Functional Language Instruction and theWriting Growth of English LanguageLearners in the Middle Years

SALLY HUMPHREY AND LUCY MACNAUGHTAustralian Catholic UniversityNew South Wales, Australia

In this article the authors report on the use of a scaffolding peda-gogy (Gibbons, 2009), informed by systemic functional linguistics, tosupport the writing of English language learners in middle years cur-riculum learning. They focus on the work of one teacher and herEnglish class across the first 18 months of a longitudinal design-basedliteracy research project, Embedding Literacies in the Key LearningAreas (ELK). This 3-year project was conducted in an Australianurban secondary school with 97.5% of students from language back-grounds other than English. A core aspect of the pedagogy imple-mented through the ELK project is the use of a sharedmetalanguage to make visible the patterns of language valued for dis-cipline learning. Analysis of instructional materials, classroom dis-course, and data on students’ achievement on standardized externaland formative internal assessments of writing over 18 months indi-cates that growth in writing is related to pedagogical practices thatinclude consistent use of a functional metalanguage in classroommodeling of exemplar texts and in feedback on students’ writing.

doi: 10.1002/tesq.247

Over the past decade there has been renewed interest amongstTESOL educators in how instructional pedagogies informed by

descriptive and/or functional language descriptions may be used formaking meaning resources of discipline literacies visible to students(Byrnes, 2013; Ellis, 2006; Fang & Coatam, 2013; Hammond &Gibbons, 2005; Johns, 2011; Schleppegrell, 2013; Unsworth, 2006).This is in part due to international policy changes that have seen ashift away from bilingual education, greater accountability of teachersfor learning outcomes of second language (L2) learners (Gebhard,Willett, Jimenez, & Piedra, 2010), and the inclusion of languagecontent in English programs of study and curricula internationally

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 0, No. 0, xxxx 2015

© 2015 TESOL International Association

1

(Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority[ACARA], 2013; National Governors Association Center for Best Prac-tices [NGA] & Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2010).Also fuelling this interest is evidence that the continuing achievementgap between students from linguistically and socioeconomically mar-ginalised backgrounds and their peers may be effectively addressedthrough high curriculum standards with more visible instructionalpractices (Bohrnstedt & O’Day, 2008; Darling-Hammond, 2006).Although strong arguments have been made for authentic pedagogies,including the use of L2 learners’ everyday communicative repertoires(Rymes, 2010), significant challenges have been identified in usingthese approaches effectively for discipline learning and performativeassessment in school contexts (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010; Johns, 2011;Kalantzis & Cope, 2012). Johns (2011) promotes a curricula for L2learners that begins with texts and their structures but that movestoward critical analysis of context and processes to “assess a situationfor a genre and make decisions about what is appropriate in the textproduced” (p. 62).

A related concern of TESOL educators concerns understandingsof explicit instruction and its relationship to classroom talk andfeedback. Some practices of explicit instruction, such as directinstruction, focus on teacher-centred modelling and rehearsal of lan-guage structures, typically at the level of phonemic awareness andvocabulary (Goeke, 2009). However, a number of contemporary the-orists have distinguished explicit instruction through its inclusion ofknowledge beyond basic skills and across all textual codes (Luke,2014) and its concern with providing guidance in learning-centredteaching approaches (Wilhelm, Baker, & Dube, 2001). This under-standing of explicit instruction is an important component of Vygot-skian-inspired scaffolding pedagogies, which have been found tosupport L2 and other marginalised groups (Hammond & Gibbons,2005) to communicate effectively in both spoken and written regis-ters of English.

The term metalanguage has been used for many years to refer to thelanguage used to talk about language (de Silva Joyce & Feez, 2012;Rose & Martin, 2012; Schleppegrell, 2013). In the field of second lan-guage acquisition (SLA), metalanguage has been found to be effectivein feedback and in allowing students to initiate discourse relating tolanguage (Basturkmen, Loewen, & Ellis, 2002). However, despite itsconcern with both analysed knowledge and metalinguistic explanation(Ellis, 2006), metalanguage in the SLA tradition is typically related togrammatical structures and is contrasted with meaning-oriented, impli-cit feedback (Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006).

TESOL QUARTERLY2

In contrast, understandings of metalanguage within systemic func-tional linguistics (SFL; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004; Rose & Martin,2012; Schleppegrell, 2013) include terminology for connecting bothstructural and functional units of language systematically to theirmeaning-making potential in particular contexts of learning. Func-tional metalanguages, mediated through explicit scaffolded pedagogiesand based on the principle of high challenge, high support (Mariani,1997), have been adopted in a wide range of TESOL contexts toengage learners at all phases of language development (de Silva Joyce& Feez, 2012; Emilia, 2010; Mohan & Slater, 2006; Schleppegrell,2013). Despite challenges in recontextualising SFL terminology forpedagogic purposes (Bourke, 2005), the use of functional metalan-guage has enabled the criteria for writing performance to be madevisible to students in classroom instruction, assessment, and feed-back, and facilitated schoolwide approaches to literacy (Caulkins,Ehrenworth, & Lehman, 2012).

This article contributes to the growing number of empirical studiesconcerned with informing English language instruction in school-based English for academic purposes (EAP) contexts (Fang & Coatam,2013; Moje, 2007), with the goal of supporting adolescent L2 learnersfrom low socioeconomic status backgrounds to access and demonstrateculturally and academically valued learning. This group of studentsfrequently struggles with curriculum literacies, however, and they areoften not distinguished from broader groups of adolescents fromlanguage backgrounds other than English who are reported to be wellpositioned to achieve in schooling (Thomson, De Bortoli, & Buckley,2013). We report specifically on findings from a longitudinal design-based research study called Embedding Literacies in the Key LearningAreas (ELK) to address the key research question of whether sus-tained use of a metalanguage for discipline-based literacy instructioncontributes to improvement in students’ achievement in written assess-ment tasks. Using both quantitative and qualitative analytical methods,we present evidence of one English language teacher’s sustainedexplicit instruction using functional metalanguage over an 18-monthperiod. We relate these practices to findings of her L2 students’ writ-ing growth on internal curriculum-based and external assessmenttasks. The study aims to extend other recent studies of the use andimpact of SFL-informed metalanguage in explicit scaffolded instruc-tional practices by focusing on patterns of language known in SFL asdiscourse semantics (Martin & Rose, 2007). This focus enables meaningsbeyond the clause to be foregrounded with metalanguage, before techni-cal terms are introduced for talking about the grammatical resourceswithin the clause.

FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 3

METHODOLOGY

Context

The case study reported involves researchers from an Australiannational university and teachers and students at an urban multiculturalsecondary school, referred to in this article as Metro. Metro is a boys’high school with 97.5% of students from language backgrounds otherthan English. Forty-two cultural groups are represented in the schoolpopulation, and the school receives substantial government fundingdue to the high proportion of students from low socioeconomic back-grounds. Although a large number of these learners were born in Aus-tralia and interact fluently and meaningfully with their peers andteachers in general class discussion, teachers reported that these stu-dents’ writing was limited to informal language, often characterised interms of its resemblance to the spoken mode (Hammond, 1990).

The immediate impetus for innovation in pedagogical practice atMetro was students’ poor performance in the standardized NationalAssessment Program–Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). This test isgiven to all Year 7 and Year 9 students in Australia and includes anextended writing task. Results of the 2010 and 2011 tests revealed thata large number of students had not met minimum national standardsin writing and that the average growth in achievement from Year 7 toYear 9 was significantly lower than state average growth (ACARA,2011). Significantly, results also revealed that students who hadachieved higher scores in Year 7 were the least likely to achieve growthin writing over the subsequent 2 years. In other words, studentsshowed little improvement, especially if their starting point was rela-tively high.

A further impetus motivating the intervention at Metro was theprincipal’s observation that teachers lacked knowledge of linguisticpatterns to make explicit the expectations of high-stakes written tests.The principal’s observations encouraged examination of teachers’metalanguage as baseline data and the consequent focus of the projecton professional learning. In the next section we provide an overviewof our design-based research approach.

Research Design

The ELK project is a longitudinal design-based research project(Anderson & Shattuck, 2012) informed by SFL text-analytic methods.Although a key aim of the ELK project is to support the developmentof a whole-school metalanguage for disciplinary literacies, the focus of

TESOL QUARTERLY4

this article is on the context of middle years English. The specificquestion addressed is: Does sustained use of a metalanguage, embed-ded within discipline-based literacy instruction in English, contributeto a significant improvement in student’s control of high-stakes writ-ing, measured by results in internal curriculum-based assessments ofstudents’ writing and the external national assessment of students’ lit-eracy (NAPLAN)?

Initial professional learning was conducted at whole-school level toexplore contexts and texts of concern to all teachers, including thepersuasive writing genres valued as responses to the NAPLAN writingprompt. This resulted in narrowing the scope of further professionallearning to focus on two key areas: developing shared linguistic knowl-edge to identify and talk about patterns of academic language use andusing specific teaching steps to explicitly share knowledge about lan-guage with students. At faculty level the project has moved throughmultiple iterative cycles of collaborative planning of resources for cur-riculum units of work, classroom implementation, and evaluation ofpractices and outcomes to inform future cycles. In the English faculty,Sarah, whose practice is the focus of this article, has acted as a partici-pant researcher at all stages of the project, including allowing her les-sons to be observed and video-recorded for ongoing evaluation of heruse of metalanguage in classroom discourse and feedback on students’writing.

Theoretical Framework

At the core of the ELK research design are theoretical frameworksdeveloped to support teachers to embed knowledge about language andliteracy into curriculum design and classroom teaching. The first is ametalinguistic framework, glossed as a 4 9 4 literacy toolkit (Humphrey,2015). It is informed by SFL research in adult EAP contexts (Humphrey,Martin, Dreyfus, & Mahboob, 2010) and complementary understandingsfrom classical and new rhetoric (Beaufort, 2007; Carter, 2007). The sec-ond framework is a scaffolding pedagogy designed to engage L2 learn-ers in challenging and supportive activities to achieve independentreading, writing, and discipline goals (Gibbons, 2009).

A 4 3 4 metalinguistic framework. The 4 9 4 metalinguistic frame-work was designed in collaboration with both TESOL and curriculumteachers to develop and systematise their knowledge of academic lan-guage for use in instruction, assessment, and feedback. Framed as a16-cell matrix (Figure 1), the 4 9 4 can be populated with the lan-guage and broader semiotic features that are relevant to understand-

FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 5

ing the literacies of a specific context. In SFL theory, social contextsare examined in terms of different configurations of meanings. In the4 9 4 framework, two main dimensions of meaning making are con-sidered: language patterns at different strata or levels of text and thedistinctive meaning systems, called metafunctions. One framework, pop-ulated for the context of the highly valued persuasive genre of analyti-cal exposition, is provided in the Appendix.

The first dimension of the 4 9 4 relates to the patterns of languageat different levels of text. Lexicogrammatical resources at both sen-tence and word and expression level focus on form and function,addressing concerns of TESOL educators to support their L2 learnersto “connect grammatical forms to the meanings they realise in commu-nication” (Ellis, 2006, p. 101). Metalinguistic resources across stretchesor phases of text have been informed by emerging SFL descriptions ofdiscourse semantic language systems (Martin & Rose, 2007; Martin &White, 2005) as well as understandings from related genre models(Hyland, 2005). Metalanguage from classical rhetoric (e.g., pathos,ethos, logos) in a number of 4 9 4 frameworks has assisted teachers toshare understandings of the multiple audiences that often need to be“written in” to texts produced beyond the academic domain.

The second dimension framing the 4 9 4 relates to the distinctivemeaning systems recognised as metafunctions in SFL theory (Halliday

FIGURE 1. Dimensions of the 4 3 4 metalinguistic framework.

TESOL QUARTERLY6

& Matthiessen, 2004). SFL identifies four metafunctions, which arerecontexualised in the Australian curriculum for English (ACARA,2012) as language to express ideas, develop ideas, interact with others,and structure and organise text. Like the recently developed CommonCore State Standards (NGA & CCSSO, 2010) in the United States, the4 9 4 takes into account meanings at multiple levels of text. Recogni-tion that language is organised metafunctionally enables systematicconnections to be made between language choices and variables ofthe immediate context in which the text is produced. In SFL theory,these variables, known collectively as register, are the field, which can beglossed as the social activity, including topics or subject matter; thetenor, referring to the relationship between composers of texts andtheir audiences; and the mode, the channel and medium throughwhich the text is constructed to carry the message. In illustrating Sar-ah’s work with her class, we use examples from interpersonal systemsrelated to tenor, which are represented in the 4 9 4 as language tointeract with others. These resources, which are shown in Table 1, arecrucial for establishing the evaluative stance needed for academic per-suasion, but are often glossed for teachers in very generalized terms asrhetorical devices (ACARA, 2011).

Higher level rhetorical strategies that are identified in the 4 9 4 atparagraph level include concession and rebuttal. These strategies can besystematically explored through SFL resources of expansion and con-traction, within its systems of appraisal (Martin & White, 2005). Thesesystems are informed by Bakhtin’s (1981) understanding of writtenlanguage as inherently dialogic, with writers continually engaging withdiverse voices and viewpoints (Martin & White, 2005). At the levelof lexicogrammar, the use of a concessive clause, which rhetoricallyexpands space for an opinion in preparation for a contraction or rebut-tal in the main clause, is illustrated in the following argument from a

TABLE 1

Interpersonal Resources From 4 3 4 Metalinguistic Framework for Analytical Expositions(Sample Resource)

Text unit/meaning Whole text Paragraph Sentence

Word andexpression

Language tointeract withothers (tenor)

Propositionreinforced,justified, anddefended topersuadeaudience that aposition is valid

Concession andrebuttal expandand contractspace for otherviews (i.e.,opening andclosing the doorto other voices)

Concessive clauses,modality, andevaluativeexpressionsexpress andnegotiateopinionsobjectively

Modalitythrough modalverbs, adverbs,and adjectives;subject and verbagree in numberand person

FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 7

text produced by teachers to address the question: “Are mobilephones dangerous?” The concessive clause is highlighted.

It is also possible that use of mobile phones could have an effect on chil-dren’s ability to think and concentrate. While scientists do not fullyunderstand the effects of performing two different types of tasks at thesame time, there is evidence that mobile phone use in children is associ-ated with faster and less accurate responses to certain cognitive tasks.

Explicit modelling and rehearsal of structures for realising conces-sive clauses was encouraged in the ELK project, because these struc-tures have been found to be problematic for L2 learners (Fang, 2006).Such modelling included talk about logical meanings and word-levellinking conjunctions (e.g., although, despite, while).

A significant feature of the 4 9 4 frameworks prepared for teachersand students is the inclusion of what we have termed a bridging meta-language. This kind of metalanguage links technical terminology (SFL-based or otherwise) with instances of language patterns in texts andacknowledges the value of everyday terminology for explaining howstructures and functions of language relate to their context of use.One example of such terminology, in Table 1, is the metaphor of open-ing and closing the door. This metaphor is used to talk about the rhetori-cal function of concessive sentences for rebutting arguments, as will bediscussed further.

An explicit scaffolding pedagogic framework. The ELK projectused a scaffolding pedagogy for writing, known as the teaching andlearning cycle (TLC; Callaghan & Rothery, 1988). This pedagogy,which is informed by SFL’s language-based theory of learning and byVygotskian-inspired scaffolding pedagogies (Hammond & Gibbons,2005), is used widely in Australia and internationally to support the lit-eracy development of linguistically and socioculturally marginalisedlearners (Brisk, 2015; Johns, 2011; Llinares & Pascual Pe~na, 2014;Mahboob & Yilmaz Devrim, 2011; Schleppegrell, 2004).

As a writing methodology, the TLC is designed to provide anticipa-tory support before students complete tasks independently. Studentsare guided towards independent control of texts through three mainsteps: analysis of target texts, known as the step of modelling or decon-struction; guided collaborative writing, called joint construction; and inde-pendent text creation, or independent construction. Throughout thesesteps, students continue to build knowledge about the topic they willbe writing about and receive guidance and feedback from the teacherwhere needed. Explicit instruction of linguistic patterns occurs primar-ily in the modelling step, where linguistic patterns that achieve theparticular communicative goals of the discipline are introduced.

TESOL QUARTERLY8

Participants and data. Participants in the case study were studentsfrom one class (English 1) and their English teacher, Sarah, whotaught these classes over a 2-year period (Year 8, 2012, to Year 9,2013). An examination of the English 1 cohort was of particular inter-est because they had continuity in teaching, which allowed for a longi-tudinal perspective on the effect of metalanguage on their writing.

Data to inform the study were collected from November 2011 toSeptember 2013, approximately midway through the ELK interven-tion. Data included externally sourced reports of writing growth inNAPLAN. To complement this data, student responses to internalcurriculum-based assessment tasks prior to, during, and following theintervention were also collected. In the English Year 8–9 cohort, amaximum of six texts were collected from each student over the first18 months of the project. This created a total English text corpus of178 texts. In this study we report on pre- and post-texts of English1. From a total of 19 students, 16 pairs of pre- and post-texts wereavailable, creating a corpus subset of 32 texts. The reduced numberof texts in the corpus is due to absenteeism. Samples of mid-textsare also used for qualitative analyses of students’ writing develop-ment.

Baseline data of pedagogic practice consisted of instructional mate-rials and audio recordings of lessons. Data were collected from threeclasses taught by executive teachers who were judged by the principalto be the leaders in embedding literacy in curriculum learning. Limit-ing baseline data to selected exemplary teachers was motivated byrespect for the sensitivities of less experienced teachers, some of whomexpressed concern about their classes being recorded in the first stageof the project. Data collected after ELK professional learning includedtranscripts of recorded classroom dialogue from five lessons across sixteaching and learning units of English 1 in Years 8 and 9 (February2012–November 2013).

Analysis of data. In addition to the external analysis of students’NAPLAN writing growth conducted by ACARA, changes in pedagogicpractice and students’ pre- and post-project writing were analysedusing context-specific rubrics. These included criteria from the particu-lar 4 9 4 framework used to inform teaching and learning. Analysis ofstudents’ expanding repertoire of language resources in their writingfocused on the use of 10 key linguistic patterns in the texts written topersuade audiences. Although these criteria were similar in someregards to those used in NAPLAN, the rubrics used for internal assess-ment related to the particular context of curriculum learning and thusincluded specific criteria from the 4 9 4. Close qualitative analysis wasalso conducted on pre-, mid-, and post-texts to explain how particular

FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 9

patterns emerged in students’ texts through the steps of explicitinstruction and use of metalanguage.

Analysis of metalanguage in classroom talk also included identifica-tion of terminology used in relevant 4 9 4 frameworks. Crucially, how-ever, classroom talk around terms was also analysed qualitatively forthe ways in which the teacher related structural and functional lan-guage patterns to the more abstract meanings of the text and context(Ellis, 2006; Schleppegrell, 2013). In the following section we reporton findings of the impact of Sarah’s changed practices, including theuse of metalanguage, on her English 1 students’ writing.

FINDINGS

The analysis of pre-ELK instruction methods shows that beforeengaging with ELK professional learning, explicit instruction at Metrowas typically limited to explaining and defining key concepts relatedto subject matter. Students were often asked to copy down a text pas-sage or demonstrate their understanding in a short written response;however, little time was given to modelling, assessing, or providingfeedback on these responses. Overall, few lesson activities focused onhow to complete the written tasks students were given. For students,this meant that disciplinary knowledge was not connected to ways ofdemonstrating that knowledge in academic writing.

The analysis further shows that teachers had few linguistic resourcesto introduce valued language patterns or to assess the use of these pat-terns in students’ writing. In terms of classroom talk, references tointerpersonal meanings were limited to terms such as persuasive textsand emotion words, including listed examples (e.g., we could use wordssuch as extreme, suffering, basic, fairness, worthy, donate). Despite the focuson persuasive texts and emotion in the lesson, elaboration of the func-tion of grammatical features (such as noun groups) was generalisedwithout reference to their interpersonal function (e.g., Words are com-bined with nouns to make more meaning in the sentences). Such generalisedreferences to evaluative patterns, shown in the exemplar teacher’s dis-course, can be contrasted with those in the 4 9 4 framework for ana-lytical writing, which pinpoints a number of interpersonal resources atdifferent levels of language (see Table 1 and the Appendix).

In contrast, analysis of classroom talk in English 1 over the18-month period shows evidence of explicit instruction in modellingexemplar texts. It also highlights substantial use of metalanguage bythe teacher and, increasingly, by students in responding to students’writing. In this section we provide evidence of such instruction in Eng-lish 1 across Years 8 and 9. Illustrative data focus on discussions of

TESOL QUARTERLY10

interpersonal resources of language, particularly on the metalanguagedeveloped to teach dialogic resources of expansion and contraction, asdiscussed above.

Use of metalanguage in teaching. Because the ELK project focusedon teachers’ professional learning, Sarah was provided with a numberof opportunities to work with academic partners in team teaching situ-ations with English 1. In the initial months of the project, the aca-demic partner typically took the lead in the deconstruction ofexemplar texts, introducing new language features and the facilitatingmetalanguage.

In the lesson from which the following excerpt is taken (Table 2),Sarah, with the support of the ELK mentor, led students in analysingrhetorical aspects of a persuasive speech. This modelling step of theinstructional cycle followed extensive building of background fieldknowledge and discussion of political and civic situations in whichsuch speeches would be delivered.

TABLE 2

Modelling of Rhetorical Resources

Turn Sp Classroom talk

1 R Have you ever heard this idea of thinking about an argument as “talking to aroom full of your audience” and you’ve got to be always aware that theremight be people coming in? You’ve got to open the door to make sure that allthe voices get heard. I’ll show you my little trick. [Goes over to classroomdoor.] So let’s have a look at this. We’ve got this door and you are my audience,you are the people I want to persuade to apologize, but I know that there aresome people out there who might not agree, so I’ve got this door and I’mgoing to open it up to invite them to speak. To invite their opinion to be inmy argument. See that part where it says, “Some have asked why apologize”?I am letting them speak, aren’t I? They are saying, “Why apologize!” andI am actually opening the door and letting them say that. But what do Ido next, if I’m Kevin Rudd: “Let me begin to answer by telling the parliamentjust a little bit of one person’s story.” What am I doing?

2 S You’re closing the door.3 R [Closes the door.] I’m closing the door. It’s a fantastic strategy where I open

the door to say, “Some have asked why apologize.” And I’m letting themspeak but I only want you to hear me now. This is my opinion now. I want toconvince you. I let them speak. You can’t say I didn’t let them speak. Oh, I letthem speak. But I let them speak and then, as you say, I overwhelm them withmy voice.

4 T So if we take it back to the example of the boy whose grades dropped. You canopen the door and say, “Some parents might feel that boys study better withoutfemale distractions, however, . . . .” Shut the door.

5 R And that is where your example of although was really (an) example. Can yougive me an example of although for this one? Can you do an although one withSome have asked why apologize, let me begin to answer?

Note. R = researcher/ELK mentor; T = classroom teacher; S = student.

FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 11

As is shown in the excerpt (Table 2), in moving to the linguisticpatterns that allow dialogue with diverse audiences, the mentor firstintroduced the language resource of expansion and contraction usingbridging metalanguage of opening and closing the door. This terminologywas accompanied by a performance whereby the mentor physicallycontrolled the degree to which the classroom door was opened orclosed to “outside” views. As can be seen in turn 4 of the interaction,Sarah then relates this metalanguage to a topic on which the studentsare preparing to write (e.g., T: So if we take it back to the exam-ple . . . ).

Following the modelling provided by the mentor, Sarah continuedto use the introduced metalanguage throughout the pedagogic steps.Explicit language instruction methods included the use of metalan-guage in deconstructing further exemplar texts in the same genre,jointly constructing phases of a new text with students to address issuesof shared concern, and providing feedback on students’ draft indepen-dent texts. Interestingly, whole-class oral feedback on students’ inde-pendent written drafts, constructed individually or collaboratvely,became an increasingly prominent feature of teaching and learningcycles across the 18-month period. The use of laptops for small-groupwriting meant that texts were able to be projected onto the class-room screen for immediate analysis and feedback, a practice activelysupported by students.

The excerpt shown in Table 3 is taken from a lesson in which Sarahprovided feedback on several students’ analytical exposition drafts dur-ing the independent construction stage of the TLC. In the excerpt,Sarah uses bridging metalanguage (e.g., you opened the door) and

TABLE 3

Feedback on Students’ Texts During the Independent Construction Step

Turn Sp Classroom talk

1 T Let’s have one more. So we’ve heard the position statement that hasintroduced three arguments: environmental, social, and health. Anotherhealth one? Up the back, let’s go.

2 S [Student volunteers to read out his written paragraph]“Although many people find fast food a gateway to easy, cheap, and appealing food,there are more negatives to fast food than positives. This is because of the healthrisks associated. By constantly consuming oily and fatty fast foods, this can lead tohealth risks such as obesity, Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes . . . .”

3 T Good! I really liked how you introduced your point with a concessive clause.You opened the door. “Although people might think it is cheap andconvenient and appealing,” that comes at a cost. It’s rich in fat. So you reallygave way to what people are thinking and then shut it down with the healthrisks associated with it.

Note. T = classroom teacher; S = student.

TESOL QUARTERLY12

technical terminology (concessive clause) related to the discourse seman-tic resource of concession.

This excerpt exemplifies Sarah’s increasingly independent use ofmetalanguage to analyse texts with varied subject matter and persua-sive intent. She does not rely on pre-prepared scripts, teaching slides,or model texts, but spontaneously relates students’ in-class examplesto the specific interpersonal language pattern (concession). In doing so,she draws on the metaphor introduced by the researcher in the firstunit to describe the function of this pattern (e.g., you opened the door . . .then shut it down).

Use of metalanguage by students. With the increasing use of meta-language in the teaching and learning of literacy in English 1, there isevidence of students’ use of particularly the bridging metalanguage toanalyse and critique their own writing and further exemplar texts. Theexcerpt shown in Table 4 exemplifies student talk about language in asmall group with the researcher in May 2013. In this example, thegroup is analysing multiple text samples to build deeper understand-ing of resources used in texts produced in different contexts.

As illustrated at turn 2 in Table 4, students also use the metaphor ofopening and closing the door to identify the role of concession and rebut-ting: He opens and closes the door. Students also raise queries aboutwhether concession is appropriate for a conclusion stage (as in turn 5,Would it be allowed in the conclusion?). Additionally, student talk shows evi-dence of their ability to recognize variation in degrees of concession,

TABLE 4

Metalanguage in Student Talk

Turn Sp Classroom talk

1 R [Researcher is reading out model text]“While television in moderation has some entertainment and educational value,its benefits are far outweighed by its negative effects.”So instead of changing his mind halfway through, what’s he doing this time?

2 S1 He states his position at the start. He opens and closes the door. He givesthem a general positive and then shuts them down.

3 R So what do we call that? While television or Although television.4 S2 Opening and closing the door. I do it at the beginning.5 S3 Would it be allowed in the conclusion?6 R Yeah, this is a conclusion. If you’ve been making concessions throughout

your essay, it might be a good idea to make them in the conclusion toshow that “I’ve actually looked at number of opinions and now I can do it.”Let’s look at another one. Instead of saying, “In conclusion,” what does textfour say? From the above argument, it is clear that . . .

7 S3 They’ve opened the door for one hour!8 T&S+ (laughter)

Note. R = researcher/ELK mentor; T = classroom teacher; S = student.

FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 13

such as turn 7, where student 3 humorously comments that the writerhas “opened the door for one hour!” One student also uses metalan-guage to identify a language pattern in his own writing (e.g., turn 4:“Opening and closing the door. I do it at the beginning”).

Students’ Writing PerformanceGrowth in external measures: NAPLAN. The NAPLAN results made

available to the school in 2013 showed substantial average growth inpersuasive writing for English 1 from 2011 to 2013 (36%). Signifi-cantly, 67% of students showed higher than expected growth over this2-year period. The average growth for Sarah’s class in this componentof the test was over nine scaled scores higher than the average forschools across the state and more than twice the average growth ofother public schools and schools that are similar in demographic char-acteristics, such as the socioeconomic status and background of stu-dents.1 These comparative average scaled scores are shown in Table 5.

Growth in curriculum-based assessment (internal measure). Tocomplement the external NAPLAN report, ELK researchers conductedan internal assessment of students’ persuasive writing composed fordiagnostic and formative assessment of curriculum learning. Studentwriting was graded in relation to a maximum score of 40. Figure 2shows the comparative individual scores of pre- and post-project textsfor students in English 1. The average student score prior to func-tional language instruction was 11.6. After Sarah’s teaching, students’average score nearly doubled to 21.7.

Although there are as yet few students who achieved the highestlevel of control of persuasive writing in Year 9, Figure 2 shows that allstudents showed some growth and some students showed significantgrowth.

Growth in students’ developing repertoire and control of discoursesemantic resources (internal measures). Of particular interest to thediscussion in this article is students’ developing repertoire and controlof those language features that were selected by the teacher as mostsignificant to addressing the criteria of the persuasive writing tasks andconsequently made explicit in teaching and assessment criteria.Graphed findings from our quantitative analysis of the appearance instudent texts produced prior to and following the 18-month period is

1 Although not a focus of this article, it is significant that English 1 achieved even highergrowth in reading, spelling, and grammatical conventions of the NAPLAN test over theproject period. It is likely that the greater attention given to patterns of language in textsat every level provided support for these literacy skills to develop.

TESOL QUARTERLY14

provided in Figure 3. In this graph, each feature is graded accordingto the degree of control: 1 indicates no appearance of the feature; 2indicates the presence of the feature, but limited control (i.e., it issometimes used inappropriately and/or inconsistently); 3 indicatesdeveloping control (i.e., when the feature appears it is used appropri-ately); and 4 indicates full control (i.e., the feature is used consistentlyand appropriately throughout the text).

Prior to the ELK project, there was minimal evidence that studentshad control over discourse semantic language features. In particular,there was minimal evidence of students’ control of the logical develop-ment of ideas within paragraphs (feature 4, PEEL arguments, whichdevelop through phases of point, elaboration, evidence, and link), inter-personal resources to manage multiple points of view (feature 5, con-cession), and textual resources to predict information flow inparagraphs (feature 6, topic sentences). There was also little evidenceof sentence-level resources to package ideas and events as “things”(feature 7, expanded noun groups). The evidence of the whole-text

FIGURE 2. Growth of Engish 1 persuasive writing: Internal assessment (February 2011—June 2012).

TABLE 5

NAPLAN 2013 Results for Writing

Average scaled score growth in writing

State (NSW) 25.3NSW DEC (public schools) 17.5School (Metro) 36.4Like schools (similar demographic characteristics to Metro) 15.8

FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 15

feature, staged ideas and analytical framework (feature 1), is not surpris-ing, given the emphasis on the overall structure of three-part argu-ment in primary schooling in Australia. With regard to the emergingappearance of convincing argument (feature 2), the evaluators’ judge-ment is related to the relatively strong use of evaluative vocabulary andparticularly modality across some texts. Modality (e.g., possibly, it islikely, could, should) is used to temper opinions and judgements, open-ing space for dialogue with readers who may not share the opinion.Also evident prior to the intervention is the emerging use of resourcesto keep the focus on the topic and control information flow, referredto as sentence openers (feature 9). It is also not surprising that someappropriate spelling and punctuation resources are evident (feature10), given that such resources are typically among those that are notedand commented on by teachers in feedback on student writing.

Since the ELK project, the English 1 cohort has not yet developedfull control of the features of persuasive writing that were targeted inexplicit instruction. However, the analysis of these 10 features showsevidence of significant development in all features, as represented inFigure 1. An encouraging finding is that many of the features thatrarely appeared prior to ELK showed the strongest degree of improve-ment after explicit instruction. In particular, students were developinggreater control of resources to structure and organize elements withinparagraphs (e.g., topic sentences, PEEL arguments). At the same time,

FIGURE 3. Use and control of English 1 target language features: Internal assessment(February 2011—June 2012).

TESOL QUARTERLY16

they were starting to use interpersonal resources to manage argumentsand learning to package key ideas and events in expanded noungroups. Students thus demonstrated improvement in language pat-terns that were explicitly taught by their teacher in class.

Growth in students’ developing repertoire and control of interper-sonal resources (internal measures). The scope of this article does notallow a detailed exploration of the qualitative analysis relating to thedevelopment of multiple language features. However, in this section,we exemplify an English 1 student’s developing repertoire and controlof the resource of concession, an interpersonal resource at the dis-course semantic level of language discussed in previous sections. Thisstudent, to whom we have given the name Aran, has been chosenbecause both his external and internal test scores were average for hisclass and his growth is illustrative of that of the majority of students inEnglish 1 over this time.

Aran’s development is illustrated in four responses to diagnosticand formative assessment tasks throughout Years 8 and 9. Text A, inTable 6, is a diagnostic task produced prior to the project. This textshows little evidence of control of interpersonal resources above thelevel of word. In particular, Aran’s argument does not show awarenessof alternative positions or views on the issue.

Text B, which was produced after the first unit that focused on ana-lytical persuasive writing, shows that Aran has used concession(Although) to show awareness of and to rebut an alternative view. How-ever, he has not developed control of the structure of written conces-sion introduced in this unit, that is, a dependent clause followed by amain clause. In this excerpt, Aran uses multiple clauses to develop hisargument, providing reasoning that is too difficult for the reader tofollow without punctuation.

In Text C, composed as a practice text for the NAPLAN persuasivewriting task in May 2013, Aran uses concession appropriately, showingcontrol of the function and form of this dialogic feature. In Text D, heshows that he is able to transfer his knowledge of the dialogic feature toa new genre—writing a literary response and expanding his repertoireof concessive conjunctions (Even though). Interestingly, concession wasnot explicitly taught in the unit of work on Romeo and Juliet, which sug-gests that Aran had remembered teaching from previous units.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The findings of one English teacher’s language instruction, over18 months, and of her students’ writing growth offer significant

FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 17

insights to inform the pedagogical practice of teachers at Metro HighSchool. Given that 42 cultural groups are represented in Metro’s stu-dent body, these findings are relevant to TESOL and curriculumteachers more generally.

Analysis of baseline data pertaining to teaching resources and class-room talk suggests that middle years students at Metro did not receiveexplicit instruction for high-stakes writing prior to the ELK implemen-tation. This finding suggests that “casual practices” (Johns, 2011, p.58) of naming assignments in disciplines found by internationalresearchers are not confined to postsecondary contexts (Carlino,2010). Without explicit instructional practices that include a sharedmetalanguage to discuss the success criteria of discipline tasks, it isunsurprising that Metro students struggled with writing and performedpoorly in both external standardized and formative written assessmenttasks.

The implementation of an explicit scaffolded instructional modelwith facilitating metalanguage enabled the teacher to provide instruc-tion about the success criteria of assessment tasks. The finding of stu-dents’ active participation in text analysis and critique, using the

TABLE 6

One Student’s Developing Repertoire and Control of Concession Instruction

Text A. Aran November 2011. Pre-project diagnostic task. Should people do more exercise?

Everyone around the world should do more exercise, especially peole who are not really fit. There aremany other reasons and here are some.First reason is that people are overweighted. People who are overweighted will die earlier than they diefrom obesity, diabetes and heart attacks. So far, 67.4% of Australian adults are overweight, thatmeans we should work out even more . . . .

Text B. Aran May 2012. Formative assessment task

Although the state emergency services assisted the victims of the flood they could not have done itwithout the government department because the S.E.S. is funded by the government which means theequipment the helicopters they used to assist the victims of the flood all came out of the Australiangovernments money this means without the government department funding the state emergency servicessadly most of the Queensland victims would have passed away.

Text C. Aran May 2013. Post-project paragraph. Is too much money spent on games?

Although many people might think that toys and games bring children together, this is not the case.Toys/games have a negative affect on children socially. If children spend more of their money on toysand games this will affect them socially because it will start fights between students and will cause themto have a disagreement between each other . . . .

Text D. Aran September 2013

William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet have had many interpretations ever since the original in1600s. One recent recontextualisation is a film directed by Baz Luhrman in 1996 . . . . Even thoughthe film is in a different context ot Shakespeare’s original it still portrays the universal themes theoriginal intended . . . .

TESOL QUARTERLY18

metalanguage introduced through the ELK intervention, supportsarguments by Luke (2014) that the type of explicit instruction incor-porated in the pedagogy of the ELK project “is a necessary part of aneffective school-level response” (p. 4). Also supported are findings ofthe important role played by metalanguage in L2 classrooms (Basturk-men et al., 2002). The metalanguage of the 4 9 4 appears to be suffi-ciently robust to allow teachers and students to engage in thereflective practices that encourage the production, rather than repro-duction, of knowledge (e.g., Hasan, 1996). This finding has implica-tions for TESOL and other pedagogic contexts that may be informedby SFL theory. For example, an adapted 4 9 4 toolkit could be drawnon to inform critical literacies and multiliteracies pedagogies, many ofwhich already draw on SFL and complementary models of multimodaldiscourse analysis.

Student use of metalanguage to talk about discourse semantic fea-tures, included in the 4 9 4 at paragraph and sentence levels, was ofparticular interest to researchers. The meaning-oriented terminologyof SFL resources at this level enabled teachers to make connectionsbetween grammar and meaning, which is fundamental to second lan-guage acquisition (Ellis, 2006). The relatively rapid and enthusiasticuptake of bridging terms by participants, such as opening and closing thedoor, points to the importance of presenting metalinguistic knowledgethat connects with students’ everyday communicative repertoires(Rymes, 2010). Developing bridging terminology and establishingpathways toward the linguistic terms of relevant curricula and stan-dards frameworks may address concerns of TESOL teachers interna-tionally to provide an accessible metalanguage for English languagelearners (Bourke, 2005; Gebhard, Chen, Graham, & Gunawan, 2013).

The significant positive writing growth of those students who areclassified by the school as higher achieving is of particular interest inintegrated teaching and learning contexts. This finding indicates thatthe methods of explicit instruction with a functional metalanguageimplemented by Sarah and her colleagues at Metro did not “dumbdown the curriculum” (Hammond & Gibbons, 2005, p. 6) for strug-gling English language learners, but rather enabled active participa-tion in text analysis and critique. This finding could be just as relevantto diverse learner groups as to classes of predominantly L2 learners.

Despite the considerable achievements of Sarah and her studentsand colleagues, all participants in the ELK project are acutely aware ofthe challenge of changing teaching and learning outcomes for linguis-tically and socioeconomically marginalised students and in sustainingpositive changes. Although significant growth is evident for all English1 students in formative assessment from Year 8 to Year 9, few studentsyet show evidence of the expanded repertoire of linguistic resources

FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 19

that have been identified for curriculum learning in the senior years(Christie & Derewianka, 2008). Sarah remains concerned about con-tinuing to grow her semiotic and pedagogic repertoire to support allstudents to access the full range of literacies for learning in schooland beyond.

The positive findings related to the impact of explicit instruction onstudent language development in this article are limited by restricteddata access. Although quantitative and qualitative measures are appliedto students’ pre- and post-project writing samples, comparisons to evi-dence similarities and differences in methods between Year 8 and Year9 classes were restricted. The teachers at Metro are not yet confidentto engage in comparative research related to their knowledge aboutlanguage and associated metalanguage, particularly when their ownaccess to this knowledge in their preservice education has been lim-ited. Sensitivity to this situation has resulted in a small sample of pre-project classroom activity. Similarly, comparisons between Sarah’sinstructional methods and the written texts produced by English 1 stu-dents were not made with those in other Year 8 and 9 English classes.The ELK research chose instead to examine closely evidence of oneteacher’s growing metalinguistic knowledge over time and her use ofthat knowledge in explicit instruction and feedback on student writ-ing. These limitations reflect the challenges of educational research inan environment where teachers may be understandably anxious withregard to their accountability for their students’ performance.

This study has been careful to include a range of data and analysisto assess students’ literacy development, but growth on standardizedtests is a highly valued measure in contemporary international literacyeducation. Classroom teachers like Sarah are increasingly heldaccountable for the literacy development of their L2 learners andtherefore need support to expand their pedagogic knowledge. What isstill needed is evidence of students’ capacity to successfully producethe full range of texts needed for curriculum learning in all disciplineareas. There is also a need for further longitudinal evidence that meta-language developed in the middle years can be drawn on and relatedto texts in the senior secondary years and in literacy contexts beyondschooling. Analysis of data collected during the ongoing second stageof the ELK project will be of great value in providing such evidence.

However, to be truly applicable to international TESOL contexts,similar studies must be designed for learners from diverse sociocul-tural and economic backgrounds, including students from refugeebackgrounds who may have little experience with literacy in their firstlanguage. These studies could detail differences between learnergroups, including English language learners (ELLs) and non-ELLs, aswell as subgroups within the ELL participants. Findings similar to

TESOL QUARTERLY20

those at Metro will inspire confidence that the achievement gapbetween speakers of dominant and nondominant varieties of Englishis closing (Gebhard & Harman, 2011).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The data on which this article is based were collected during the first stage of alongitudinal project carried out in middle years classrooms in an Australian sec-ondary school by researchers at the Australian Catholic University in partnershipwith classroom teachers. This research was supported by a National GovernmentPartnership grant provided to Belmore Boys High School during 2012–2014. Wewish to acknowledge the contribution of fellow researchers Jing Hao, Tina Sharpe,and Erika Matruglio. We would also like to thank all the teachers and studentsinvolved in the ELK project, especially Sarah and Sandra.

THE AUTHORS

Sally Humphrey has worked for many years in TESOL and literacy education andresearch. She is currently a senior lecturer at the Australian Catholic University.Sally is the co-writer of a number of textbooks that introduce teachers to knowl-edge about language for discipline learning in the primary and secondary years.

Lucy Macnaught is a research assistant at the Australian Catholic University and iscompleting a PhD in educational linguistics at the University of Technology, Syd-ney. She has worked as a pre-tertiary language instructor, sessional TESOL lec-turer, and academic language advisor. In recent years, Lucy has participated in anumber of research projects that explore discipline-specific literacy and knowledgeabout language in secondary schooling.

REFERENCES

Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progressin education research? Educational Researcher, 41, 16–25. doi:10.3102/0013189X11428813

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2011).NAPLAN achievement in reading, persuasive writing, language conventions and numer-acy: National report for 2011. Sydney, Australia: Author.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2012).Australian curriculum: English. v 4.0. Sydney, Australia: Author.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2013).NAPLAN achievement in reading, persuasive writing, language conventions and numer-acy: National report for 2013. Sydney, Australia: Author.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (C.Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2002). Metalanguage in focus on form inthe communicative classroom. Language Awareness, 11(1), 1–13. doi:10.1080/09658410208667042

FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 21

Bawarshi, A., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An introduction to history, theory, research,and pedagogy. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.

Beaufort, A. (2007). College writing and beyond: A new framework for university writinginstruction. Logan: Utah State University Press.

Bohrnstedt, G. W., & O’Day, J. A. (2008). Introduction. In A. R. Sadovnik, J. A.O’Day, G. W. Bohrnstedt, & K. M. Borman (Eds.), No Child Left Behind and thereduction of the achievement gap: Sociological perspectives on federal education policy(pp. 1–10). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bourke, J. (2005). The grammar we teach. Reflections on English Language Teaching,4, 85–97. Retrieved from http://www.nus.edu.sg/celc/research/relt.php

Brisk, M. (2015). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogy for K–5classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.

Byrnes, H. (2013). Positioning writing as meaning-making in writing research: Anintroduction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 95–106. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.004

Callaghan, M., & Rothery, J. (1988). Teaching factual writing: A genre based approach.Sydney, Australia: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.

Carlino, P. (2010). Reading and writing in the social sciences in Argentine univer-sities. In C. Bazerman, R. Krut, K. Lunsford, S. McCleod, S. Null, P. Rogers, &A. Stansell (Eds.), Traditions of writing research (pp. 283–296). New York, NY:Routledge.

Carter, M. (2007). Ways of knowing, doing, and writing in the disciplines. CollegeComposition and Communication, 58, 385–418. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/cccc

Caulkins, L., Ehrenworth, M., & Lehman, C. (2012). Pathways to the common core:Accelerating achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse. London, England: Contin-uum.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). No Child Left Behind and high school reform. Har-vard Educational Review, 76, 642–667. doi:10.17763/haer.76.4.d8277u8778245404

de Silva Joyce, H., & Feez, S. (2012). Text-based language and literacy education: Pro-gramming and methodology. Sydney, Australia: Phoenix Education.

Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective.TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83–107. doi:10.2307/40264512

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedbackand the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28,339–368. doi:10.1017/S0272263106060141

Emilia, E. (2010). Teaching writing: Developing critical learners. Bandung, Indonesia:Rizqi Press.

Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. Inter-national Journal of Science Education, 28, 491–520. doi:10.1080/09500690500339092

Fang, Z., & Coatam, S. (2013). Disciplinary literacy: What you want to know aboutit. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56, 627–632. doi:10.1002/JAAL.190

Gebhard, M., Chen, I., Graham, H., & Gunawan, W. (2013). Teaching to mean,writing to mean: SFL, L2 literacy, and teacher education. Journal of Second Lan-guage Writing, 22, 107–124. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.005

Gebhard, M., & Harman, R. (2011). Reconsidering genre theory in K-12 schools:A response to school reforms in the United States. Journal of Second LanguageWriting, 20, 45–55. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2010.12.007

Gebhard, M., Willett, J., Jimenez, J., & Piedra, A. (2010). Systemic functional lin-guistics, teachers’ professional development, and ELLs’ academic literacy prac-

TESOL QUARTERLY22

tices. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms (pp.91–110). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy and thinking: Learning in thechallenge zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Goeke, J. (2009). Explicit instruction: Strategies for meaningful direct teaching. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Merrill/Pearson.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functionalgrammar (3rd ed.). London, England: Hodder.

Hammond, J. (1990). Is learning to read and write the same as learning to speak?In F. Christie (Ed.), Literacy for a changing world. Hawthorn: Australian Councilfor Educational Research.

Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contributionof scaffolding in articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20(1), 6–30. Retrievedfrom http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/docs/prospect_journal/volume_20_no_1/20_1_1_Hammond.pdf

Hasan, R. (1996). Literacy, everyday talk and society. In R. Hasan & G. Williams(Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 377–424). London, England: Longman.

Humphrey, S. (2015). A 494 literacy toolkit for empowering English languagelearners for high stakes academic literacies. In K. Malu & M. B. Schaefer(Eds.), Research on teaching and learning with the literacies of young adolescents(Vol. 10). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Humphrey, S., Martin, J. R., Dreyfus, S., & Mahboob, A. (2010). The 393: Setting upa linguistic toolbox for teaching academic writing. In A. Mahboob & N. Knight(Eds.), Directions in appliable linguistics (pp. 185–189). London: Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London, England:Continuum.

Johns, A. M. (2011). The future of genre in L2 writing: Fundamental, but con-tested, instructional decisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 56–68.doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2010.12.003

Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012). Debating functional literacy. In Literacies.Retrieved from http://newlearningonline.com/literacies/chapter-5/kalantzis-and-cope-debating-functional-literacy

Llinares, A., & Pascual Pe~na, I. (2014). A genre approach to the effect of academicquestions on CLIL students’ language production. Language and Education, 29(1), 15–30. doi:10.1080/09500782.2014.924964

Luke, A. (2014, May). On explicit and direct instruction. Australian Literacy Educa-tors Association (ALEA) “Hot Topic.” Retrieved from http://www.alea.edu.au/pub-licresources/alea-hot-topics/hot-topic-links

Mahboob, A., & Yilmaz Devrim, D. (2011). Supporting independent constructiononline: Feedback in the SLATE project. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 7,101–123. doi:10.1558/lhs.v7i1-3.101

Mariani, L. (1997). Teacher support and teacher challenge in promoting learnerautonomy. Perspectives, 23(2), 5–19. Retrieved from http://www.learning-paths.org/papers/papersupport.htm

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause.London, England: Continuum.

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in Eng-lish. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mohan, B., & Slater, T. (2006). Examining the theory/practice relation in a highschool science register: A functional linguistic perspective. Journal of English forAcademic Purposes, 5, 302–316. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2006.08.004

FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 23

Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review ofthe literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education,31, 1–44. doi:10.3102/ 0091732x07300046

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief StateSchool Officers (NGA & CCSO). (2010). Common core state standards for Englishlanguage arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects:Appendix A: Research supporting key elements of the standards and glossary of key terms.Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/as-sets/Appendix_A.pdf

Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledgeand pedagogy in the Sydney school. London, England: Equinox.

Rymes, B. (2010). Classroom discourse analysis: A focus on communicative reper-toires. In N. H. Hornberger & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and languageeducation (pp. 528–546). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.

Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional. linguistics perspec-tive. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schleppegrell, M. (2013). The role of meta-language in supporting academic lan-guage development. Language Learning, 63, 153–170. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00742.x

Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., & Buckley, S. (2013). PISA 2012: How Australia mea-sures up. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Unsworth, L. (2006). Towards a metalanguage for multiliteracies education:Describing the meaning-making resources of language-image interaction. Eng-lish Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5(1), 55–76. Retrieved from http://edlinked.-soe.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2006v5n1art4.pdf

Wilhelm, J., Baker, T., & Dube, J. (2001). Strategic reading: Guiding students to life-long literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

APPENDIX

4 3 4 METALINGUISTIC FRAMEWORK FORANALYTICAL EXPOSITIONS (SAMPLE RESOURCE)

Text unit/meaning

Whole text(structure related

to context) Paragraph (phase)

Sentence(clause/clause

complex)Word andexpression

Language toexpress ideas(field)

Discipline ideasunfold as stagesto achievepersuasive textpurpose

Ideas formPEEL phasesrelevant tosubject (i.e.,point,elaboration,evidence, link)

Expanded noungroups andrelating verbgroups describeand classify

Technicalvocabulary forspecificdisciplines; mainand auxiliaryverbs expressappropriatetense

TESOL QUARTERLY24

Appendix (Continued)

Text unit/meaning

Whole text(structure related

to context) Paragraph (phase)

Sentence(clause/clause

complex)Word andexpression

Language todevelop ideas(field)

Multiple ideasdeveloped toform analyticalframework

Ideas expand aslogicalsequences tocompare,contrast, showcause andconsequence

Well-structuredsimple andcomplexsentencesexpand ideaslogically

Causal andcontrastiveconjunctionsand textconnectives linkideas

Language tointeract withothers (tenor)

Propositionreinforced,justified, anddefended topersuadeaudience that aposition is valid

Claimssupported andrebutted to openand close spacefor other views

Concessiveclauses,modality, andevaluativeexpressionsexpress andnegotiateopinionsobjectively

Modalitythrough modalverbs, adverbs,and adjectives;clause subjectand verb agreein number andperson

Language tostructure andorganize text(mode)

Layout, text,and paragraphopeners signalorganisation

Paragraphs formwaves fromabstract packedtopic sentencesto concreteunpackedsentences

Sentenceopeners, textconnectives, andactive andpassive voicefocus attentionon topic andargument

Abstract nounsand referringwords trackideas; spellingand punctuationassist meaning

FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 25