TEXTUAL RECIPES

LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY AND CLASSROOM

DISCOURSE

To strive at higher mathematical formulas for lin­guistic meaning while knowing nothing correctly of the shirt-sleeve rudiments of language is to court disaster. Benjamin Lee Whorf cited in Michael Holquist

Structural linguistics has had a major impact on language and literacy pedagogy in Australian education; in particular, approaches which make use of systemic functional grammar and James Martin's theory of genre. The application of systemic functional theory has resulted in more explicit and systematic approaches to literacy education than existed during the '70s and '80s when more naturalistic methodologies prevailed. However, there are criticisms that these approaches have led to formulaic understandings of text and have limited value in equipping students with the skills necessary to manipulate language and reconfigure new textual forms. It seems time, therefore, to reassess the pedagogic effectiveness of current applications of systemic functional grammar and genre theory in language and literacy education. Do they possess the flexibility to incorporate new literacies or do they simply encourage a rigidity and rule-based approach to textual practice?

This paper is based on a detailed study of the results of research conducted in New South Wales primary schools at the end of 1995 (Watkins). The aim of the research was to investigate how teachers were implementing a new language curriculum for English K-6 (NSW Board of Studies [BOS] Syllabus and Support Document) which is based on a functional model of language, an approach the Syllabus states is "con­cerned with the relationships between context, language structure and meaning" (2). This model adopts an approach to grammar and text which is very much influenced by systemic functional grammar (Halliday) and Martin's theory of genre. The new Syllabus has proved to be quite controversial. Although only released in 1994 after a long period of development, by March 19951 with a change of government in NSW, it was already under review. The main criticism of the document resided in its adoption of a new grammar, functional grammar, which was to form the basis of a more explicit teaching of textual forms or, as they are referred to in the Syllabus, text types. While functional grammar was very poorly received by teachers (NSW Department ofTraining and Educational Coordination), and in this study there was either very little or no evidence of its use in the classrooms investigated, the systematised approach to teaching text based on Martin's notion of genre and his collaborations with Joan Rothery (Martin and Rothery) seem to have

Southern Revil.'W, 30.3 (1997)

288 Megan Watkins

gained wide acceptance from teachers (NSW BOS Review Report Part A).The result of this schism between genre and grammar, however, is agreatly impoverished theoretical framework for the teaching of text.With very little emphasis on grammar, the focus is merely textualstructure.

While a number of issues arose from the research concerning thisrelationship between grammar, text and pedagogy, what was particu­larly interesting was the teachers' own literacies in the interpretation ofsyllabus documents; the way they were dealing with text, its treatmentas type and their interpretation of a functional model of language. Theresults of the research raise questions not merely in relation to thetreatment of text within a classroom context, and the repercussions offailing to use grammar as an anchor for teaching text, but about genretheory 'in general. That is, it raises questions about the efficacy ofproduct or text-based notions of genre which have been largely influ­enced by structural linguistics, as has Martin's model. Such approachesto genre seem to treat language, as it is used within particular situations,as highly predictable, almost formulaic. They ignore the dynamism oftextual production and have severe pedagogic limitations as text isreduced to mere schemas, or textual recipes. Such a tendency wasforeseen by Gunther Kress when he voiced the concern that

The Martin/Rothery account necessarily tends towards a firmerview ofgeneric structure, a greater tendency towards reificationof types, and an emphasis on the linguistic system as an inven­tory of types. With such a tendency goes the correspondingtendency pedagogically towards an emphasis on the matter ofform, and a tendency towards authoritarian modes of transmis­sion ("Genre as Social Process" 35).

The analysis of classroom discourse, which formed the basis of theresearch study, is especially useful in highlighting these limitations ofthis structuralist notion of genre which has influenced the languagecurriculum currently being implemented in NSW, and in other states ofAustralia. At a time when the concept of literacy is generally morerealistically conceptualised as a plurality which accounts for contextualdifferentiation and the impact of new technologies on textual form(Department of Employment, Education and Training 9), it seemsbizarre that there is such a widespread adoption of a structuralist modelwith the theoretical tendency and practical application to so impedetextual practice. If language and literacy pedagogy is to embrace newliteracies available through the potentiality of digitisation there is a needto ensure the old literacy of "readin' and writin' " is equipped with anappropriately dynamic approach to text.

The research involved a study of four teachers differing in age,experience and educational philosophy, in three quite different schoolswith four different classes spanning Years 2 to 5. Despite this diversitywithin the sample there was a surprising similarity in the teachers'approaches to text. This paper focuses on one of these teachers whoexemplifies the approach to text demonstrated in the study overall, The

Textual Recipes289

teacher in question had been teaching for seven years. She possessesboth a B.Ed. and an M.Ed. degree. She holds an executive position at herschool and as a result of her interest and experience in literacy educationhad been given the responsibility for staff development in this area.

The teacher's school is located in a predominantly low socio-eco­nomic area of Western Sydney. The school has a 75% non-Englishspeaking background (NESB) student population and possesses a Dis­advantaged School Program (DSP) classification. The teacher, referredto as Rose, teaches a Year 2 class at the school. It is a special classcomprised of fifteen students who are experiencing difficulties withtheir language learning. The class is comprised of predominantly NESBstudents with some English as a Second Language (ESL) and NewArrival (NA) students as well. To investigate the teacher's practice twolessons were observed; one at the commencement of a unit of work andthe other towards its end. A detailed interview with the teacherregarding her teaching practice and overall educationalphilosophywasalso conducted following the observation lessons. Both the lessons andinterview were audiotaped.

In the interview following the classroom observation sessions Rosereadily admitted she had a limited knowledge of grammar. She was nottaught any grammar at school and it was not included in her pre-servicetraining or postgraduate study, although she did attend training ses­sions conducted by the New South Wales Department of School Educa­tion and the University of Sydney which were made available toteachers to assist them in implementing the Syllabus. Grammar, how­ever, is given minimal treatment in her implementation of the functionalmodel of language. She places emphasis on teaching about text asdistinct from grammar. She sees text in quite broad terms as being"spoken or written, factual or even TV." While she considers text to bea broad category, in practice her focus, like that of the Syllabus, is on textas type, conforming to particular generic schemas. In discussing herteaching philosophy, Rose explained her"focus was on process not somuch product." To some extent, however, there is a contradiction in herpractical application of this point. While her practice illustrates lessemphasis on her students producing a final polished product, there is afar greater product, as opposed to process, orientation in her interpre­tation of text. This is illuminated in the following examination of theclassroom interaction.

the two observation lessons formed part of a unit of work that Rosewas teaching on Birthdays and Parties. Rose explained how she taughtthematically and chose text types which were related to a particulartheme. While a number of text types were examined in the unit therewas a focus on what the teacher referred to as instructions by which shemeant procedural instructions. She specifically concentrated on thetemporal sequentiality of the texts. She had devoted considerable timeand effort to devising a series of activities which made use of proceduraltexts related to the theme under focus. She had also selected a narrativetext to use with the class which had a repetitive sequential textuality to

II!

290 Megan Watkins

highlight temporal sequencing as a feature across these text types.Other activities involved students working with recounts and reports.

In these two lessons Rose chose to concentrate on instructions.While the content of the unit was new to the class, most of the studentsby this stage of the year had already completed work on instructionaltexts. However, the composition of the class varied as this was whereNA students were generally placed. Additional NA students wereadmitted to the class as the year progressed and so this text type wasnew to some. The segment of the first lesson which provides particularinsight into Rose's treatment of text concerns her examination of twoinstructional texts: How to play pass the parcel and How to blow up aballoon.She uses a similarprocedure in discussing both; however, emphasis willbe placed on the second text. Before discussing this segment it isimportant to consider the activities which preceded it.

I Teaching to formula

Rose started the lesson by reading a big book (an oversized bookdesigned for whole class readings) to students. The class was asked toread along and at intervals she paused to ask a range of questions whichwere concerned with prediction, comprehension, punctuation and pho­nemic awareness. During the follow-up interview Rose pointed outhow she used this exercise to gauge students' understandingof the storyalthough, in doing this prior to discussing two sets of instructions, shewas obviously making the connection between the sequential nature ofboth types of text. She explained that "sequencing in procedural textsto show order is vital, otherwise the text doesn't achieve its purpose."This remark was particularly interesting. While it demonstrates herunderstanding of one of the key generic features of procedural instruc­tions, her view of purpose as residing in the text has major pedagogicimplications. It suggests a separation of writer and text, of agent andproduct. She seems to see text operating as a given with its ownpurpose: that is, as a product with a particular schema. The agentivenature of the writer actually producing the text is effaced. The writer isinstead presented with a pre-determined set of textual rules to repro­duce, the stance taken by Rose herself in her classroom practice.

The teacher's comment, however, matches the approach to textexpounded in the 1994 NSW K-6 English Syllabus. The support docu­ment to the Syllabus, in a section entitled How does thefunctional approachdeal with purpose?, states that "the approach allows us to distinguishbetween the social· purpose of the text and the motivations of thelanguage users" (NSW 80S, Guide to the Syllabus and Support Document10). Such a position presents a theoretical problem for an approach tolanguage which the Syllabus claims "allows for the diversity of lan­guage contexts" (NSW 80S, Syllabus and Support Document 2). Adistinction can be made hetween a text's social function, as opposed topurpose, and the writer's intention. Such a distinction is useful to

Textual Recipes 291

remind us that the social junction of a text is not always reducible to theconscious motivations of the author. However, to characterise theformer as the purpose of the text is to shift agency too far the other way.Apart from granting a degree of intent to an inanimate object, it alsosuggests that a text's purpose lies outside the writer's motivations as anautonomous phenomenon. Such a view doesn't allow for the diversityand multiplicity which are found in texts and contexts, and certainlycan't account for the dynamism of language use and change. Rather itprovides the theoretical basis of a pedagogywhich is reproductive of thestatus quo, impervious to textual diversity which is spawned by thedialogic between the social dimension of text and the discursive ele­ments of individual subjectivity, rather than a dichotomising of the twowhich is implicit in the Syllabus. It is this problematic which is evidentas Rose examines the parts of instructional texts with her students.

There were two stages to Rose's work on instructions during thislesson. She firstly examined a text entitled How to play pass the parcel.This text was written on a whiteboard and the teacher discussed thedifferent parts of the text with the class, that is, What you need and Whatyou do, the ingredients and the method. The teacher had also purpose­fully included a number of spelling and punctuation errors in the textwhich the children were required to identify. In addition to this Rosehad drawn a square around each of the verbs, uWrap," "sit," "turn,""pass," and "stop," which were used as imperatives at the beginning ofeach step in the instructions. These were referred to as "thewords whichtell us what to do." The teacher avoided the use of any metalinguisticterminology with her students, a point of interest discussed in thedetailed study on which this paperis based. lnidentifying each oftheseverbs it is interesting that when it came to the verb group "Keepplaying" she boxed only the finite element "Keep" and not the participle"playing." This was not one of the errors the class had to identify in theirediting exercise; rather it was an error on the part of the teacher. Whatit seems to demonstrate is not merely an oversight, or lack of knowledge,but a focus on the text as a set of linguistic units which together make upa text type. She does not give her attention to what the words are"doing" but where they are located in the text. Her practice is thereforeguided by a view of text as a set of rules, for example, "the first word inthe method stage ofa set of instructions is a verb," rather than seeing textas a dynamic phenomenon where a range of questions could be asked:"What is the writer doing with the language?," "What word/s areperforming this function?" and then ""''here are they located in thisparticular text and why?"

This view of text as a given type is also evident in the way the teacherexamines the next set of instructions with her students. As an introduc­tion Rose reminded the class about the type of writing they had exam­ined in the earlier session. To test their knowledge of the "parts" of thistype of text, she conducted another text reconstruction with the class.All the parts of the text How to blow up a balloon had been placed in ajumbled order on the whiteboard. All headings, ingredients and steps

292 Megan Walkins

in the method had been cut up separately and so the process of reassem­bling the text was quite complex, particularly for those students whosereading skills were poor (see Teaching Stimulus 1).

Teaching Slimulus 1

Text - not shown to studentsHow to blow up a balloonWhat you need:a balloon, a personWhat you do:Pick up the balloon.Take a deep breath.Blow into the balloon.Keep blowing until it is big and round.Tie the end in a knot.Jumbled Text- shown to studentsBlow into the balloon.Tie the end in a knot.Pick up the balloon.How to blow up a balloonWhat you need:a balloonWhat you do:Keep blowing until it is big and round.Take a deep breath.a person

The product orientation of Rose's understanding of text is evidentfrom the beginning of this segment of the lesson when she asks thequestion "OK, what do we know about instructions first of all? Whatcomes at the top?" A student replies "Urn, What you need:' which is oneofthe three headings in the text (see Appendix 1: Extract from Transcriptof Lesson 1). The student has correctly identified a heading but it is notthe first heading. Rather than explaining this by discussing whatinformation would come under this heading, and where it would occurif a reader were to follow these instructions, and so focusing on whatthelanguage is doing, the teacher places emphasis in her feedback on "Doesanyone know what this sort of thing is?" It is categorised by the class asa heading, with considerable prompting by the teacher, but its functionin the text is ignored.

This is similarly the case with the goal, the overriding heading How10 blow up a balloon. In 1:21-32, the class discuss the location of thisheading in the text. A student points out that it should be placed at thetop of the text, with the explanation, "It's a title." It is not clear if thestudent is suggesting a taxonomy of headings, that is a "title" being anoverriding heading and therefore placed at the beginning, or·is justusing it as a synonym for "heading" as is the case with the teacher.

Textual Recipes 293

Either way, there is no discussion of why this heading should be placedin this position, that is, what its role in the text is. After deciding uponthe main heading the teacher questions the class about what shouldfollow -1:33-44 demonstrates the confusion the class have in determin­ing what parts come next. It is only in 1:45, when the teacher makes theconnection between "language" and "doing," with the question "Ifwe're going to blow up a balloon, do we need to have a balloon?," thatthe students reply with a confident "Yes." However, rather than follow­ing this with a questiclfi such as "Which heading tells us whatwe need?,"the teacher continues with her "textual puzzle" technique. She asks theclass "Where should this go?"

It is clear by this stage that the class know "where" the heading"should" go. It is significant, however, that in supplying the directionsto the teacher the students rely on spatial concepts such as "top" and"down" as in 1:50 and 54. These responses demonstrate an inculcationof a view of text as a substantive phenomenon- a thing to be unpackedand put back together. There is little, if any, discussion of language.They are learning that text is an amalgam of parts and that the textualpuzzle is not complete unless these parts are placed in the correct order.This view is reinforced in 1:55 when the teacher asks" ... underneathwhat heading?" Once again there is a reliance on spatial concepts todiscuss the text. While it is obvious that written text is a spatialphenomenon, the efficacy of highlighting this in a language pedagogy,particularly at such an early stage of learning, is questionable. Infocusing on spatiality and merely examining the generic structuralfeatures of a textual type, students are denied access to an understand­ing of the language which determines these structural labels. To Rose,who possesses a limited knowledge of grammar, teaching structuralformulae is a way of avoiding teaching grammar and yet feeling assuredthat she is teaching the functional approach to language as required bythe Syllabus. But the functionality of merely teaching structure islimited. Brian Massumi, writing more generally about the philosophi­cal problems of a focus on structure but with a poignant relevance tolanguage pedagogy, states, " ... for structure is the place where nothingever happens, that explanatory heaven in which all eventual permuta­tions are prefigured in a self-consistent set of invariant genecative rules"(87).

Another problem with a purely product-based view of text evidentin a pedagogy which focuses on structure is the tendency to treatlanguage in the abstract. In the early years of schooling children's firstattempts at writing are very much transcriptions of speech (Kress,Learning to Write; Perera). Children make connections between theconcrete world of experience and the abstract world of written lan­guage. To bridge the gap between the linguistic domains of speech andwriting it is essential that students' own writing is the starting point forthe journey to greater degrees of abstraction concomitant with writingdevelopment. This is difficult if text is treated as type, and models ofwhole text types form the basis for learning to write. This lack of

294 Megan Watkins

connection between the concrete and the abstract has already beenhighlighted in Rose's discussion of the What you need stage of theinstructions. The students' difficulty with the reconstruction exerciseshows they are still focused on the concrete. This is also evident as Rosecontinues with this activity. When she questions the class about "Whatcomes next in the instructions?" (1:63), in other words, "which head­ing?:' the student who responds with, "You blow it up" 1:64 is clearlyoperating from a concrete perspective of the world. He is not thinkingabout the parts of the text, an abstract concept removed from hisexperience, he is thinking about what he would do next. He has notbridged the gap between the material world and its construction as text,which he reveals himself when he says "I didn't know what to do."

Perhaps in response to the student's difficulty and a realisation thatshe needs to link this exercise with a concrete actiVity, when Rose moveson to discussing the steps in the What you do stage she has two studentsgive a demonstration of what you do to blow up a balloon. Yet ratherthan haVing the rest of the class watch the demonstration and thentranscribe the students' account of each step on the board as it accompa­nied the action performed, this activity was used as a matching exercisewith the class identifying each step in the process of blowing up aballoon from the jumbled steps the teacher had written on thewhiteboard. The teacher did not make the connections between thisconcrete activity and its written abstraction. This was similarly the casein the first part of the lesson when the students examined the instruc­tions on How to play pass the parcel. The class did eventually play thegamebut only after it had been discussed as a textual entity. The activitywas not viewed as a scaffold to examine instructional language; rather,it was treated as an addendum to an examination of the text.

This failure to use the activity itself, and students' own language, asthe basis for a writing pedagogy seems to result from the Syllabus'approach to language which takes a reified view of text. If the text wasconsidered from a process rather than a product perspective perhapsmore of a focus would be placed on the grammatical resources a writeruses to produce text. With less of an emphasiS on the product, the linkbetween concrete action and its realisation in written language could bemade. In the case of procedural instructions, a teacher would begin byhighlighting, not the formal textual feature of sequentiality with theclass, but rather the text's imperative mood which operates at the moremanageable level of the sentence. An action, such as one of the steps inblowing up a balloon, could be performed by a student and transcribedby the teacher. This step would first appear in its written form as arecount of the event using the declarative mood, that is, the question"what happened?" would elicit a response, "she blew air into theballoon" or perhaps the agentless passive, "air was blown into theballoon" It could then be reformulated by the class as an imperative,"blow air into the balloon." The temporal sequentiality of the text wouldthen become evident as each command was written up by the class,ra ther than being divorced from the action by being discussed as a

Textual Recipes 295

textual construct. Such an approach does not deny the need for viewinggrammar at a text level, nor the importance of structure. What it doesis consider these as guiding principles in an examination of grammarand text instead of the central features. Consequently, there is not thedichotomous positioning of "the social purpose of the text" and "themotivations of the language users" (NSW BOS, Guide to the Syllabus andSupport Document 10), rather, it is the relationship between the two,initiated by the laller, which is highlighted.

II Grammar by numbers

A greater amount of time was devoted to grammar in the secondobservation lesson. It commenced with a discussion of the theme of"Birthdays and Parties" and factual texts which could provide informa­tion about the topiC such as recipe books. This discussion served as auseful introduction to the procedural text they were about to examinewhich was a recipe for fairy bread (see Teaching Stimulus 2).

Teaching Stimulus 2

How to make Fairy BreadWhat you need:ButterBreadHundreds and ThousandsKnifePlateWhat you do:Place the bread on the plate.Put the butter on the knife.Spread the butter on one side of the bread.Sprinkle the hundreds and thousands over the bread.Brush off any extra hundreds and thousands.Cut the bread into four triangles.

The teacher then began to examine the structural features of the text,that is, the main heading and the What you need and What you do sections

. in much the same way as she did in lesson one, divorced from the actualpractice of making fairy bread.

After this she proceeded to focus on the grammatical features,essentially the verbs, beginning with the question in 2:1, "Put up yourhand if you can find some of the words which tell us what to do in theseinstructions" (see Appendix 2: Extract from Transcript of Lesson 2). Toidentify the verbs the teacher referred to the function they perform in thesentence but this emphasis on function was shortlived. After each verbwas identified the focus then turned to "Whereabouts in the sentence isit?" as is the case in 2:5, 7, 11, 17,21,29,31,33. The use of spatial termsto assist in locating the verbs as in 2:19, "Somewhere up here," as was the

296 Megan Watkins

case in identifying the structural features in lesson one, is also evident.While it is important to identify the grammatical patterns in text, theeffectiveness in doing so is related to what these patterns reveal abouthow language is being used. Questions such as "Whereabouts in thesentence is it?" could be followed by "What is the writer doing with thelanguage here?," "Why is this language being used?," "What type ofsentence is it?," "Why would this type of text use this type of sentence?"These types of questions place emphasis on the productive nature of thelanguage and the writer as agent. By simply considering grammaticalpatterns as immanent in the text, the focus becomes one of language asrule, that is, learning textual schemas rather than how language can beused for a particular effect. Without emphasis on the latter, the genera­tive potential oflanguage is limited. Its boundaries remain the text typeand reformulations beyond the normative are theoretically andpedagogically constrained.

This preoccupation with the text as a spatial schema recurs through­out the lesson but is obvious at two points. Firstly, in 2:21 Rose tries toassist her students by saying "You mightn't know how to say the wordbut you just might know where it is ... " In other words, the word itselfis almost superfluous; it is its location in the text which is important.This could be interpreted as the teacher's strategy for assisting the poorreaders in the class but if so this is an indication that a focus on the wholetext at this point is beyond the ability of many of these students and amore clearly differentiated scaffold approach would be more appropri­ate.

At another point in the text it seems the teacher does intend to movebeyond merely defining the location of the verbs. In 2:37 she asks, "Whydid we cover up these ones? Does anyone know? What did we try andfind? What were these words telling us, Manal?" The student'sresponse in 2:38 is unfortunately inaudible. However, the student'sanswer to the next question in 2:39, "... so why didn't we cover upbread?," namely "Because it's at the end," illustrates how the child hasinterpreted the teacher's questioning. The student's response is focusedon position and therefore rule, not function and effect. The teacher in2:41 makes no attempt to alter this interpretation. She affirms theresponse and then shifts the questioning to a discussion of sequencingin 2:41-49. Following this the examination of the text was thrown wideopen with the class working on a range of different activities.

What was demonstrably clear in this particular case study, as withthe other teachers observed in the larger study, was a failure to make thenecessary connections between grammar and its role in the prod uctionof text. Grammar formed a part of all the teachers' pedagogic practicein one sense or another, but none were actually able to teach it in afunctional way whereby the emphasis was on the use of grammar tocreate particular effects to fulfil required textual purposes. This restric­tive use of grammar seems very much the result of the teachers'approach to text as lype with grammar merely an ingredient in a textualrecipe. Grammar was perceived as part of the formula for reproducinga textual type, not as a generative resource for textual production.

297Textual Recipes

Ifapplications of grammar in education are to avoid this potentialityof being used as a tool for establishing textual rules, the notion of text onwhich they are based needs to be rethought. A productive theory of textmust encompass a notion of genre, with genre and text theorised as twoseparate categories, not, as Martin expounds, as one and the same. Toremedy this problem genre should be seen as the textual pattemingmade evident by the use and manipulation of grammar rather than thetext itself, thereby accounting for, and encouraging, textual variation.There are a number of critiques of Martin's position which argue for aprocess orientation to text and genre, however, such perspectives are yetto impact on mainstream language and literacy curriculum (Kress andThreadgold; Knapp; Kress, "Genre as Social Process" Freadman; Knappand Watkins). Meanwhile teachers are working with an impoverishednotion of text generally unaware of the implications of their practice.

In conclusion it is useful to consider the following quote from JohnShotter in which he refers to Wittgenstein's later work on language,which offers invaluable insights for genre theorists and for studies ofgrammar and text with a structuralist bent:

... everyday human activities do not just appear vague andindefinite because w~ are still as yet ignorant of their trueunderlying nature but, that they really are vague. The fact isthere is no order, no already determined order, just an "order ofpossibilities" (82).

The category of genre would be more productive if seen in this way,as a potential with generative possibilities not as a text with a pre­determined order. Such a view would challenge its present limitedapplication in language and literacy education and provide the neces­sary plasticity to incorporate new Iiteracies. Perhaps debate about newliteracies should focus less on the emergence of new textual formsconsequent upon the introduction of new media technologies andcomputerisation and instead consider the development of a pedagogywhich can account for, and foster competence in, the dynamism oftextual form and the manipulation of the grammatical resources oflanguage which is in itself a technology.

University of Western Sydney - NepeanMegan Watkins

Appendix 1: Extract from Transcript of Lesson 1

1. T: OK, what do we know about instructions first of all? What always comes at the

top? Yes. Trish.2. 5: Urn .._What you need.3. T: And where can you see that?4. 5: (Student points)5. T: Good girl. Does anyone know what this sort of thing is, this "What You Need"?

298 Megan Watkins

6. 5, (inaudible)7. T: It's got a special name. Sometimes we even put a line underneath it.8. 5: ''\'¥hat it is"?9. T: Good trv but what's the name of this? What do we call it? Starts with a "h,"10. S: Urn ..."how"?11. T: It's a little bit like a title and sometimes we say this is the title or head ...

12. 5: Heading.13. T: Heading. Good girl. Now, this is the heading "What You Need." Is thereanother heading in there somewhere? What do you think Mehrad? Is there another

one?14. M: Who to ... Who to .15. T: How to blow .._16. 5, Blow up ...17. To Up ...18. 5, A ...19. T: A balloon ... aww ...20. 5: There are balloons on the table.21. T: Balloons on my table. Khadria, where do you think this one should go­"How To Blow Up A Balloon"? Here or here? Here?22. 5: I know ...23. T: How To Blow Up A Balloon.24. 5: Easy ...25. T: Down the bottom? What do you think, Alan?26. A The top.27. T: Why at the top?28. A: It's a title.29. T: Ohhh ... What did you say, Alan?30. A: It's the title.32. T: It's the title. You read it with me.33 T&Ss: How to blow up a balloon. What you need.34. T: What comes next? Take in a deep breath?35. Ss: No.36. T: No. Tie the end in a knot?37. Sso No.38. T: A balloon, a person?39. Ss: No.40. Ss: Yes.41. T: Is that what we need?42. 5, No.43. T: Do we need a balloon?44. Ss: No ... Yes.45. T: If we're going to blow up a balloon, do we need to have a balloon?46. 5, Yes.47. T: And do we need a person?485: Yes.49. T: So where should this go?50. 5, Top, top.51. T: Ohhh, right up here? I

299Textual Recipes

52. 5: Yes.53. T: Ohhh, 1see. OK, up here like this?

54.. Ss: No. No, down.55. T: Ohhh, underneath what heading?

56. 5: What you need.57. T: So can I move this one down?

58. S: Yes.59. T: 'Cos what should that one be under? What's the other heading? What's up,Khadria _ not at the moment _ OK, does that seem OK? Let's read it and check it.

60. T&5s: How to blow up a balloon. What you need. A balloon. A person.

61. T: Then it says tie the end in a knot.

62. 5: (Inaudible)63. T: Use your hand, Samic. What comes next in the instructions? What you need

and then what you .,-64. 5: )'au blow it up.65. T: Yes, but even before that. What heading needs to go there? Katrina?

66. K: Urn .,. What you do.67. T: Good girl. It was hiding down here. Can you see it down there?

68. Ss: I did.69. Samir: I didn't know what to do.70. T: You didn't understand. That's OK.

Appendix 2: Extract from Transcript of Lesson 2

1. T: Put up your hand if you can find some of the words which tell us what to do in

these instructions.

2.5: Oh,oh.3 T: Sonia, your hand went up so quickly. Hold it up there until everyone has achance to look. Now look in the "What You Do" and I want to see if you can findsome of the words that tell us exactly what to do. Jeannie, what's one of the words?

4 J: Brush.5. T: Where does it say brush?

6. J: (student points)7. T: Good girl. Whereabouts in number five does it say brush?

8 5: The first letter.9. T: The first ... Not the first letter but the first ... w

10. Ss: Word.11. T: The first word in the sentence.

12. Ss: Sentence.13. T: OK, that's good thinking. Khoder, is there another word that you can find that

tells us exactly what to do?

14. K: Ah cut the bread.15. T: Ah and what's the one word which tells us what to do?

16. K: Cut.17. T: Good thinking. Whereabouts in the sentence is it?

18. K First.19. T: Ah... How about I cover the end of it. Who can find another word which tells

300 Megan Watkins

us exactly what to do in these instructions? Alao, have you had a look? Somewhere

up here.20. Ao Oh... (inaudible)21. T: Use your hand. Who can have a go. Another word. You mightn't know howto say the word but you just might know where it is, especially if ... (inaudible)22. 5: "Plate" or "place."

23. T: Jeannie.24. r "Put."25. T: Where's '_'put?" In which number?26. J: Number two.27. T: Good girl ... and another one Mohammed?28. M: "Sprinkle."29. T: Where's the word "sprinkJe?"

30. M: (inaudible)31. T: Whereabouts in the sentence?32. M: The first word.33. T: There's a couple more ... There's a couple more ... Can anyone tell me? .. _Crossyour legs. Cross yOUT legs. What's funny or unusual about where these words are?Use your hands, VaneSsa. What part of the sentence is each of these words in?

34. V: Next to the numbers.35. T: Next to the numbers. Good girl. What can we say when they're next to the

numbers? They're at the ...36. 5: The line.37. T: They are making a line. Good girl, Trish. What if I cover up these ones. Whydid we cover up these ones? Does anyone know? What did we try and find? VVhat

were these words telling us, Manal?38. M: (inaudible)39. T: Good girl. 50 why didn't we cover up "bread"?

40. 5: Because it's at the end?41. T: At the end. Good girl, good girl. OK, what would happen if I took off all ofthese words here. Mehrad, you'll know this one and I mixed them all up. What

would happen? What would get mixed up?42. 5: You wouldn't know.43. T: You wouldn't know what?44. S: What, what ...45. T: What would happen if later on this morning I mixed these up really, truly and Isaid "OK. Trish, you're going to make the fairy bread now using these instructions."What would happen to Trish if she was trying to make it? Use YOl.::r hand, Zeinab.What would happf>O if I mixed these up?46. 5: She wouldn't know.47. T: Why wouldn't she know?

48. 5: Because you mixed them up.49. T: Good girl. OK. close your eyes. Keep them closed because I'm going to cover

up some more words.

Textual Recipes

WORKS CITED

301

Department of Employment, Education and Training. Australia's LAnguage­The Australian lAnguage and Literacy Policy. Canberra: Australian Govern­ment Publishing Service, 1991.

Freadman, Anne. Models ofGenrefor LAnguage Teaching. Sonia Marks MemorialLecture. Sydney University, 13 October, 1994.

Halliday, MichaeL An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: EdwardAmold,1985.

Holquist, Micbael. "Introduction." M.M. Bakhtin. Speech Genres and Other LAteEssays. Trans. Vem W. McGee. Ed. C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin:University of Texas Press, 1987.

Knapp, Peter. Literacy and Learning Program - Resource Book. MetropolitanWest Region: Department of School Education, 1992.

_ and Megan Watkins. Context, Text, Grammar. Sydney: Text Productions,1994.

](ress, Gunther. Learning To Write. London: Routledge, 1992._. "Genre as Social Process." The Powers of Literacy - A Genre Approach to

Teaching Writing. Ed. Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis. London: The FalmerPress, 1993.

_ and Terry Threadgold. "Towards a Social Theory of Genre." SouthernReview 21.3 (1988): 215-43.

Martin, James. English Text - System and Structure. Philadelphia: JohnBenjamin,1992.

_ and Joan Rothery. "Writing Project Report." Nos 1,2 and 4. Departmentof Linguistics. University of Sydney: Sydney, 1980,1981,1986.

Massumi, Brian. "The Autonomy of Affect." Cultural Critical 31 (Fall 1995): 83­109.

NSW Board of Studies. A Guide to the English K-6 Syllabus and Support Document.North Sydney: NSW Board of Studies, 1996.

_. English K-6 Review Report Part A. Nortl, Sydney: NSW Board of Studies,1996.

_. English K-6 Syllabus and Support Document. North Sydney: NSW Board ofStudies, 1994.

NSW Department of School Education. English K-6 In the Classroom. Sydney:NSW Department of School Education, 1995.

NSW Department of Training and Education Coordination. Focusing on Learn­ing: Report of the Review of Outcomes and Profiles in New South Wales Schools.Sydney: NSW Department of Training and Education Coordination, 1995.

Perera, Katharine. Children's Writing and Reading - Analysing Classroom lAn­guage. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984.

Shotter, John. Cultural Politics of Everyday Life. Toronto: Toronto Press, 1993.

Watkins, Megan. Grappling With Grammar: A Study of Grammar, Text andPedagogy in Primary School Classrooms. Macquarie University: unpublishedMAL dissertation, 1996.