in English
4. Final comments
Based on the analysis of the production of students uploaded to Kaizena using the methodology and tools described above, the adaptation of the SLATE project to the context of Tourism students at UNSJ proved to be useful. It allowed us to work with students with limited English language proficiency through scaffolding into a more Tourism- specific understanding of English. They had the chance to read and write discipline texts and familiarise with the linguistic resources used in such genres.
We can conclude that genre-based literacy pedagogy helped them become aware and gradually gain control over the studied genres they need to succeed in their professional life. Using a top-down approach to teaching and feedback proved to be efficient and encouraging to students since they were able to improve their texts at clause/sentence level considering their effect at phase and whole text levels.
In the deconstruction, joint construction and independent construction stages, we used a range of tasks and activities as well as support documents based on the nature and themes of tourism reports. However, they can vary depending on the genre and the group of students.
The use of an online platform helped students to be more in control of their own learning. However, it is important to highlight that the use of technology in education
122 should be subordinated to a methodological framework and not the other way about. In this case, genre-based pedagogy was the basis for the design of the online intervention. The revisions made by students after feedback showed that they were committed to the process, even though it didn´t result in error free language. However students‘ final versions evidenced a clear organisation of texts which resulted in acceptable samples of their discipline genre.
Notes
1. The SLATE project developed a pedagogy of empowerment incorporating aspects of the genre theory (Martin and Rose, 2008), sociology of education (Bernstein, 2000) and socio- cultural theory (Vygostky, 1978). It is a large action research project which was based at the City University of Hong Kong with the aim of helping non-English-speaking students develop their proficiency in academic English. Previous projects such as Language and Social Power, Write it Right and Reading to learn projects (Rose and Martin, 2012) identified the literacy practices necessary to succeed in high school and made explicit the language resources needed to enact these practices.
2. Pearson LCCI qualifications are work-related qualifications, created to give professional learners the skills and knowledge needed to thrive in the workplace. The LCCI International Qualifications in Written English for Tourism (WEFT) are aimed at learners working or intending to work in hospitality, travel and tourism who want to communicate effectively in written English at a customer liaison or professional and supervisory level.
References
Bliuc, A., Ellis, R., Goodyear, P., & Piggott, L. (2011). A blended learning Approach to teaching foreign policy: Student experiences of learning through face-to-face and online discussion and their relationship to academic performance. Computers & Education, 56(3), 856–864.
Carlino, P. (2005). Escribir, leer y aprender en la universidad. Una introducción a la alfabetización académica. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica de Argentina.
Christie, F., & Martin, J. (Eds.). (1997). Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school. London: Cassell.
123 Daymont, T., Blau, G., & Campbell, D. (2011). Deciding between traditional and online formats: exploring the role of learning advantages, flexibility, and compensatory adaptation. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 12(2), 156–175. Dreyfus, S., Humphrey, S., Mahboob, A., & Martin, J. R. (2016). Genre. pedagogy in
higher education. The SLATE project. Oxford: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107.
Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.
Humphrey, S.; Martin, J., Dreyfus, S., & Mahboob, A. (2010). The 3x3 : Setting up a linguistic toolbox for teaching academic writing. In A. Mahboob & N. Knight (Eds.), Directions in appliable linguistics (pp. 185-199). London: Continuum. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses. Social interactions in academic writing.
London: Longman.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations. Mapping culture. London: Equinox. Rothery, J. (1996). Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics. In R.
Hassan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 86-123). London: Longman. Schleppegrell, M., & Colombi, M. (Eds.) (2008). Developing advanced literacy in first
124
APPENDIX
Metafunction Whole texts- Social activity:
Phase- Discourse semantics Clause/ sentence-
grammar and expressions
Field Do the stages build
knowledge relevant to the topics and
purposes?
Is information developed across phases (e.g. general/specific, point/elaboration, evidence/interpretation, claim/evaluation)?
Do noun groups
effectively describe and classify specialized terms?
Tenor Does the text amplify,
justify, reinforce, acknowledge experts in the field, etc.?
Does the writer develop points and guide the reader towards a preferred position?
Are phrases like ―it is clear that‖ or ―there is a need for‖ rather than ―I think‖ or ―you should‖ used to negotiate opinions and recommendations?
Mode Is the content of the
text outlined in introduction and summarized in the conclusion?
Does the information flow from topic sentences to expanded concrete terms in subsequent sentences?
Is nominalization used to express processes and nouns rather than verbs?
125