jhss-khazar.orgjhss-khazar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Genre... · Web viewThe Effect of Genre-Based Teaching of Writing on EFL Learners’ Writing Achievement, Critical Thinking
Post on 30-Jan-2018
218 Views
Preview:
Transcript
The Effect of Genre-Based Teaching of Writing on EFL Learners’ Writing
Achievement, Critical Thinking Ability and Learner Autonomy:
A Systemic Functional Linguistics Perspective
Ahmad Alibabaee, ahmadalibabaee@shbu.ac.ir, Sheikhbahaee University, Esfahan, Iran
Niloofar Daneshkhah, Niloofar.daneshkhah@gmail.com, Sheikhbahaee University, Esfahan, Iran
Abstract
This study sought to investigate the impact of genre-based teaching of writing based on the
Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) Model on Iranian EFL learners’ writing ability, critical
thinking ability and learner autonomy. For this purpose, 40 male and female intermediate EFL
learners were selected from among 80 L2 learners based on their performance on the Oxford
Placement Test (OPT). They were then randomly assigned to two groups, one control and one
experimental, 20 in each. Before and after the 9-session instructional treatment, the two groups
took a test of writing ability and a test of critical thinking ability, each in one separate session.
They were also observed during the experiment through checking several pre-determined subset
criteria of learner autonomy. The results of the data analyses revealed that the experimental group
receiving the genre-based writing instruction outperformed the control group on the two tests.
Also, the results of observing the participants’ behavior showed that the frequencies of the
autonomous criteria increased in the experimental group. Accordingly, this study lends support to
the positive role the genre-based instruction can play in second language education.
Keywords: genre instruction, critical thinking, writing achievement, autonomy
1. Introduction
Writing is a complex communicative task in which meaning is socially constructed and like any
other mode of communication it presupposes a purpose, a context and an (or some) audience(s)
(Hyland, 2003, 2007; Kern, 2000). Learning to perform this social activity either in L1 or L2,
then entails learning the social and cultural conventions underlying text generation, the needs and
purposes for which the writing task has to be performed and finally choosing the appropriate
linguistic means needed for communication and message conveyance (Hyland, 2007; Silva &
Matsuda, 2002; Uso-Juan & Martinez-Flor, 2006). However, in traditional teaching methods,
according to Hammond (1987), students wrote only to practice grammar at sentence level for
getting high scores on tests; but even those who scored high on English tests, reported difficulties
in expressing themselves in writing and had poor performances on even small writing tasks. As
such, when L2 learners were asked to write, they had to wrestle with a lot of problems related to
what they want to say, appropriate word-choice, correct use of grammar, creating ideas, and
developing them into a proper systematic pattern. More importantly, “they had trouble using an
acceptable writing format that conforms to a target language and society” (Alidoost et al., 2014,
p. 98). Connolly (2000) further found that L2 writers were mostly dependent on their teachers in
different points of their learning process; they did not have any reflection on their learning or the
potential ways of improving their writing skill. This is in contrast with the utmost end of teaching
which is, as specified by Ellis (2004), to rear independent learners with strategy-oriented
behavior. Additionally, critical thinking ability which is considered to be the required skill for
students’ success in their higher-rank educational and occupational endeavors (Partnership for
21st Century Skills), and the desired outcome of learning (Lai, 2011) was not emphasized in
traditional ways of language teaching in general and writing skill in particular (Connolly, 2002).
In the same line, Kim and Kim (2005), questioned this traditional approach and claimed that
genre-based instruction can function as an appropriate remedy. Hyland (2007), also states that
genre instruction “assists students to exploit the expressive potential of society’s discourse
structures instead of merely being manipulated by them” (p. 150), and helps students learn to go
beyond merely structural language practices. This kind of text generation enables the translation
of social and rhetorical actions into a more systematic format through which the writers and
readers accomplish and communicate their purposes (Devitt, 2000; Troyan, 2014). There are
different approaches to genre-based instruction, namely Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL),
North American New Rhetoric and English for Specific Purposes (ESP) (Bawarshi & Reiff,
2010). The SFL approach which constitutes the groundwork of this study is based on insights
from Halliday’s (1985) functional grammar (Gebhard et al., 2014) and is the basis of the work by
Hyland (2007) who has, accordingly, proposed an SFL model for genre instruction. With this
model, Hyland (2007) claims that “even very young or elementary level learners can understand
the social purposes of these genres, the ways they are staged, and their significant language
features”, moreover, clearly defined stages and moves help “teachers to identify why weak texts
seem incoherent and to suggest clear remedies to assist learners” (p. 153). The model provides
the teacher with applicable means to instruct the text in the classroom at three well-defined stages
of genre instruction: 1. Purpose, 2. Structure (framework, steps and moves), and 3. Grammar (the
language features involved). The SFL model proposed by Hyland (2007) was, then used in this
study because of its feasibility of application and pertinence to classroom purposes. The SFL
approach and the other two will be reviewed in the remainder of this section.
2. Review of the Literature
To define genre means to look at it from the vantage point of different schools of genre
theory (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010). Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) or the Sydney School
mirroring the work by Halliday (1985), North American New Rhetoric studies, and English for
Specific Purposes (ESP), constitute the most outstanding traditions in this regards which due to
different educational contexts different pedagogical implications and applications are assigned to
each.
In SFL tradition, genre-based pedagogy is primarily aimed at helping the students achieve
the goals of school curriculum. To this end, school and workplace genres (reports, expositions,
explanations, discussions and narratives) are emphasized with this ideological motivation at
background that these explicit linguistic and typological resources empower students for later
social successes (Hyon, 1996). Moreover, this school of thought has its roots in Vygostkian
(1978) socio-cultural dimensions of language learning. As a result, the viewpoint towards
language and learning, in this tradition, is implemented within socio-cultural, functional, and
educational settings (Hyland, 2007) in which genre instruction offers “ways of contextualizing
what is to be learnt by basing instruction on how genres are sequenced and used in real-world
events” (p. 156).
On the other hand, as Yunick (1997) notices, the North American New Rhetoric tradition
is not engaged with instructional concerns and the teaching of linguistic features and academic
functions of genres. Instead, it is the “socio-contextual aspects of genre” and “its role in helping
university students and novice professionals [to] understand the social functions or actions of
genres” (Martin-Martin, 2013, p.331) which are central to this tradition. In the same line,
Bazerman (1988) maintains that writers need to have knowledge about the social context
encircling a text in order to be able to choose the appropriate rhetoric that suits their situations.
So in this tradition, rhetorical situation becomes disintegrated into its features, i.e. the purpose,
the audience and the circumstances of writing.
According to ESP research tradition, Swales (1990) and Bhatia (1993, 2002), suggest that
genre application can help non-native speakers of English overcome the difficulties of learning
and mastering the functional, contextual and linguistic conventions underlying the texts they have
to write or read within their specialized vocational or educational context. In accordance with the
implications derived from this school of thought, Swales (1990), defines genre as “a class of
communicative events” with some shared communicative purposes. These shared purposes are
the constituting elements of different types of genres and “shapes the schematic structure of the
discourse and influences and constrains choice of content and style” (p. 58). As is asserted in a
plurality of studies on this issue (Amogne, 2013; Hyland, 2004; Johns, 1997; Swales, 1990,
2004), genres comprise a sequence of moves which are identifiable and can be taught explicitly,
primarily because genres offer explicit ways of understanding how target texts are structured and
why they are written in the ways they are (Hyland, 2004). According to another scholar in this
tradition, Bhatia (1993, 2002), we can distinguish, say narrative genre, from an argumentative
one in terms of its communicative functions, the moves and its linguistic differentials, “so that
non-English-speaking background students can learn to control the rhetorical organization and
stylistic features of the academic genres of English-speaking discourse communities.” (Martin-
Martin, 2013, p.332).
The ESP tradition is in congruence with the SFL tradition and at odds with New Rhetoric
perspectives in that it emphasizes the importance of adapting an explicit teaching approach
towards both the linguistic and rhetorical text features (Martin-Martin, 2013); however, the most
important feature all the three traditions agree upon is the relevance of social functions that genre
brings to the context of language use. This corresponds to the crucial role that language skills
play in developing learners’ communicative competence (Uso-Juan & Martinez-Flor, 2006), in
other words, explicit instruction of how target texts are constructed (Hyland, 2004) not only
alleviates the learning difficulties imposed on the learners by the complexity of the writing task
but also influences development of the learners’ overall communicative ability, i.e. the
communicative competence (Uso-Juan & Martinez-Flor, 2006).
In the same streams, Bountiful studies (Abrami et al., 2008; Case, 2005; Halpern, 1998;
Lai, 2011; Paul, 1992), have laid stress on the role of explicit instruction in developing learners’
critical thinking ability. Claiming that students' thinking skills are not enough to face the
problems students deal with either in education or in daily life, Fisher and Scriven (1997) state
that critical thinking skills are to be taught explicitly. Genre-based instruction, in this respect,
offers a rich ground of opportunities. The second point at issue is that learning genres involve
learners to go deeply into the social ideologies within the text and to use rules of language in
effective communication through the medium of written text which in turn fosters critical
thinking ability of the learners (Gibbons, 2002; Janks, 2009; Nel & Swanepoel, 2009; Skehan,
2001). Despite the existence of three distinct philosophical, psychological and educational strands
within the literature (Lai, 2011) which define critical thinking ability from different viewpoints,
this study sketches out the term with regard to the points of convergence. As a result, a critical
thinker is able to judge, make inferences, evaluate, test and try hypotheses, ask questions, look
for solutions, make decisions, solve problems and have reasoning power and can consider both
sides of a problem or issue (Case, 2005; Ennis, 1985; Facione, 1990; Halpern, 1998; Paul, 1992;
Tindal & Nolet, 1995; Willingham, 2007). It is conjectured that genre-based approaches furnish
the instructional setting with the chance to develop critical thinking abilities. The scaffolding role
of the teacher, however, in canalizing the students towards acquiring critical thinking ability in a
genre-based class should not be ignored (Hyland, 2004).
The idea of scaffolding teacher as one of the factors involved in learning enhancement
was developed by Vygotsky (1978), who states that there are two crucial developmental levels of
learning namely, “actual developmental level” and “level of potential development” and a stage
between these two which is called “Zone of Proximal Development” (ZPD). According to
Vygotsky (1978), students can achieve problem-solving and critical thinking abilities under the
guidance of scaffolding teacher and as a result can raise up their ZPD to the level of “actual
development”. On the other hand, the more the students’ potentials turn into actual knowledge,
the more they are developing independency. Hyland (2004) echoes the role of scaffolding teacher
in genre-based pedagogy and states that the degree of scaffolding depends on the learners'
development in writing and level of independency. This is in line with the concept of learner
autonomy as “the perception among pupils that they can exercise an appropriate degree of self-
determination and responsibility in the classroom” (Luftenegger et al., 2012, p. 29). As such
learner autonomy can be defined as the ability to take control over one’s learning and developing
the skills needed for independent and strategic action (Holec, 1988; Little, 1995).
The significance of learner autonomy as an essential part of learning has been studied by
many scholars and teachers within the field during the last decades (Guevara de Leon, 2010;
Jacob & Farrel, 2001; Luftenegger et al., 2012; Miller, 2009; Novak & Gowin, 1984; Zarei &
Alibabaee, 2013), and several studies have also been so far conducted on the effect of genre-
based approach on improvement of learners writing skills (Amogne, 2013; Chaisiri, 2010;
Gardiner, 2010; Kim & Ross, 2007; Lee, 2012; Lingzhu, 2009; Sidaway, 2006; Trong Tuan,
2010). However, to the researchers’ best of knowledge, there has not been any studies conducted
on the effect of genre-based instruction on learners’ autonomy and critical thinking ability.
Considering all the above, and after delving into the previous research studies about genre-based
approach, this research aimed at investigating the following research questions:
1. To what extent does genre-based approach in teaching writing improve EFL students’
writing ability?
2. To what extent does genre-based approach in teaching writing improve EFL learners’
critical thinking ability?
3. To what extent dose genre-based approach in teaching writing improve EFL students’
learner autonomy?
3. Methodology
3.1. Participants
In this study, 40 Iranian intermediate male and female participants aged between 20 and 30 were
selected from among 80 L2 learners (studying English at a Language Institute in Isfahan, Iran)
based on their performance on the Oxford Placement Test (OPT). They were then, randomly
assigned to two groups, one control and one experimental, 20 in each. It is worth considering that
all the participants had the experience of learning English at school, two hours a week for six
years. Moreover, all the participants’ L1 was Persian and none had the experience of living in an
English speaking country.
3.2. Instrumentation
3.2.1. Composition test
A writing composition test with three different topics which were the illustration of three
different genres (narrative, procedural and persuasive) was used to measure participants’ writing
ability. According to research findings of Department of Education and Child Development in
South Australia (2012), these three genres (narrative, procedural and persuasive) are among the
most common genres which students deal with during their learning processes and need for their
classroom purposes. Some examples include fictional, historical and personal texts for narrative
genre; recipes, science experiments and instructions for procedural genre; arguments and
discussions for persuasive genre.
To assess the comprehensibility and quality of the instruction and the prompts and also
the time students need to take the test, five English learners with the background and proficiency
level similar to those of target participants were piloted on the composition test. The results
brought some modifications to the length of instruction and its word-choice. The final version
administered to the target sample read as follow:
This is a test of writing. You have 45 minutes to write at least one paragraph for each of
the following prompts. Please read the prompts carefully to see what you are going to write
about.
Write a travel diary of your childhood
Do you know how to cook a meal? Write one you are able to make
Is television a bad influence on children?
3.2.2. Critical thinking ability test
To fulfill the purpose of the study the Eniss-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test (1985) was used
to measure critical thinking ability of the students. This test is a letter to the editor of a fictional
newspaper. “In the letter, the writer makes a proposal and offers a variety of arguments in support
of it. Each argument appears in a separate numbered paragraph” (Ennis & Weir, 1985, p.2).
Totally there are eight paragraphs. In some of the paragraphs at least there exists one error or type
of reasoning. The participants were supposed to read the letter and then write a nine paragraph
essay to assess the argument of each eight paragraphs separately and also the letter as a whole.
The time which was considered for the test was almost 40 minutes. 10 minutes to read and
ponder the letter, and 30 minutes to write the nine paragraph, analyzing and evaluating the
argument of the letter. This test in fact, presents a situation which has problems. These provided
problems make chances for evaluating important areas of participants’ critical thinking ability.
The same five individuals who were piloted on the composition test, participated in the
piloting test of critical thinking ability. The elements of time, instruction and wordings were
taken into consideration. The results showed instances of misspelling and language problem
which were modified before administering the test to the target groups of the study. Moreover,
three university professors examined the test for validity and as such, the final version of the test
prepared for the purpose of data collection.
3.2.3. Observation
Luftenegger et al. (2012), sought the determinants of lifelong learning (LLL) and autonomy
within the educational context and found the factors affecting on them. The factors affecting LLL
were posed to be three: 1. motivational beliefs including interest, goal-orientation, and self-
efficacy, 2. performance/volitional control including monitoring and strategies, and 3. Self-
reflection including assessment and criticism. In addition, two more factors were considered as
the ones affecting autonomy which are 1. Individual autonomy while learning and 2. Joint social
responsibility. Based on the criteria given by Luftenegger et al. (2012), Zarei & Alibabaee (2013)
designed a questionnaire to examine Iranian learners’ perception of learning in an autonomous
educational context. It is worth considering that the construct validity of the questionnaire was
established through confirmatory factor analysis procedure.
Therefore, to observe the relevance of instructional procedures applied in the present
study to autonomous behavior of students, a special checklist was prepared based on
Lüftenegger’s criteria (2012) and Zarei & Alibabaee’s (2013) questionnaire. This checklist
included five measures relating to monitoring, individual autonomy, criticism, social
responsibility and confidence (see Appendix A).
3.3. Procedure
3.3.1. Data collection
The data collection process took a total of 13 sessions. At the first two sessions and before
the treatment, the participants in both experimental and control groups were asked to take the
composition and Eniss & Weir (1985) critical thinking essay tests as the pretest, each in one
separate session. To exclude the probable effects of ordering and participants’ inattentiveness the
prompts for the three genres were put in different orders and the students in each group received
the test of composition in different orders. The same tests were used as the post-test at the last
two sessions to measure any difference in performances of the participants after the treatment.
The counterbalancing design was applied for the post-test of composition, too.
Participants’ autonomous behavior was also recorded using a checklist containing five
general criteria (monitoring, individual autonomy, criticism, social responsibility and
confidence). These checklists were the same for both groups and provided the researchers with
the information about any behavioral changes with regard to learner autonomy. During the
treatment sessions the teacher was asked to put check in front of each participants name if any of
the criteria was observed. For example, if the teacher observed that one of the participants
presents his/her opinions about instruction, she could put check in front of his/her name under
that specified criterion in the check list. Thus, the possible improvements of the learners’
autonomous behavior could be checked during the study.
During the nine-session treatment procedure three genres (narrative, procedural and
persuasive) were taught to the participants in the experimental group based on the SFL model. In
this model each genre is made up of three main components: Purpose, structure (framework,
goals and moves), and grammar (the language features involved). Accordingly, the teacher had to
bring each component to the attention of the participants. As such, three sessions were allocated
for instructional purposes of each genre. The treatment sessions started with teaching of narrative
genre first because it seemed easier and more familiar to the learners than the other two.
Therefore, the teacher started with the purpose of this genre (to tell an imaginative story; it may
be based on facts) then, stretched out the framework (the title, setting, initiating events, problem,
resolution, and examples) and finally introduced the corresponding language features or the
grammar stage (usually past tense, defined characters, dialogue, descriptive language to create
images, linking words to do with time). In the second session a clear example of narrative texts
was provided to the participants. By considering the genre, they were asked to recognize the
purpose, structure and grammar stages. In the third session, they were asked to write a similar
example. The other two genres were taught and practiced, each in three sessions and in the same
way. Learners’ compositions of both experimental and control groups were corrected by the
teacher and handed over to the participants to consider their mistakes, strengths and weaknesses.
Finally, the last two sessions were devoted to the administration of the posttests of writing and
critical thinking for both groups.
3.3.2. Data Analysis
To analyze the data, two raters scored the writing tests based on the Jacob’s scoring
criteria (1981) which include the rating of content, organization, vocabulary, language use and
mechanics. Each criterion was graded from excellent to very poor. For example for the content
criterion: Excellent to Very Good (30-27 scores: knowledgeable, substantive, thorough,
development of thesis, relevant to assigned topic), Good to Average (26-22 scores: some
knowledge of subject, adequate range, limited development of thesis, mostly relevant to the topic,
but lacks details) Fair to Poor (21-17 scores: limited knowledge of the subject, little substance,
inadequate development of topic) and very Poor (16-13 scores: does not show knowledge of
subject, non-substantive, not pertinent, or not enough to evaluate). In this way the total score in
criterion of the content was 30. The same procedure was applied for the other criteria however,
the total score for organization and vocabulary was 20, for language use 25 and for mechanics 5
(See Appendix B) which made an overall of 100.
With regard to scoring of critical thinking ability test, the raters had to focus on the
quality of participants’ power of thinking and reasoning, rather than their style of writing and
language structure. With this in mind, if the participants understood the particular problem of
each paragraph, or pointed to them indirectly, the raters would gave him/her 1-3 scores based on
the scoring criteria (See Appendix C). However, the raters had leniency to assessing the
responses. Any faulty or bad judgment would resulted in score extraction. Additionally, for the
purpose of autonomy criteria the frequency of each observed behavior during the nine sessions of
treatment was calculated.
The results obtained from statistical analysis of the participants’ performance on
pre/posttests of writing and critical thinking ability were fed into SPSS (IBM SPSS statics,
version 16.0) and for the purpose of the comparison of scores t-test procedure was used. The next
section illustrates the results.
4. Results
The results obtained from the statistical analyses of the collected data are reported as follows.
Pre/posttest scores of composition test were analyzed using independent t-test procedure with
regard to the participants’ writing performance on narrative, procedural and persuasive genres.
Table 1 below illustrates the results obtained from pre/post-test scores on t-tests.
Table 1. Descriptive and inferential results for the performance on pre/post-tests of writing
ability for three genres
Experimental Control T-tests (pre-test) T-tests (post-test)
Narrative MeanSD
64.6510.46
65.908.20
df: 38t: -.42sig: .67
df:37t: .25sig: .80
Procedural MeanSD
64.8511.37
67.756.91
df: 38t: -1.48sig: .14
df: 38t: -.441sig: .662
Persuasive MeanSD
58.0511.82
58.256.05
df: 38t: .04sig: .96
df: 38t: .000sig: 1.00
As shown in Table 1, in each genre the mean score of the two groups were almost the same (in
narrative: 64.65 and 65.90; in procedural: 64.85 and 67.75; in persuasive: 58.05 and 58.25,
respectively) and the results of independent t-tests showed that there were no significant
differences between the experimental and control groups before and after the treatment: before
the treatment (the narrative t: -.42, Sig: .67; the procedural t: -1.48, Sig: .14; the persuasive t: .04,
Sig: .96) and after the treatment (the narrative t: .25, sig: .80; the procedural t: -.44, sig: .66; the
persuasive t: .00, sig: 1.00).
Therefore, to investigate the effects of the treatment, the participants’ performances on the
pre and post-tests of composition in each genre were compared using paired sample t test. The
table below shows the results.
Table 2. Descriptive and inferential results for paired sample t-test
Mean SD t-tests
Narrative Pre-testPost-test
65.2766.95
9.308.65
df: 39t: -3.61sig: .001
Procedural Pre-testPost-test
68.0269.65
9.399.12
df: 39t: -3.60sig: .001
Persuasive Pre-testPost-test
60.1761.00
10.1110.67
df: 39t: -2.23sig: .031
Table 2, shows that post-test mean scores were higher and that each pair performed significantly
different after the treatment: Narrative (t: -3.61; Sig: .001), Procedural (t: -3.60; Sig: .001), and
Persuasive (t: -2.23; Sig: .031). This indicates that teaching writing skill through genre-based
approach specially in these three genres have a statistically significant effect on the EFL learners’
writing ability in the view of the fact that the Sig. value is lower than 0.05 in all the three genres.
Table 3 below demonstrates the results of analyzing the scores obtained from performance of
participants on pre/posttests of critical thinking ability.
Table 3. Descriptive and inferential results for the performance on Critical thinking ability test
Experimental Control T-tests
Pre-test MeanSD
4.703.75
3.203.34
df: 38t: 1.33sig: .191
Post-test MeanSD
5.553.60
3.352.85
df: 38t: .2.14sig: .039
As Table 3 shows even with a higher mean score of experimental group on pre-test (4.70 > 3.20)
both groups performed approximately the same, (t: 1.33; Sig: .191). Though, the performance of
the participants in experimental group was significantly different (t: 2.14; Sig: 0.03) on the post-
test with a higher mean of 5.55. This means that the application of genre-based approach has had
positive impacts on EFL learners’ critical thinking ability in the experimental group, so they
outperformed the control group in the critical thinking ability test.
Table 4 is the illustration of the frequency of the observed autonomous behavior of the
participants.
Table 4. Frequency of five criteria of learner autonomy’s observations
The first 3 sessions The second 3
sessions
The third 3 sessions
Monitoring 79 82 89
Individual
autonomy
66 80 81
Criticism 91 76 61
Social
responsibility
74 72 86
Confidence 59 45 73
Total score 369 355 390
Total mean 73.8 71 78
The scores in table 4 are the indication of increasing trend of frequency of each of
observed criterion but the criticism (91; 76; 61) which has had a descending growth. Based on
these findings, the researchers came to the conclusion that the instructional procedures positively
affect the autonomous behavior of the participants in the experimental group.
The results obtained in this study showed that with the application of a genre-based
approach to the teaching of writing the experimental group achieved higher levels of writing and
critical thinking ability, and also exhibited higher frequencies of autonomous behavior. This
speculation is discussed and elaborated in details in the next chapter.
5. Discussion
As the results indicated, the experimental group receiving a genre-based writing instruction based
on SFL model (Hyland, 2007) outperformed the control group on the two tests of writing and
critical thinking ability. Moreover, the results confirmed the positive role of the training program
on the autonomous behavior of the participants in the experimental group. To this extent, this
conclusion is possible that the instructional procedure, i.e. application of SFL model, positively
affects the performance of the experimental group.
The findings of this study, thus, support the claim that genre-based pedagogies provide a
lot of “real benefits for learners as they pull together language, content, and contexts, while
offering teachers a means of presenting students with explicit and systematic explanations of the
ways writing works to communicate” (Hyland, 2007, p.150). Through genre-based writing
instruction learners have a clearer map at their disposal based on which they can be more certain
about why to write, how and with what means to express their ideas. The SFL model (Hyland,
2007) which was applied in this study was beneficial for producing meaningful passages. The
guidelines and principles that it offers pave the way for students to achieve their classroom and
school objectives. This is in line with the goals of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL)
tradition of genre instruction which asserts that the primary goal of genre-based pedagogy is to
help students achieve the goals of school curriculum. Moreover, the chance that genre-based
instruction provides for acquainting the students with the purpose of writing helps them
recognize the functional and socio-cultural dimensions of writing task and as such get ready for
successful involvement in later authentic educational or/and vocational situations where these
genres have to be used (Bhatia, 1993, 2002; Hyon, 1996; Swales, 1990).
Explicit instruction of purposes, structures and grammar of the genres, on the other hand,
sets the grounds for the learners to shape a mental picture about the writing task which in turn
enables them to analyze and evaluate different texts and also their own writing performances
(Hyland, 2009). For example, they have to decide what language features to include or exclude
from their piece of writing so as to match the genre they are dealing with; or they have to keep
constant the context and the purpose for which they have started the writing task. In this way, the
critical thinking ability is exercised and the inadequacy of students’ thinking skills which was
emphasized by Fisher and Scriven (1997) is compensate for. As was confirmed by the findings of
this and other studies (Abrami et al., 2008; Case, 2005; Halpern, 1998; Lai, 2011; Paul, 1992),
explicit instruction, now of genres, had positive impacts on the students’ critical thinking ability.
Furthermore, this framework, if thought in this way, gives teachers a central role in scaffolding
students’ learning and creativity, an issue supported by Vygotsky (1978) and some of genre
pedagogy advocates (e.g. Hyland, 2004). The more the students’ skills improve in constructing a
systematic framework about moves, features and purposes of different genres, their functions and
correlations to social contexts the more they act independently. Put it another way, the teacher in
genre-based pedagogy has a central role in helping students’ knowledge in ZPD flourish and
become in-service ability (Widodo, 2006).
This central role defined for the teachers in genre-based pedagogy has tendencies towards the
importance of promoting learner autonomy understood as the ability to take control over one’s
learning and to develop learning strategies (Holec, 1988; Little, 1995). In an autonomous
language classroom, too teachers move towards acting like a counselor and a facilitator whose
position is to manage the activities in the classroom and to provide learning environments where
learners are encouraged to view learning as a lifelong process (Jacobs & Farrell, 2001; Lowes &
Target, 1999; Luftenegger et al., 2012). This study, as well, claimed for the effectiveness of
genre-based writing instruction on promotion of autonomous behavior, in which the positive
impacts were significantly confirmed.
It is too strong and boasting a claim, nevertheless, to say that this limited research could help
EFL students gain full writing ability, critical thinking ability and autonomy enhancement;
though, the findings might shed light on some ways of bringing critical thinking ability and
learner autonomy into consideration and highlight the hidden and useful aspects of these
important factors of teaching and learning. This study might make the learners and teachers
change their attitudes towards writing ability as a communicative and purposeful social activity
and affirm that genre-based approach is better to be a part of curriculum if lifelong learning is the
goal. Thus, through applying this approach we can expect improvement in students’ writing
ability, critical thinking ability and learner autonomy in an EFL pedagogy setting. A genre-based
instructional program also can provide the learners with an optimal learning situation in which
meaningful and systematic learning is emphasized and encouraged.
6. Conclusion
The main concern of this research was teaching writing ability through genre-based
approach and investigating the effects of this instruction on participants’ writing ability, critical
thinking ability and learner autonomy. The study tried to address the shortcomings of traditional
teaching methods with regard to writing instruction and propose an effective teaching way
instead. Explicit genre instruction and SFL model of genre instruction supported by Hyland
(2007) were considered as the frameworks of teaching during nine sessions of treatment. The
results proved that the students in the experimental group who had the chance to become familiar
with different genres and had the opportunity to move towards independency outperformed the
ones in the control group and thus provide the study with the evidence of an effective teaching
approach. The findings of this study verified the advantage of genre-based teaching over the
traditional approaches as a way of improving writing ability, critical thinking ability and learner
autonomy.
However, in the way to carry the study there were some limitations. Firstly, the small
sample size investigated in this study makes it less possible to generalize the results to all the
population of Iranian EFL learners. Second, if the study could be conducted in a longer period of
time and there was any possible way to administer delayed post-tests of writing and critical
thinking ability, the study could achieve more reliable and generalizable results. In addition, any
desired outcome from the instructional program regarding learner autonomy enhancement
requires long-run periods of practice which was beyond the facilities of this study. The
participants’ autonomous behavior could also be measured using additional means such as self-
reports on part of participants; “self-reports can measure important aspects of subjective action
space” (Luftenegger et al., 2012, p. 34). Self-reports may also signify those individual factors
affecting the determinants for autonomy. Due to limitations of this study only the effects of
instructional context could be measured. Lastly, the inaccessibility to more up-to-date tests of
critical thinking ability forced the researchers to use the 1985 test. Also, further empirical
researches are needed to replicate and confirm the effects of this approach on participants from
different levels of proficiency and to practice the effects on genres other than the ones involved in
this study. Finally, in future studies, the genre-based approach can be applied to consider the
insights of ESP tradition for the frame of reference and instruction.
References
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang,
Dai. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions:
A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134.
Alidoost, Y. & Toulabi, A. R. & Shahivand, Z. & Qalavand, M. (2014). A genre-based teaching
approach to academic writing: Describing visually presented information in graphs and
charts. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 5 (2), 97-
104.
Amogne, D. (2013). Enhancing students’ writing skills through the genre approach. International
Journal of English and Literature, 4 (5), 242-248.
Bawarshi, A.S. & M.J. Reiff (2010). Genre: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research and
Pedagogy. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental
article in science. Madison, Wi: University of Wisconsin Press.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London:
Longman.
Bhatia, V. K. (2002). A generic view of academic discourse. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic
discourse (pp. 21-39). Harlow: Longman.
Case, R. (2005). Moving critical thinking to the main stage. Education Canada, 45(2), 45–49.
Chaisiri, T. (2010). Implementing a Genre Pedagogy to the Teaching of Writing in a University
Context in Thailand. Language Education in Asia, 1(1), 181-199.
Connolly, M. (2000). What we think we know about critical thinking. CELE Journal, 8,
Retrieved April 20, 2003, from http://www.asiau.ac.jp/english/cele/aricles/Connolly_Critical
Thinking.htm
Devitt, A. J. (2000). Integrating rhetorical and literacy theories of genre. College English, 62 (6),
696-718.
Ellis, E. (2004). Q & A: What’s the big deal with graphic organizers? Retrieved October 22,
2011from
http://www.graphicorganizers.com/Sara/ArticlesAbout/Q&A%20Graphic%20Organizer.pdf
Ennis, R. & Weir, E. (1985). The Ennis-Weir critical thinking essay test. Pacific Grove, CA:
critical thinking. Press and software.
Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational
Leadership, 43(2), 44–48.
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of
educational assessment and instruction. Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
Fisher, A. & Scriven, D. (1997). Critical thinking: Its definition and assessment. CA: Edge press.
Gardiner, J. (2010). Student perceptions of the writing skill transfer from genre‐based direct
entry programs to university courses. Centre for English Teaching. The University of Sydney.
Gebhard, M. & Chen, I. & Graham, H. & Gunawan, W. (2014). Teaching to mean, writing to mean: SFL, L2 literacy and teacher education. International Journal of Language Writing, 22(2), 107-124.
Gibbons, P. (2002) Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: Teaching Second Language
Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann.
Guevara de León, G. (2010). Learner autonomy in language learning? Is that possible? FEL
International. ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0Halliday, M. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills,
structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4),
449–455002E.
Hammond, J. (1987). An overview of the genre-based approach to the teaching of writing in
Australia. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics.
Holec, H. (1988). Autonomy and self-directed learning: present field of application. Council of Europe,
Strasbourg.
Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of second
language writing, 12, 17-29.
Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Chicago, IL: University of Michigan
Press.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, Literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of
Language Writing, 16, 148-164.
Hyland, K. (2009). Writing in the disciplines: Research evidence for specificity. Taiwan International ESP Journal. 1(1), 5-22.
Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: implications for ESL.693-722. In TESOL Quarterly,
30, 4.
Jacobs G. & Farrell T. (2001). Paradigm Shift: Understanding and Implementing Change in
Second Language Education. In TESL-EJ, Berkeley, 5 (1), 1-16.
Janks, H. (2009). Writing: A critical literacy. The SAGE handbook of writing development.
Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kim, M. & Ross, S. (2007). Variations of Word Frequencies in Genre Classification Tasks. In
Proc. of the DELOS Conf. on Digital Libraries, Tirrenia, Italy.
Kim,Y. & Kim,J. (2005). Teaching Korean university writing class: Balancing the process and
the genre approach. Asian EFL journal Quarterly, 7 (2): 5.
Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical Thinking: A literature review. Pearson Research Report, Retrieved
from http://www.pearsonassessments.com/research.
Lee, I. (2012). Genre-based teaching and assessment in secondary English classrooms. English
Teaching: Practice and Critique 11(4), 120-136.
Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Lingzhu, J. (2009). Genre-based approach for teaching English factual writing. HLT Magazine.
Retrieved on November.
Little, D. (1995) Learning as dialogue: the dependence of learner autonomy on teacher
autonomy. System 23 (2), 175–82.
Lüftenegger, M., Schober, B., Schoot, R. D., Wagner, P., Finsterwald, M. & Spiel, C. (2012).
Lifelong learning as a goal e Do autonomy and self-regulation in school result in well
prepared pupils? Learning and Instruction, 27, 27-36.
Martin-Martin, P. (2013). The teaching of academic writing to English as a second language
students: A functional genre-based approach. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, 19,
329-351.
Miller, E. R. (2009). Advanced language learning: the contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
Nel, N. & Swanepoel, E. (2010). Do the language errors of ESL teachers affect their learners?
Per Linguam: A Journal of Language.
Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning How to Learn. United States of America (USA): Cambridge University Press.
Paul, R. W. (1992). Critical thinking: What, why, and how? New Directions for Community
Colleges, 1992(77), 3–24.
Sidaway, R. (2006). The Genre-based Approach to Teaching Writing .English, Spring.
Silva, T. & Matsuda, P. K. (2002). Writing. In An introduction to applied linguistics. Norbert
Schmitt (ed.), 251-266. London: Arnold.
South Australia Department for Education and Child Development, (2012). Engaging in and Exploring Procedural Writing. Resource Paper. Retrieved from: www.decd.sa.gov.au/literacy/files/links/procedural_writing_june210.pdf - 64k - 2014-06-03
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research setting. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tindal, G. & Nolet, V. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement in middle and high schools:
Critical thinking skills in content areas. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27(7), 1–22.
Trong Tuan, L. (2011). Teaching writing through genre-based approach. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, 1(11), 1471-1478.
Troyan, F. J. (2014). Leveraging genre theory: A genre-based interactive model for the era of the
Common Core State Standards. Foreign Language Annals, 47 (1), 5-24.
Uso-Juan, E. & Martinez-Flor, A. (2006). Current trends in the development and teaching of the
four language skills. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Process.
Cambridge, Mass: Havard University Press.
Widodo, H. P. (2006). Designing a genre-based lesson plan for an academic writing course. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5(3), 173-199.
Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator,
31(2), 8–19.
Yunick, S. (1997). Genres, registers and sociolinguistics. World Englishes, 16, 321-336.
Zarei, G. R. & Alibabaee, A. (2013). Autonomy as determinant of prospective learning: A study of English language learners. The International Journal of Humanities. 20 (4), 99-121.
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
top related