Genre theories in L2 writing

I was first introduced to genre studies upon arriving at ISU; the Writing Program here (and the req-for-Comp-teachers ENG 402 with Joyce Walker) work with these theories. Although we studied the theories in-depth in 402, and though we did have a short (but heavy) introduction to the schools of genre theory (SFL, ESP, and New Rhetoric), I struggled last semester to see a clear connection between genre theory and ESL/L2 pedagogy.

Returning to these concepts has cleared up some of that struggle for me—the pieces seemed to fit this time around. Having built our discussion in this class on process and post-process approaches helped establish the basis for genre pedagogies. Hyland’s article addressed some of my own concerns about applying process writing to L2 writing classes: namely, that introspective writing/processes are not what L2 students need most, at least not until a very advanced level, and that, in Hyland’s words, the process approach “neglects the actual processes of language use”—the social aspect (18). In my opinion, understanding social context is key to successful L2 language learning, in both spoken and written language. I see the usefulness of adapting these genre ideas to a L2 class curriculum. Although, from my understanding, I most like the ESP approach for an L2 classroom, I don’t see strong divides between the three schools of thought.

The genre approach seems to be a nice response to our possible problematic situation of different cultural perspectives in the L2 classroom, because it emphasizes awareness and confrontation of those differences. It can be adapted to specifically address cultural differences in writing and make students aware that their way of writing in a specific genre may not be the same in another language/culture (see Johns 196 for her example).

The chart from Feez 2002, on page 203 of Johns’ article, seemed like a practical model. It reflects what is a common approach (at least from my ESP—business English—background) to teaching speaking and dialogue skills. From what I understand, it is the same model that Hyland refers to as a “‘visible pedagogy’ in which what is to be learned and assessed is made clear to students” (26). This is precisely what I have come to realize I implicitly advocate in the class and with every text that we read: make students aware of the development, the method, the course of action in writing. An approach which explicitly takes apart a text, analyzes its features, and allows for individual, social, and creative reconstruction gives the students an ability which they can use as a tool to navigate future writing tasks.

Much like our discussions on what needs to be taught concerning voice and plagiarism, genre pedagogies seem to be approaches that can be applied equally, at a similar level and in a similar way, in L1 and L2 classrooms. Referring specifically to genre, then—does a pedagogy emphasizing genre differ between L1 and L2 classrooms? Should it differ? (Would/should an L2 classroom follow the Syndey School, according to Johns’ definitions, or the ESP methods?) Or, are the differences in the approaches trivial and adaptable? (I think, just by including that question, my own opinion is evident…)

I also wonder if genre-based approaches are easier to apply or more effective in either a culturally homogenous L2 classroom or a mixed space, like those often found in L2 classrooms in the US (I’m not sure if any studies have been done on this; if not, this might be an interesting research question.)

Articles Referenced:

Hyland, Ken. "Genre-based Pedagogies: A Social Response to Process." Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003): 17-29. Web.

Johns, Ann M. "Genre and ESL/EFL Composition Instruction." Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing. Ed. B. Kroll. 2003. 195-217. Print.