating two nominalized abstrac-tions (adaptations and drought survival) to one another through a process o ena-blement (have enabled) one thing leads to another, not between clauses (likewhen we talk) but within a single clause (as Agent Process Medium; Halliday and

Matthiessen, 2004). Te spoken version o this sentence might be something likeTe mulga tree has adapted in several ways and so it survives droughts. In linguistic terms what is going on here is that a semantic sequence withone event causing another is being realized grammatically as a single clause.For this to happen the two semantic figures involved in this sequence have tobe realized as nominal groups (several adaptationsand drought survival). Tissemantic figure to grammatical group relation is outlined in Figure 8. Tiskind o realization between semantics and grammar is reerred to as grammat-

ical metaphor (Halliday and Matthiseen, 2004) because there are two mean-ings involved, in a figure-to-ground relationship, with the grammar symbol-izing the semantics by way o making it recoverable. What is semantically anevent in other words is construed grammatically as a thing, with the strataltension explicitly signalled in this case by the nominalization (adaptation).

Figure 8:Semantic figure realized as grammatical group.


15/24

J. R. M 19

When both figures in a sequence are realized metaphorically in this way,then some alternative means o expression needs to be ound or the logi-

cal relationship between them. In the example in Figure 9 below the causal

link is realized by the Process have enabled; alternatively the link betweennominalized events could have been realized through a preposition (drought

survival is due to several adaptations) or another nominal group (severaladaptations are the reason or drought survival). Te verbal realization o

the causal link has the advantage o allowing or the nature o the causal-

ity to be adjusted through the selection o an appropriately nuanced verbor phrasal verb (e.g. acilitated, encouraged, aided, ensured, contributed to,

allowed or,etc.). Exploiting variation o this kind is more common in thehumanities and social sciences than in science, since in science a strongly

classified notion o causality is avoured (digitally graded, where necessary,through statistical analysis).

Figure 9:Semantic sequence realized as grammatical clause.

Tis explanation o grammatical metaphor in terms o stratal tension

(i.e. some degree o mismatch between semantics and grammar) assumesa tri-stratal model o language such as that outlined in Figure 10. Te co-

tangential circles in this diagram encode the concept o realization, with dis-

course semantics realised through patterns o lexicogrammatical patterns,and lexicogrammar realized through patterns o phonology (or speaking)

or graphology (or writing). Te SLAE project has ocused on lexiogram-matical and discourse semantic patterns in particular by way o interpreting

biology and linguistics genres as recurrent configurations o meaning.


16/24

20 G-

Figure 10:Language strata.

In SFL these three language strata are cross-classified through the concepto metaunction the ideational, the interpersonal and the textual. Ideationalmeaning construes reality as sequences o events and entities, constructedgrammatically as configurations o processes, participants and circumstances.Interpersonal meaning enacts social reality, negotiating relations o power andsolidarity among interlocutors. extual meaning composes ideational and inter-personal meaning as spoken and written discourse, texturing the inormationflow in relation to the medium o communication. Tis intrinsic unctionality isthe basis or SFLs trinocular perspective on social context (extrinsic unctional-ity), with ideational meaning construing field, interpersonal meaning enactingtenor and textual meaning composing mode. In the stratified model o contextassumed here, these modes o meaning are phased together in relation to the

higher order concept o genre. Tis stratified model o language and social con-text and its metaunctional organization are outlined in Figure 11. o this point we have considered technicality and abstraction as centralconcerns or SLAE research, ocusing as it has on field and mode in ter-tiary biology and linguistics programmes. It is sometimes assumed that tenoris less relevant in academic discourse, where a ormal aceless style is pre-erred. Hood (2010) however documents many o the respects in which aca-demic discourses negotiate tenor, and well touch briefly on the meanings atrisk here. ext 1 above opens with the suggestion that the mulga likes long

droughts, explicitly inscribing an emotion elt by the tree (Martin and White,2005). Childist discourse o this kind is less likely in university contexts, butother orms o attitude can be appropriately inscribed. Instead o baldly writ-ing or example thatAdaptations have enabled drought survival, we might


17/24

J. R. M 21

open a comparable actorial explanation with the statement that Successfuladaptations have enabled the mulga trees survival in severedroughts, explic-itly appreciating both the success o the adaptations and the severity o certain

droughts. Where explicit evaluation o this kind is less appropriate, gradingresources can be deployed to flag the subjectivity o a statement and posi-tion readers to evaluate it. Gradings o amount and duration are brought in toinvite readers to appreciate the success o the mulga tree below:

A number ofadaptations are largelyresponsible or the mulga trees survival in very

longdroughts.

Academic discourse is also very sensitive to the play o voices opened up or

close down in discussion. Below, projection (research suggests) and modality

(may, likely) open up the discourse to opinions alongside that o the writer.Effectively positioning research along these lines is a developmental challenge

or undergraduate students as SLAE research has shown (Hao and Hum-

phrey, 2009).

Research suggeststhat adaptation maycontribute to the genetically modified species

likelysurvival in droughts.

6. Challenges for SLATEIn relation to the dialectic o theory and practice outlined above or Sydney

School educational linguistics, the SLAE project aced a number o signifi-

cant challenges. As ar as curriculum is concerned, it was a large-scale project

Figure 11:Language, register and genre in relation to metafunction.


18/24


19/24

J. R. M 23

orward to the next phase o genre-based web-based literacy programming in

tertiary environments.

About the authorJ. R. Martin is Proessor o Linguistics in the Department o Linguistics, Univer-sity o Sydney NSW, Australia.

References

Alexander, R. (2000) Culture & Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Educa-tion. Oxord: Blackwell.

Bernstein, B. (1975) Class, Codes and Control 3: owards a Teory o Educational ransmis-sions.London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203011430

Bernstein, B. (1990) Class, Codes and Control 4: Te Structuring o Pedagogic Discourse.London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203011263

Bernstein, B. (1996) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Teory, Research, Critique.London: aylor & Francis (revised edition 2000).

Christie, F. (ed.) (1999) Pedagogy and the Shaping o Consciousness: Linguistic and SocialProcesses.London: Cassell (Open Linguistics Series).

Christie, F. (2002) Classroom Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.

Christie, F. and Derewianka, B. (2008) School Discourse: Learning to Write Across the Yearso Schooling. London: Continuum.

Christie, F. and Martin, J. R. (eds) (1997) Genre and Institutions: Social Processes in theWorkplace and School. London: Cassell.

Christie, F. and Martin, J. R. (eds) (2007) Knowledge Structure: Functional Linguistic andSociological Perspectives. London: Continuum.

Christie, F. and Maton, K. (eds) (2011) Disciplinarity: Functional Linguistic and SociologicalPerspectives. London: Continuum.

Christie, F. and Unsworth, L. (2005) Developing dimensions o an educational linguistics.In R. Hasan, C. M. I. M. Matthiessen and J. J. Webster Continuing Discourse on Language:A Functional Perspective,Vol. 1, 217250. London: Continuum.

Coffin, C. (1997) Constructing and giving value to the past: an investigation into secondaryschool history. In: F. Christie and J. R. Martin (eds). Genres and Institutions: Social Pro-cesses in the Workplace and School (Open Linguistics Series), 196230. London: Cassell.

Coffin, C. (2006) Historical Discourse: Te Language o ime, Cause and Evaluation. Lon-don: Continuum.

de Oliveira, L. C. (2011) Knowing and Writing School History: Te Language o StudentsExpository Writing and eachers Expectations.Charlotte, NC: Inormation Age Publishing.


20/24

24 G-

de Silva Joyce, H. and Feez, S. (2012) ext-based Language & Literacy Education; Program-ming and Methodology. Sydney: Phoenix Education.

Feez, S. (1998) ext-based Syllabus Design. Sydney: National Centre or English Language

eaching and Research (NELR), Macquarie University.

Feez, S. 2002 Heritage and innovation in second language education. In A. M. Johns (ed.)Genre in the Classroom: Applying Teory and Research to Practice, 43-69. Mahwah, NJ :Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gibbons, P. (2002) Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: eaching Second LanguageLearners in the Mainstream Classroom.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gibbons, P. (2006)Bridging Discourse in the ESL Classroom: Students, eachers and Research-ers.London: Continuum.

Gibbons, P. (2009) English Learners Academic Literacy and Tinking: Learning in the Chal-lenge Zone.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Halliday, M. A. K. (2003) Te Language o Early Childhood.London: Continuum (CollectedWorks o M. A. K. Halliday, Vol. 4).

Halliday, M. A. K. (2004) Te Language o Science.London: Continuum (Collected Workso M. A. K. Halliday, Vol. 5).

Halliday, M. A. K. and Greaves, W. S. (2008) Intonation in the Grammar o English. London:

Equinox.

Halliday, M. A. K. and Martin, J. R. (1993) Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power.London: Falmer (Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education).

Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004)An Introduction to Functional Gram-mar (3rd edn).London: Arnold.

Hammond, J. (ed.) (2001) Scaffolding: eaching and Learning in Language and LiteracyEducation.Sydney: Primary English eaching Association (PEA).

Hao, J. and Humphrey, S. (2009) Te role o coupling in biological experimental reports.Linguistics & the Human Sciences5 (2): 169194.

Hasan, R. and Martin, J. R. (eds) (1989) Language Development: Learning Language, Learn-

ing Culture. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hasan, R. and Williams, G. (eds) (1996) Literacy in Society. London: Longman.

Hasan, R., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. and Webster, J. J. (eds) (2005) Continuing Discourse on

Language: A Functional Perspective(Vol. 1). London: Continuum.

Hattie, J. (2009) Visible Learning: A Synthesis o over 800 Meta-analyses Relating to Achieve-ment.London: Routledge.

Hood, S. (2010)Appraising Research: Evaluation in Academic Writing. London: Palgrave.http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230274662

Hunt, I. (1994) SuccessulJoint Construction. PEA PEN. Sydney: Primary English each-

ing Association.


21/24

J. R. M 25

Johns, A. M. (ed.) (2002) Genre in the Classroom: Applying Teory and Research to Practice.

Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jones, R. and Lock, G. (2010) Functional Grammar in the ESL Classroom: Noticing, Exploring

and Practising.London: Palgrave Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230297524

Kress, G and van Leeuwen, . (1996) Reading Images: Te Grammar o Visual Design.London: Routledge. (Revised second edition 2006.)

Macken-Horarik, M. (2002) Something to shoot or: A systemic unctional approach toteaching genre in secondary school science. In A. M. Johns (ed.) Genre in the Classroom:Applying Teory and Research to Practice, 1742. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.

Martin, J. R. (1992) English ext: System and Structure.Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Martin, J. R. (1995) ext and clause: Fractal resonance. ext15 (1): 542. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1515/text.1.1995.15.1.5

Martin, J. R. (1996) ypes o structure: Deconstructing notions o constituency in clauseand text. In E. H. Hovy and D. R. Scott (eds) Computational and Conversational Dis-course: Burning Issues An Interdisciplinary Account, 3966.Heidelberg: Springer

(NAO Advanced Science Institute Series F Computer and Systems Sciences, Vol. 151).

Martin, J. R. (1999) Mentoring semogenesis: Genre-based literacy pedagogy. In F. Christie(ed.) Pedagogy and the Shaping o Consciousness: Linguistic and Social Processes, 123155.London: Cassell (Open Linguistics Series).

Martin, J. R. (2000) Design and practice: Enacting unctional linguistics in Australia.AnnualReview o Applied Linguistics 20 (20th Anniversary Volume Applied Linguistics as anEmerging Discipline): 116126.

Martin, J. R. (2002) Writing history: construing time and value in discourses o the past. InC. Colombi and M. Schleppegrell (eds) Developing Advanced Literacy in First and SecondLanguages, 87118. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Martin, J R 2003 Making history: grammar or explanation. J R Martin & R Wodak [Eds.]Re/reading the past: critical and unctional perspectives on time and value.Amsterdam:Benjamins. 19-57.

Martin, J. R. (2007) Metadiscourse: Designing interaction in genre-based literacy pro-grams. In R. Whittaker, M. ODonnell and A. McCabe (eds) Language and Literacy:Functional Approaches, 95122.London: Continuum.

Martin, J. R. (2011) Bridging troubled waters: Interdisciplinarity and what makes it stick.In F. Christie and K. Maton (eds) Disciplinarity: Functional Linguistic and SociologicalPerspectives, 3561. London: Continuum.

Martin, J. R. and Plum, G. (1997) Construing experience: some story genres Journal oNarrative and Lie History 7 (14): 299308. (Special Issue: Oral Versions o Personal

Experience: three decades o narrative analysis; M. Bamberg Guest Editor.)

Martin, J. R. and Rose, D. (2003) Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause.

London: Continuum (2nd revised Edn 2007).


22/24

26 G-

Martin, J. R. and Rose, D. (2005) Designing literacy pedagogy: Scaffolding asymmetries.

In R. Hasan, C. M. I. M. Matthiessen and J. J. Webster, Continuing Discourse on Lan-

guage: A Functional Perspective(Vol. 1), 251280. London: Continuum.

Martin, J. R. and Rose, D. (2007) Interacting with text: Te role o dialogue in learning toread and write. Foreign Languages in China 4 (5): 6680.

Martin, J. R. and Rose, D. (2008) Genre Relations: Mapping Culture.London: Equinox.

Martin, J. R. and Veel, R. (eds) (1998) Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectiveson Discourses o Science. London: Routledge.

Martin, J. R. and White, P. R. R. (2005) Te Language o Evaluation: Appraisal in English.London: Palgrave.

OHalloran, K. (ed.) (2005) Mathematical Discourse: Language, Symbolism and Visual

Images.London: Continuum.

Painter, C. (1984) Into the Mother ongue: A Case Study o Early Language Development.London: Pinter.

Painter, C. (1986) Te role o interaction in learning to speak and learning to write. InC. Painter and J. R. Martin (eds) Writing to Mean: eaching Genres Across the Curriculum,6297. Applied Linguistics Association o Australia (Occasional Papers 9).

Painter, C. (1998) Learning through Language in Early Childhood. London: Cassell.

Painter, C. and Martin, J. R. (eds) (1986) Writing to Mean: eaching Genres Across theCurriculum.Applied Linguistics Association o Australia (Occasional Papers 9).

Rose, D. (2007) owards a reading based theory o teaching. In L. Barbara and . BerberSardinha (eds). Proceedings o the 33rd International Systemic Functional Congress, SoPaulo: PUCSP, 36-77. ISBN 85-283-0342-X http://www.pucsp.br/isc/proceedings/

Rose, D. (2008) Writing as linguistic mastery: the development o genre-based literacypedagogy. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley and M. Nystrand (eds) Handbook o WritingDevelopment, 151166. London: Sage.

Rose, D. (2011a) Meaning beyond the margins: Learning to interact with books. In J.

Martin, S. Hood and S. Dreyus (eds) Semiotic Margins: Reclaiming Meaning, 177208.London: Continuum

Rose, D. (2011b) Beyond literacy: Building an integrated pedagogic genre.Australian Jour-nal o Language and Literacy, 34 (1): 8197. (Also in Proceedings o ASFLA Conerence,Brisbane, Oct 2009 www.asfla.org.au).

Rose, D. and Martin, J. R. (2012)Learning to Write, Reading to Learn: Genre, Knowledge and

Pedagogy in the Sydney School. London: Equinox.

Rothery, J. (1989) Learning about language. In R. Hasan and J. R. Martin (eds) Language

Development: Learning Language, Learning Culture, 199256.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Rothery, J. (1996) Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics. In R. Hasan andG. Williams (eds) Literacy in Society, 86123.London: Longman.


23/24


24/24

C o p y r i g h t o f L i n g u i s t i c s & t h e H u m a n S c i e n c e s i s t h e p r o p e r t y o f E q u i n o x P u b l i s h i n g G r o u p

a n d i t s c o n t e n t m a y n o t b e c o p i e d o r e m a i l e d t o m u l t i p l e s i t e s o r p o s t e d t o a l i s t s e r v w i t h o u t

t h e c o p y r i g h t h o l d e r ' s e x p r e s s w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . H o w e v e r , u s e r s m a y p r i n t , d o w n l o a d , o r

e m a i l a r t i c l e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l u s e .

02 Genre Based Literacy Programmes JR Martin (1)

Documents

Transcript of 02 Genre Based Literacy Programmes JR Martin (1)