Genre-Based Approach to Writing Instruction for Students at an English Language and Literature Department

Abstract

 The aim of the genre-based pedagogy is to focus on students’ academic needs and enable them to read and write successfully (Martin, 1993, 2009). Therefore, it is imperative for teachers to understand the range of written genres and other writing skills that students need to use in their academic studies. This study has aimed to design an alternative and effective way of teaching writing to English Language and Literature students within the genre-based pedagogy considering their academic needs. The present study attempts to investigate the process of building metacognitive genre-awareness and show how it influences English Language and Literature students’ ability to interpret and compose academic texts. The present study is designed as a case study, and mixed methods of data collection and analysis have been adopted. Several sources of data coming from both the teacher herself and the students such as classroom observation and teacher’s journal, students’ written texts (portfolios), students’ diaries and interview with students have been used to have a deeper understanding of the process of genre-based writing instruction. The results of the study indicate that most of the students acquired, at least, metacognitive awareness of the declarative type, they seem to move their writing ability up and there is a general improvement in their writing performance. 

Keywords

• Genre-based academic writing instruction; metacognitive genre awareness; analysis of academic and literary texts

References

1. Azevedo, R., & Whiterspoon, A. M. (2009). Self-regulated use of hypermedia. In A. Graesser, J. Dunlosky, & D. Hacker (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 319-339). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Beaufort, A. (2007). College writing and beyond: A new framework for university writing instruction. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
3. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Breetvelt, I., Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1994). Relations between writing processes and text quality: When and how? Cognition and Instruction, 12, 103-123. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233677
5. Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert, & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Cheng, A. (2007). Transferring generic features and recontextualizing genre awareness: Understanding writing performance in the ESP genre-based literacy framework. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 287-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.12.002
7. Devitt, A., Reiff, M. J., & Bawarshi, A. (2004). Scenes of writing: Strategies for composing with genres. New York, NY: Longman.
8. Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

9. Flavell, J.H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. Weinert, & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.34.10.906
11. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21-32. http://www.jstor.org/stable/356600?origin=JSTOR-pdf
12. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/356600
13. Freedman, A. (1994). ‘‘Do as I say?’’: The relationship between teaching and learning new genres. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 191-210). London: Taylor & Francis
14. Gombert, J. E. (1993). Metacognition, metalanguage and metapragmatics. International Journal of Psychology, 28, 571-580. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207599308246942
15. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications Ltd.
16. Hacker, D. J., Keener, M. C., & Kircher, J. C. (2009). Writing is applied metacognition. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 154-172). New York, NY: Routledge.
17. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
18. Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 148-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005
19. Jacobs, J. E. & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255-278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2203&4_4
20. Jones, S. R., Torres, V., &‎ Arminio, J. (2006). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues. New York, NY: Routledge.
21. Johns, A. M. (2011). The future of genre in L2 writing: Fundamental, but contested, instructional decisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 56-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.12.003
22. Kay, H., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1998). Genre: What teachers think. ELT Journal, 52(4), 308-314. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/52.4.308
23. Kellogg, R. (1994). The psychology of writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
24. Martin, J. R. (1993). A contextual theory of language. In B. Cope, & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of literacy. A genre approach to teaching writing. London: The Falmer Press.
25. Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20, 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.003
26. Muşlu, M. (2007). Formative evaluation of a process-genre writing curriculum at Anadolu University School of Foreign Languages (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
27. Myhill, D., & Jones, S. (2007). More than just error correction: Student’s perspectives on their revision processes during writing. Written Communication, 24, 323-343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088307305976
28. Negretti, R. (2009). Metacognitive awareness in developmental writing students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hawai’I, Manoa.
29. Negretti, R., & Kuteeva, M. (2011). Fostering metacognitive genre awareness in L2 academic reading and writing: A case study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 95-110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.002
30. Serra, M. J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Effective implementation of metacognition. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition and education (pp. 278-298). New York, NY: Routledge.
31. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113-125. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003044231033
32. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
33. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychological Review, 7, 351-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307
34. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. Swales, J. (2004). Research genres. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36. Swales, J., & Feak, C. (2000). English in today’s research world: A writing guide. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
37. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
38. Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39. Veenman, M., Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction, 14, 89-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.47084
40. Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don’t students like school? A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
41. Yayli, D. (2011). From genre awareness to cross-genre awareness: A study in an EFL context. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(3), 121-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.02.001
42. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.