Key differences between curricular materials and

After following the curriculum through Lesson 3 of Unit 6, I set the curricular materials aside in order to begin the genre-based Reading to Learn instructional unit. It is noteworthy that before being asked to write a persuasive text in the curricular materials, students would have read several more texts identified as persuasive nonfiction. These texts included a poem by Alice Walker entitled “Without Commercials,” an essay by an advertising executive entitled “What’s Wrong with Advertising?,” an essay about the role of minorities in the media entitled, “A Long Way to Go: Minorities and the Media, and an editorial by a college student presenting an opposing viewpoint regarding minorities in the media entitled, “The Color Green.”

In Lessons 18 and 19, the focus shifts away from persuasive nonfiction to nonfiction. The curricular materials present two more texts for students to read: one from PBS entitled, “What is News?” and a how-to article entitled “How to Detect Bias in the News” (National

Geographic/Hampton Brown, 2003, pgs. 507-561) before introducing the “writing project” of composing a persuasive essay at the end of the 19-lesson unit.

Thus, with the exception of the inclusion of the task of writing a letter to the editor in Lesson 7, students would not have been asked to write a persuasive text until after Lesson 19. Until that point, the focus of the curricular materials was to scaffold reading comprehension by practicing reading strategies and answering both text-based and inferential questions through both discussion and writing; building vocabulary knowledge through multiple exposures to key words in different contexts; exposing students to a variety of texts around a central topic, and connecting to students’ background experiences and out-of-school literacy practices.

Although such a focus aligns with widely accepted research-based practices in adolescent literacy instruction for diverse learners (Jacobson, Johnson & Lapp, 2011; Walqui & van Lier, 2010) it is markedly distinct from the way that reading and writing instruction are intertwined in a genre-based approach (Christie, 2012; Martin & Rose, 2005, 2008; Rose, 2005).

In particular, the approach to writing instruction in a genre-based approach stands in clear contrast to the approach suggested in the curricular materials published by National Geographic/Hampton Brown, a leading national textbook company. As SFL educational linguists have argued (Christie, 2002, 2012; Colombi & Schleppegrell, 2002; Hyland, 2003, 2007; Martin & Rose, 2005, 2008; Schleppegrell, 2004), writing instruction that does not include a focus on the way that language choices function to realize the genres of schooling leaves the pathway to the attainment of advanced literacy practices invisible to many students. Table 6 notes the key differences between traditional and genre-based approaches to writing instruction.

Table 6. A Comparison of Approaches to Writing Instruction Framework for Writing Instruction for a

Persuasive Essay in Curricular Materials Framework for Writing in any Genre in a Genre-Based Approach The teacher’s manual suggests that the teacher:

*identify the writing mode as persuasive; *explain that in persuasive writing, writers state a viewpoint and support it with evidence that persuades, or convinces, readers to agree; *explain to students that they will be writing a persuasive essay using the steps of the writing process (e.g., study the form and prewrite, draft, revise, edit and proofread, publish and present);

*explain that writing traits are the characteristics of good writing. All good writing has effective organization; focus and unity; development of ideas; voice and style; and uses the written conventions of language correctly;

*explain that voice and style bring writing to life. Tell students that they will use voice to reveal their personality, emotions, and ideas to readers as they explain their argument. They will choose and arrange words in a way that gives their writing a unique style.

Where a genre-based pedagogy is employed, the teacher, working closely with students: *identifies a field of knowledge, a topic or both, for study;

*identifies its register values, considering its activities and its language;

*introduces the topic to the students with a particular focus on its experiential field and its importance, also considering how, if at all, it relates to other areas of knowledge previously taught and learned;

*devotes a series of lessons to teaching and learning about the field, using any relevant resources (e.g., books, videos, films, images, class visits), and steadily building a knowledge of the field, its procedures for discussing questions, and its methods of inquiry;

*proposes a target genre for writing;

*directs any writing tasks, often by using a model of the target genre for writing, deconstructing it for discussion, and building a metalanguage for discussing the genre, its elements of structure, and their purposes; and *creates opportunity throughout these steps for teaching about any relevant details of the linguistic organization of the text.

(National Geographic/Hampton Brown, 2003) (Christie, 2012, pg. 193)

As can be noted in the above comparison, these approaches differ greatly in the presentation of the generic structure of a persuasive essay, students’ use of a model essay, and the identification of the features of a well-written persuasive essay. Further differences include

the way that these two approaches view the writing process itself, the role of the teacher in this process, and the assessment of students’ writing.

The present study was motivated by adolescent diverse learners’ lack of success in developing control over the writing of academic genres and the research that suggests that genre pedagogy may support these learners in progressing toward mastery of the type of academic writing competency required for success in high school and in post-secondary studies (Christie, 2001, 2007; Colombi & Schleppegrell, 2002; Derewianka, 2003; Gebhard & Harman, 2011; Gebhard, et al., 2008; Schleppegrell, 2004, 2006).