The new Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (NGACBP & CCSSO, 2010) require teachers to prepare all learners, including adolescent English learners (ELs), to develop academic literacy practices. Genre pedagogy may be one way to meet this goal. This article describes an instructional intervention in an urban public high school using the genre-based Reading to Learn (Rose & Martin, 2012) approach to teach 20 adolescent ELs to write academic persuasive essays. Results indicated a significant increase from pretest to posttest in participants' effective use of key academic linguistic resources that function to create persuasion. The findings suggest that the Reading to Learn approach may support adolescent ELs' development of academic literacy practices.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AcevedoC. (2010). A report on school-based action research: Will the implementation of Reading to Learn in Stockholm schools accelerate literacy learning for disadvantaged students and close the achievement gap? Report on the Reading to Learn Project, 2009-2010. Stockholm, SE: Multilingual Research Institute, Stockholm Educationm Administration.
2.
AchugarM., SchleppegrellM., & OteizaT. (2007). Engaging teachers in language analysis: A functional linguistics approach to reflective literacy.English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6, 8–24.
3.
Aguirre-MunozZ., ParkJ., AmabiscaA., & BoscardinC. K. (2008). Developing teacher capacity for serving ELLs' writing instructional needs: A case for systemic functional linguistics.Bilingual Research Journal, 31, 295–322.
4.
BeckI. L., McKeownM. G., & KucanL. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
5.
BeersS. F., & NagyW. E. (2011). Writing development in four genres from grades three to seven: Syntactic complexity and genre differentiation.Reading and Writing, 24, 183–202.
6.
BriskM., Hodgson-DrysdaleT., & O'ConnorC. (2010/2011). A study of a collaborative instructional project informed by systemic functional linguistic theory: Report writing in elementary grades.Journal of Education, 191(1), 1–12.
7.
BriskM. E., & ZisselsbergerM. (2011). “We've let them in on the secret”: Using SFL theory to improve the teaching of writing to bilingual learners. In LucasT. (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 111–126). New York, NY & London, UK: Routledge.
8.
ChristieF. (1994). Developing an educational linguistics for English language teaching: A systemic functional linguistic perspective.Functions of language, 1(1), 95–127.
9.
ChristieF. (2002). The development of abstraction in adolescence in subject English. In ColombiM. C., & SchleppegrellM. J. (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 45–66). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
ChristieF. (2012). Language education throughout the school years: A functional perspective.West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
11.
ChristieF., & DreyfusS. (2007). Letting the secret out: Successful writing in secondary English.Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 30(3), 235–247.
12.
ChristieF., & MartinJ. R. (1997). Genres and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school.London, UK: Cassell.
13.
ChristieF., & UnsworthL. (2005). Developing dimensions of an educational linguistics. In HasanR., MatthiessenC., & WebsterJ. J. (Eds.), Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective (Vol. 1, pp. 217–250). London, UK: Equinox.
14.
CoffinC. (2004). Learning to write history: The role of causality.Written Communication, 21(3), 261–289.
15.
CoffinC. (2006). Learning the language of school history: The role of linguistics in mapping the writing demands of the secondary school curriculum.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 413–429.
16.
ColombiM. C., & SchleppegrellM. J. (2002). Theory and practice in the development of advanced literacy. In ColombiM. C., & SchleppegrellM.J. (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 1–20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
CopeW., & KalantzisM. (Eds.). (1993). The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching literacy.London, UK: Falmer.
18.
CulicanS. (2006). Learning to read: Reading to learn, a middle years literacy intervention research project, final report 2003-04.Melbourne, AU: Catholic Education Office.
19.
CumminsJ. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy.Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
20.
DerewiankaB. (2003). Trends and issues in genre-based approaches.RELC Journal, 34(2), 133–154.
21.
DerewiankaB. (2012). Knowledge about language in the Australian curriculum: English.Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35(1), 127–146.
22.
FangZ., & SchleppegrellM. J. (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas: Supporting secondary reading through functional language analysis.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(7), 587–597.
23.
FangZ., & WangZ. (2011). Beyond rubrics: Using functional language analysis to evaluate student writing.Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 34(2), 147–165.
24.
GebhardM., & HarmanR. (2011). Reconsidering genre theory in K-12 schools: A response to school reforms in the United States.Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 45–55.
25.
GebhardM., HarmanR., & SegerW. (2007). Reclaiming recess: Learning the language of persuasion.Language Arts, 84(5), 419–430.
26.
GebhardM., WillettJ., Jimenez-CaicedoJ. P., & PiedraA. (2011). Systemic functional linguistics, teachers' professional development, and ELLs' academic literacy practices. In LucasT. (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 91–110). New York, NY, & London, UK: Routledge.
27.
GibbonsP. (2004). Changing the rules, changing the game: A sociocultural perspective on second language learning in the classroom. In WilliamsG., & LukinA. (Eds.), The development of language: Functional perspectives on species and individuals (pp. 196–216). London, UK: Continuum.
28.
GibbonsP. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the challenge zone.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
29.
HakutaK., SantosM., & FangZ. (2013). Challenges and opportunities for language learning in the context of the CCSS and the NGSS.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(6), 451–454.
30.
HallidayM. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London, UK: Arnold.
31.
HallidayM. A. K., & MatthiessenC. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London, UK: Arnold.
32.
HasanR. (1996). Literacy, everyday talk and society. In HasanR., & WilliamsG. (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 377–424). London, UK: Longman.
33.
JangE., & JimenezR. T. (2011). A sociocultural perspective on second language learner strategies: Focus on the impact of social context.Theory Into Practice, 50, 141–148.
34.
Macken-HorarikM. (1998). Exploring the requirements of critical school literacy: A view from two classrooms. In ChristieF., & MissonR. (Eds.), Literacy and schooling (pp. 74–103). London, UK: Routledge.
35.
Macken-HorarikM. (2002). Something to shoot for: A systemic functional approach to teaching genre in secondary school science. In JohnsA. (Ed.), Genre in the classroom (pp. 17–42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36.
Macken-HorarikM. (2006). Recognizing and realizing “what counts” in examination English: Perspectives from systemic functional linguistics and code theory.Functions of Language, 13(1), 1–35.
37.
Macken-HorarikM., LoveK., & UnsworthL. (2011). A grammatics 'good enough' for school English in the 21st century: Four challenges in realizing the potential.Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 34(1), 9–23.
38.
MartinJ. R. (1999). Mentoring semogenesis: Genre-based literacy pedagogy revisited. In ChristieF. (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes (pp. 123–155). London, UK: Cassell.
39.
MartinJ. R. (2006). Metadiscourse: Designing interaction in genre-based literacy programmes. In WhittakerR., O'DonnellM., & McCabeA. (Eds.), Language and literacy: Functional approaches (pp. 95–122). London, UK: Continuum.
40.
MartinJ. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective.Linguistics and Education, 20, 10–21.
41.
MartinJ. R., & RoseD. (2005). Designing literacy pedagogy: Scaffolding democracy in the classroom. In HasanR., MatthiessenC., & WebsterJ. (Eds.), Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective (pp. 251–280). London, UK: Equinox.
National Geographic and Hampton Brown (2008). Edge: Reading, writing, and language, Level l C, Volume 1.Carmel, CA: National Geographic School Publishing.
44.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common Core State Standards or English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects.Washington, DC: Author.
45.
New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.
RoseD. (2005). Democratising the classroom: A literacy pedagogy for the new generation.Australian Journal of Education, 37, 131–167.
48.
RoseD. (2006). Scaffolding the English curriculum for indigenous secondary students: Final report for NSW 7-10 English syllabus, Aboriginal support pilot project.Sydney, AU: Office of the Board of Studies. Retrieved from http://ab-ed.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/go/english-literacy-7-10
49.
RoseD. (2011). Implementation and outcomes of the professional learning program, 2010: Report for Western NSW Region, NSW Department of Education and Children's Services.Sydney, AU: Reading to Learn. Retrieved from http:www.readingtolearn.com.au
50.
RoseD., & AcevedoC. (2006). Closing the gap and accelerating learning in the middle years of schooling.Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 14(2), 32–45.
51.
RoseD., & MartinJ. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School.Bristol, UK: Equinox.
52.
RotheryJ. (1996). Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics. In HasanR., & WilliamsG. (Eds.), Literacy in Society (pp. 86–123). London, UK: Longman.
53.
ScarcellaR. (2002). Some key factors affecting English learners' development of advanced literacy. In ColombiM. C., & SchleppegrellM. J. (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 209–226). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
54.
SchleppegrellM. J. (1996). Conjunction in spoken English and ESL writing.Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 271–285.
55.
SchleppegrellM. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling.Linguistics and Education, 12(4), 431–459.
56.
SchleppegrellM. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
57.
SchleppegrellM. J. (2006). The linguistic features of advanced language use: The grammar of exposition. In ByrnesH. (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 134–146). London, UK & New York, NY: Continuum.
58.
SchleppegrellM. J. (2012a). Series editor's forward.Language Learning, 62: Suppl. 1, vii–x.
59.
SchleppegrellM. J. (2012b). Academic language in teaching and learning: Introduction to the special issue.The Elementary School Journal, 112(3), 409–418.
60.
SchleppegrellM. J., GreerS., & TaylorS. (2008). Literacy in history: Language and meaning.Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31(2), 174–187.
TharpR., & GallimoreR. (1988). Rousing minds to life.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
63.
ValdésG., KiblerA., & WalquiA. (2014, March). Changes in the expertise of ESL professionals: Knowledge and action in an era of new standards.Alexandria, VA: TESOL International Association.
64.
van LierL., & WalquiA. (2012). Language and the Common Core State Standards. Paper presented at the Understanding Language Conference, Stanford University.
65.
VeelR. (2006). The Write It Right Project: Linguistic modeling of secondary school and the workplace. In WhittakerR., O'DonnellM., & McCabeA. (Eds.), Language and literacy: Functional approaches (pp. 66–92). London, UK: Continuum.
66.
VeelR., & CoffinC. (1996). Learning to think like an historian: The language of secondary school history. In HasanR., & WilliamsG. (Eds.), Literacy in Society (pp. 191–231). London, UK: Longman.
67.
VygotskyL. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. World- Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) Consortium.
68.
Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners (ACCESS). Retrieved from http://www.wida.us
69.
World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) Consortium (2012). Amplification of the ELD Standards, Kindergarten–Grade 12. Retrieved from http://www.wida.us
