Home > Strategies and Skill Development > Discourse Strategy Families > Structured Expression > Literature Note - Structured Expression and Genre

Structured expression comprises the ability to produce texts with appropriate macrostructure. Since the macrostructure that works well varies, by genre, a large part of learning to produce well-structured text resides in the internalization of the structural norms for particular genre types, including narrative, expository, and persuasive texts.

Move structure. Swales (1990) postulates that genres are realized as move structures—conventional sequences in which the overall purpose of the genre is carried out by successfully fulfilling a series of subgoals. These define characteristic conventional text structures for each genre, and as such, belong to a lower level of organization (the discourse mode). It is, however, important to recognize that learning a genre critically involves assimilating conventional templates that define characteristic organizational patterns (Donovan & Smolkin, 2002; Eggins, 1994; Kamberelis & Bovino, 1999; Martin, 1985; Rose, 2006). For instance, the classic template for an essay requires an introduction with a statement of the thesis to be proven, a series of argument moves designed to support the thesis, and a conclusion. It is important to note that the moves in a genre often typically involve particular kinds of thinking at the level of the conceptual mode. For instance, the classic essay structure depends critically upon moves that require formulation and assessment of logical arguments (Coirier, Andriessen, & Chanquoy, 1999; Fulkerson, 1996). In effect, the move structure of a genre conventionalizes certain thought patterns and requires mastery of specific conceptual skills (Bazerman, 2007; Flowerdew, 2002).

Rhetorical strategies. Swales (1990) also postulated that the moves made in producing texts are implemented through the use of rhetorical strategies that reflect specific deployments of linguistic resources. At this level, genre affects the text at the level of the verbal mode—the specific lexical and grammatical choices made by an author. A particular genre or class of genres can evoke a distinctive characteristic style, reflecting register choices and genre-specific deployments of linguistic resources. Acquiring a genre involves acquisition of a complex bundle of characteristic choices both at the micro level (choice of word and phrasing) and at more global levels (characteristic discourse structures and deployment of characteristic conceptual resources; cf., Martin, 1984), even though ultimately genre is rooted in communicative purpose and is situated in the activity systems of particular communities of purpose. We discuss the issue of register variations among genres in greater depth, when we examine connections between register and perspective.

Developing genre knowledge and strategic control of genre-based strategies. As Donovan and Smolkin (2006) discuss, genre knowledge appears to develop primarily through exposure to and experience with genre texts, with many children having significant, emergent genre knowledge even before they enter school. In general, students’ knowledge of genres increases at all levels of analysis as their experience increases, and there appears to be a fairly strong link between the richness of students’ genre knowledge and the richness of their reading and writing experience in those same genres (Applebee, 1978; Chapman, 1994, 1995; Donovan, 2001; Englert, Stewart, & Hiebert, 1988; Hicks, 1990; Kamberelis, 1998; Langer, 1985, 1992; Newkirk, 1987; Pappas, 1991; Purcell-Gates, 1996; Smolkin & Donovan, 2004; Tower, 2003; Zecker, 1999).

There is also evidence that perception of the genre to which a text belongs significantly affects the ways in which it is read and comprehended (Langer, 1985, 1992). Zwaan (1991, 1994) found, for instance, that when the same text was read as literature or as news, there were significant differences in reading rates and the type of information retained.

Genre-based approaches to reading and writing pedagogy have for historical reasons primarily developed in the Australian educational system, influenced by the functional linguistics of M. A. K. Halliday (1993). This approach, strongly associated with the work of J. R. Martin (Martin, 1984, 1985, 1992, 1993, 2000a, 2000b; Martin & Rose, 2003, 2005, 2006; Martin & Rothery, 1986), focuses primarily on specifying the move structure and rhetorical strategies of targeted school genres (Bhatia, 1999; Butt, Fahey, Feez, Spinks, & Yalop, 2000; Rose, 2006), in distinguishing among genres using similar criteria (Bondi, 1999; Hyland, 2000), and linking genres so defined with social context (Christie & Martin, 1997). A major emphasis has been the development of pedagogical methods in which teachers help students deconstruct a genre, developing expertise in understanding how texts in that genre are put together and improving reading skill. Teachers model the building of texts in the genre through joint construction of texts, leading to independent construction of texts in the genre by student writers (Martin & Rose, 2005).

Advocates of a genre approach to teaching writing argue that it has certain advantages over a process approach, by forcing engagement with a variety of specific text types, providing specific reasons why particular choices are made in the context of a specific writing genre, and encouraging attention to the social embedding of genre in specific discourse practices (Hyland, 2003; Kress & Knapp, 1994; Wray & Lewis, 1997). However, the Australian genre school has been criticized as paying too much attention in its actual pedagogy to formulaic genre patterns and associated lexical and syntactic patterns and far less to encouraging practices that enable children to internalize the contexts in which those genres are used in adult settings (Barrs, 1991; Stratta & Dixon, 1994). One piece of evidence that might support this criticism is a recent study by Purcell-Gates and colleagues (Purcell-Gates, Duke, & Martineau, 2007) that indicated a strong effect of authentic reading and writing conditions on learning of science genres, but relatively little effect of explicit genre instruction. On the other hand, a study by Reutzel and colleagues (Reutzel, Smith, & Fawson, 2005) indicated a strong advantage for teaching a coordinated set of genre-relevant reading strategies, rather than teaching individual strategies in isolation.

With respect to writing, there is independent evidence that children’s ability is powerfully impacted by explicit instruction in strategies that will enable them to plan texts in which they make the relevant moves and adopt the right rhetorical strategies. Such strategies often take the form of explicit mnemonics and graphic organizers that are similar in important ways to the pedagogies advocated by the Australian genre school. For instance, the Cognitive Strategies in Writing Instruction project (Englert, Raphael, Anderson, Stevens, & Fear, 1991) made heavy use of graphic organizers and lessons on genre conventions as part of a more general strategy designed to give children metacognitive, reflective writing skills. However, those elements were most effective when embedded in a sociocultural model, rather than becoming the isolated focus of instruction (Anderson, Raphael, Englert, & Stevens, 1991). These findings have been confirmed in a series of studies, which, while cast as “writing strategy instruction,” have generally involved explicit modeling and teaching of genre structure (such as the standard structure of a scientific research report or a persuasive essay) and genre conventions (such as standard ways of doing comparison/contrast forms), as well as more general strategies and/or procedures required to navigate the complexities involved in complex writing tasks (De La Paz, 1999; De La Paz & Graham, 1997a, 1997b, 2002; Graham, 1997; Graham & Harris, 1989; Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2006; MacArthur, Harris, & Graham, 1994; Wong, 1997).

The existence of genre templates implies a strong connection between genre knowledge and planning, though we will reserve the detailed discussion of this point until we discuss the discourse mode in depth. Genre-oriented instruction typically focuses on providing strategies, procedural facilitators, and tools that cue writers to perform particular moves, organize their thinking about particular moves, and support internalization of a metadiscourse model (Englert, Mariage, & Dunsmore, 2006).

Anderson, L. M., Raphael, T. E., Englert, C. S., & Stevens, D. D. (1991). Teaching writing with an instructional model: Variations in teachers' practice and student performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Applebee, A. N. (1978). The child's concept of story: Ages 2 to 17. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Barrs, M. (1991). Genre theory: What's it all about? Language Matters, 1, 9-16.

Bazerman, C. (2007, August 15-18, 2007). Genre and cognitive development: Beyond writing to learn. Paper presented at the 4th International Symposium on Genre Studies, University of Southern Santa Catarina, Tubarao, Santa Catarina, Brazil.

Bhatia, V. K. (1999). Integrating products, processes, and participants in professional writing. In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes, and practices (pp. 21-39). London, England: Longman.

Bondi, M. (1999). English as genres: Language variation in the discourse of economics. Modena, Italy: Edizioni Il Fiorini.

Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., & Yalop, C. (2000). Using functional grammar: An explorer's gude. Sydney, Australia: NCELTR.

Chapman, M. L. (1994). The emergence of genres: Some findings from an examination of first grade writing. Written Communication, 11, 348-380.

Chapman, M. L. (1995). The sociocognitive construction of written genres in first grade. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 164-192.

Christie, F., & Martin, J. R. (1997). Genre in institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school. London, England: Continuum.

Coirier, P., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Chanquoy, L. (1999). From planning to translating: The specificity of argumentative writing. In P. Coirier & J. Andriessen (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 1–28). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.

De La Paz, S. (1999). Self-regulated strategy instruction in regular educational settings: Improving outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 92-106.

De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997a). Effects of dictation and advanced planning instruction on the composing of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 203-222.

De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997b). Strategy instruction in planning: Effects on the writing performance and behavior of students with learning difficulties. Exceptional Children, 63(2), 167-181.

De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills, and knowledge: Writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 687-698.

Donovan, C. A. (2001). Children's development and control of written story and informational genres: Insights from one elementary school. Research in the Teaching of English, 35, 452-497.

Donovan, C. A., & Smolkin, L. B. (2002). Children's genre knowledge: An examination of K-5 students' performance on multiple tasks providing differing levels of scaffolding. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 428-465.

Donovan, C. A., & Smolkin, L. B. (2006). Children's understanding of genre and writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 131-143). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London, England: Pinter.

Englert, C. S., Mariage, T. V., & Dunsmore, K. (2006). Tenets of sociocultural theory in writing instruction research. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 208-221). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., Stevens, D. D., & Fear, K. L. (1991). making strategies and self-talk visible: Writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 337-372.

Englert, C. S., Stewart, S. R., & Hiebert, E. H. (1988). Young writers' use of text structure in expository text generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 143-151.

Flowerdew, J. (2002). Genre in the classroom: A linguistic approach. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom (pp. 91-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fulkerson, R. (1996). The Toulmin model of argument and the teaching of composition. In B. Emmel, P. Resch, & D. Tenney (Eds.), Argument revisited: Argument redefined/negotiating meaning in the composition classroom (pp. 45–72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Graham, S. (1997). Executive control in the revising of students with learning and writing difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 223-234.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). Components analysis of cognitive strategy instruction: Effects on learning disabled students' compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 353-361.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Cohesion in English. London, England: Longman.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: Effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 295-340.

Hicks, D. (1990). Narrative skills and genre knowledge: Ways of telling in the primary grades. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 83-104.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London, England: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 17-29.

Kamberelis, G. (1998). Relationships between children's literacy diets and genre development: You write what you read. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 3, 7-53.

Kamberelis, G., & Bovino, T. D. (1999). Cultural artifacts as scaffolds for genre development. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(2), 138-170.

Kress, G., & Knapp, P. (1994). Genre in a social theory of language. English in Education, 26(2), 4-15.

Langer, J. A. (1985). Children's sense of genre: A study of performance on parallel reading and writing. Written Communication, 2(2), 157-187.

Langer, J. A. (1992). Reading, writing, and genre development: Making connections. In M. A. Doyle & J. Irwin (Eds.), Reading and writing connections (pp. 32-54). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

MacArthur, C. A., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1994). Improving students' planning processes through cognitive strategy instruction. Advances in Cognition and Educational Practice, 2, 173-198.

Martin, J. R. (1984). Language, register, and genre. In F. Christie (Ed.), Children writing: Reader. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Martin, J. R. (1985). Process and text: Two aspects of semiosis. In J. D. Benson & W. S. Greaves (Eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse (vol. I: selected theoretical papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop, pp. 248-274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.

Martin, J. R. (1993). Genre and literacy: Modelling context in educational linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 141-172.

Martin, J. R. (2000a). Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 142-175). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Martin, J. R. (2000b). Grammar meets genre: Reflections on the 'Sydney School'. Arts, 22, 47-95.

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London, England: Continuum.

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2005). Designing literacy pedagogy: scaffolding democracy in the classroom. In R. Hasan, C. M. I. M. Matthiessen, & J. Webster (Eds.), Continuing discourse on language (pp. 251-280). London, England: Equinox.

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2006). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London, England: Equinox.

Martin, J. R., & Rothery, J. (1986). What a functional approach to the writing task can show teachers about "good writing." In B. Couture (Ed.), Functional approaches to writing: Research perspectives (pp. 241-265). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Newkirk, T. (1987). The non-narrative writing of young children. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 121-144.

Pappas, C. C. (1991). Children's strategies in learning the "book language" of information books. Discourse Processes, 14, 203-222.

Purcell-Gates, V. (1996). Stories, coupons and the TV guide: Relationships between home literacy experiences and emergent literacy knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 406-428.

Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N. K., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 8-45.

Reutzel, D. R., Smith, J. A., & Fawson, P. C. (2005). An evaluation of two approaches for teaching reading comprehension strategies in the primary years using science information texts. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20(3), 276-305.

Rose, D. (2006). Reading genre: A new wave of analaysis. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 2(1), 2006.

Smolkin, L. B., & Donovan, C. A. (2004). Developing a conscious understanding of genre: The relationship between implicit and explicit knowledge during the five- to seven- shift. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 53, 385-399.

Stratta, L., & Dixon, J. (1994). The National Curriculum in English: Does genre theory have anything to offer? English in Education, 26(2), 16-27.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Tower, C. (2003). Genre development and elementary students' informational writing: A review of the literature. Reading Research and Instruction, 42(4), 14-39.

Wong, B. Y. L. (1997). Research on genre-specific strategies for enhancing writing in adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20(2), 140-159.

Wray, D., & Lewis, M. (1997). Teaching factual writing. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 20(2), 43-52.

Zecker, L. B. (1999). Different texts, different emergent writing forms. Language Arts, 76, 483-490.

Zwaan, R. A. (1991). Some parameters of literary and news comprehension: Effects of discourse-type perspectives on reading rates and surface structure representation. Poetics, 20, 139-156.

Zwaan, R. A. (1994). Effect of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 920-933.

Home | About CBAL | Acknowledgments | Contact Us

© 2012 Educational Testing Service. The Common Core State Standards © copyright 2010 National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved.

All trademarks are the property of their respective owners.