Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Journal of Second Language Writing 25 (2014) 23–39

Writing science in an upper elementary classroom: A genre-based

approach to teaching English language learners
Luciana C. de Oliveira a,*, Shu-Wen Lan b
a
Teachers College, Columbia University, United States
b
National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan

Abstract
This case study presents the implementation of a genre-based pedagogy informed by systemic-functional linguistics (SFL) with
the goal of scaffolding the teaching of procedural recounts in the content area of science in a 4th grade classroom with several
English language learners (ELLs). We use one L2 writer representative of the mainstreamed ELLs to demonstrate how the genre
work impacted the focal student’s writing development. This article addresses a major need in the field of second language writing:
identifying instructional practices for teaching upper elementary ELLs to write school-based genres.
# 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Genre-based pedagogy; Elementary classrooms; Science writing; Mainstream teachers; Systemic-functional linguistics

Introduction

Ji Soo,1 an English language learner (ELL) originally from Korea in Mrs. Darcy’s fourth grade classroom, is able to
speak with his classroom colleagues well and write personal stories and narratives in English language arts, but he is
having difficulties in the content area of science. Specifically, he struggles to write about science experiments. The
focal teacher participating in this study, Mrs. Darcy, noted Ji Soo is a ‘‘typical’’ L2 writer in her classroom: He is very
focused during science instruction, is able to read the textbook with guidance from the teacher, but when it comes to
science writing, he struggles. Concerned about L2 writers’ struggles in science writing, the teacher asked us to pay
particular attention to Ji Soo as she was interested in helping her diverse students write about science experiments.
During the upper elementary grades (Grades 4–5, ages 9–11), the content areas become more specialized. There is
an increasing focus on more linguistically complex and cognitively demanding disciplinary-based written tasks and
genres beyond students’ familiar text types such as stories or personal narratives (Christie & Derewianka, 2008). These
tasks and genres, placing new linguistic and cognitive demands on all upper elementary students, can be even more
challenging for ELLs, especially in the content area of science (Carrasquillo, Kucer, & Abrams, 2004; Fang, Lamme,

* Corresponding author at: Teachers College, Columbia University, Department of Arts and Humanities, TESOL and Applied Linguistics
Program, 525 West 120th Street, Box 66, New York, NY 10027, United States. Tel.: +1 212 678 7440.
E-mail address: ld2593@tc.columbia.edu (L.C. de Oliveira).
1
All names of the focal student, teacher, school, and university are pseudonyms.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.05.001
1060-3743/# 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
24 L.C. de Oliveira, S.-W. Lan / Journal of Second Language Writing 25 (2014) 23–39

& Pringle, 2010; Schleppegrell, 2010). In addition, little is known about best practices for writing instruction for upper
elementary ELLs, and even less for science writing, the focus of this article.
Science writing has distinctive linguistic features, and knowledge of these features is important in order to
understand how language constructs disciplinary knowledge in science (Fang, 2006; Halliday & Martin, 1993).
Halliday and Martin (1993) discussed how science organizes and condenses knowledge and information through
complex clause structures, very different from the ways meanings are constructed in students’ everyday language. In
order to meet the needs of scientific methods, arguments, and theories, the language of science has evolved from the
language of everyday communication to contain unique scientific lexicon and grammar (Halliday & Martin, 1993).
School science, as a recontextualized version of science for school purposes, still possesses characteristics of
professional science discourse, such as informational density, technicality, abstraction, and authoritativeness (Fang &
Schleppegrell, 2008).
In her study of science discourse and language demands for ELLs, de Oliveira (2010) has established that science
uses language in unique ways, following the work by Fang (2006), Fang et al. (2010), and Fang and Schleppegrell
(2008). Through an analysis of a corpus of school science texts, de Oliveira (2010) identified language demands that
occur in the reading students do and the writing they are expected to produce in science: (1) Technical terms and their
definitions: Technical terms occur throughout science writing and some are in bold and defined, but some technical
terms may appear without a definition or definitions may be difficult to find while the definition itself may contain
complex language; (2) Connectors with specific roles: Connectors (e.g., or) may have specific roles in science and all
roles may occur within a few paragraphs; (3) Everyday questions and words with specialized meanings: Everyday
questions may occur at the beginning of paragraphs with highly technical language following. Words with specialized
meanings in science can occur throughout and be confusing as their everyday meaning is different from their
specialized meaning in science; (4) Noun groups and their zigzag structuring: Several noun group structures appear in
science—head only, pronouns, noun with pre-modifiers, noun with post-modifiers, and noun with pre- and post-
modifiers. Nouns are introduced and referenced throughout a passage and their zigzag structuring may be complex to
follow. Zigzag structuring involves the introduction of a nominal group in one sentence and then the tracking of these
nominal groups in other sentences, creating a zigzag movement. Lexical content is accumulated in complex and
expanded noun groups, creating high lexical density. These language demands in science were the main patterns found
in the corpus.
These discipline-specific ways of presenting and organizing information in science construct scientific disciplinary
knowledge. Students need experience with the authentic language of science so they can learn to communicate their
knowledge and understanding of the natural and social worlds. Writing school-based genres in science with a focus on
the language of school science constitutes an essential part of such an experience. In a study of the current practices of
teaching science writing to 3rd-grade students, Lee, Maerten-Rivera, Penfield, LeRoy, and Secada (2008) highlight the
need for teacher education programs to better prepare teachers to teach writing to elementary students, including
ELLs. To learn to produce effective written science texts expected at school, students need to become familiar with
school science genres (Schulze & Ramirez, 2007; Tower, 2005).
Enabling upper elementary students to become successful writers in science is complex and places new demands on
teachers who are called to provide specific kinds of instructional support (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2008). Recognizing
the particular challenges upper elementary students and their teachers might encounter in learning and teaching
writing, recent work has called for educators to apply the concept of genre to writing instruction (e.g., Gebhard &
Harman, 2011; Hyland, 2003, 2007; Reppen, 1994; Tardy, 2006) to support L2 writers in mainstream content area
classrooms. Among the various approaches to teaching genres, genre-based pedagogy informed by systemic-
functional linguistics (SFL), known as the ‘‘Sydney School,’’ has been used in elementary and secondary schools and
in immigration education programs in Australia to support ELLs in writing the types of texts they will encounter
within various disciplines in schools (Christie & Derewianka, 2008; Martin & Rose, 2005). Such genre-based
pedagogy has also been implemented in U.S. K-12 schools in content area writing (e.g., de Oliveira & Iddings, 2014;
Harman, 2013; Schleppegrell, 1998; Schleppegrell & de Oliveira, 2006). An increasing number of studies draw on
SFL and combine an analysis of students’ written texts with teacher interview and classroom observation data (e.g.,
Brisk, Hodgson-Drysdale, & O’Connor, 2011; Brisk & Zisselsberger, 2010; Gebhard, Willett, Jimenez, & Piedra,
2010; Schleppegrell, 2010; Schulze, 2011).
Among the various genres in science, procedures, procedural recounts, explanations, reports, and expositions are
the most recognizable school science genres (Veel, 1997). Of these five school science genres, procedural recount has
 L.C. de Oliveira, S.-W. Lan / Journal of Second Language Writing 25 (2014) 23–39 25

been specified as ‘‘the prototypical experimental genre, learned in childhood and early adolescence, and remaining
important throughout adolescence’’ (Christie & Derewianka, 2008, p. 181). Nevertheless, many teachers lack an
explicit awareness of how the organizational, grammatical, and lexical features work, or how to familiarize students
with the specific genre and language features to construct their procedural recounts (Christie & Derewianka, 2008;
Fang et al., 2010). Most students, including L2 writers, do not just pick up the specific genre and the language features
of school science genres (Martin & Rose, 2005). Thus, to develop students’ familiarity with school science genres, a
genre-based pedagogy has been proposed to assist teachers in supporting their students (Fang et al., 2010; Martin &
Rose, 2005).
Despite the increasing attention to teaching genres to elementary ELLs, more work is needed on instructional
practices for teaching upper elementary students to write school-based genres in science. With insufficient or
uninformed instructional practices, many upper elementary students may continue to experience difficulty with
writing. They might have little experience with the type of writing they will encounter in science textbooks, writing
assignments, and assessments. These students might face challenges in producing school-based genres unless they are
supported by teachers with knowledge about genre features, school-based language, and the developmental nature of
students’ science writing (Carrasquillo et al., 2004; Fang et al., 2010). These issues help frame our research questions
for this study.
During the spring of 2011, we worked with a fourth grade mainstream teacher, Mrs. Darcy, to develop support for
her diverse students learning to write about experiments focused on the science topic ‘‘density.’’ The teacher was
particularly interested in helping her diverse students write about science experiments using procedural recount—one
genre of writing that may take place in classrooms related to science experiments. Through meetings with the teacher
and in observations of her science classroom activities, we identified ways that the genre-based pedagogy informed by
SFL could enhance Mrs. Darcy’s teaching of writing procedural recounts. This case study involved our collaboration
with Mrs. Darcy to implement a genre-based pedagogy informed by SFL with the goal of scaffolding her teaching of
procedural recounts and the writing tasks she assigned as part of doing and learning science. We use the case of Ji Soo,
the ELL in Mrs. Darcy’s classroom introduced at the beginning of this article, to show changes in his writing after the
genre work. First, we contextualize the study within the research literature. Next, we provide the methods for the study,
including the participants and setting, research questions, and data analysis and collection. Finally, we present the
results and discussion followed by a conclusion. The next sections show how Mrs. Darcy developed support for her
diverse students writing procedural recounts about hands-on experiments in science. We identify ways that the genre-
based pedagogy informed by SFL could enhance Mrs. Darcy’s teaching of writing procedural recounts.

Writing to learn science for upper elementary L2 writers

Research suggests that U.S. elementary school education is almost entirely a matter of literacy—of learning to read
and write (i.e., early literacy instruction) and reading and writing to learn academic content (i.e., content area literacy
instruction). In their study of six upper elementary classrooms in the U.S., Allington and Johnston (2002) pointed out
that students learn and practice beginning reading and writing skills through primary grades (grades K-3). Starting
from Grade 4, students are expected to apply these basic reading and writing skills to learn school subjects. Among
these basic reading and writing skills, content area writing is associated with the school subject content and is essential
for students’ learning. Crucial evidence is provided by many educators and researchers who have acknowledged the
essential role of writing for students’ content area learning (Klein & Kirkpatrick, 2010). Recognizing the essential role
of writing in doing and learning science, Christie and Derewianka (2008) further highlight the challenges faced by
students who are learning to write in science:
School science seeks to initiate the young into an understanding of scientific knowledge and scientific methods,
and this has consequences for the scientific discourses that students learn to write, for it involves learning a
technical language and a set of written text types or genres which encode scientific principles and procedures.
(p. 149)
Writing in science that requires the use of unfamiliar technical language as well as the genres characteristic of
school science presents unique challenges to upper elementary school students. Recent work suggests that a staggering
number of these students are not able to produce appropriate science texts expected in schools (e.g., Fang et al., 2010;
Schleppegrell, 2004; Wellington & Osborne, 2001). This literacy task places even more linguistic and cognitive
26 L.C. de Oliveira, S.-W. Lan / Journal of Second Language Writing 25 (2014) 23–39

demands on ELLs (e.g., Carrasquillo et al., 2004; Richardson Bruna & Gomez, 2009). In a study of the current
practices of teaching science writing to 3rd-grade students and especially ELLs, Lee et al. (2008) suggest the need for
teacher education programs to better prepare teachers to teach writing to elementary students, including ELLs.
Mainstream upper elementary content area instruction should provide more instructional support for ELLs’ literacy
tasks in content area writing. However, in reality, many teachers assume their upper elementary students have
developed the foundational language and literacy skills for communicating content areas such as science and thus may
overlook the need to integrate English language and literacy development in content area classes. Fradd and Lee
(1999), researching teachers’ tacit assumptions about their upper elementary diverse learners’ prior knowledge, point
out that:
By the time students arrive in fourth grade, many skills are assumed and therefore not taught. Foundational
skills, including the language and literacy for communicating science, and a recognition of what science is,
cannot be assumed, but must be assessed and taught in ways that motivate students to participate. (p. 19)
Among these foundational language and literacy skills, writing in science has been emphasized as ‘‘a component of
science learning at every stage of the inquiry process. . .students write in their science notebooks throughout an
inquiry, just as scientists do to create a clear, complete, and chronological record of their work’’ (Worth, Winokur,
Crissman, Heller-Winokur, & Davis, 2009, p. 86). Because of its centrality to doing and learning science, writing in
science is seen as an essential literacy tool in the context of inquiry for developing students’ scientific knowledge and
understanding science. Aligned with the national science education reform for incorporating hands-on, inquiry-based
science into science classes, an emerging body of research indicates that explicit writing instruction, including the
classroom talk and instruction of writing, integrated into inquiry-based science benefits upper elementary school
students (Fang et al., 2010) and especially ELLs (Richardson Bruna & Gomez, 2009).

Systemic-functional linguistics as a discourse analytic and pedagogical tool

The use of technical language and genres characteristic of school science have been investigated in the area of
writing by scholars who use a meaning-based theory of learning and discourse analytic tool, systemic-functional
linguistics (SFL). SFL offers a framework for analyzing how particular language choices of writers construct the
meanings within a text and highlights how social contexts influence textual realizations. In any context, language
realizes three kinds of meaning, or metafunctions: ideational meaning—what is happening, or the content of the text;
interpersonal meaning—who is taking part, the participants as well as their roles and relationships; and textual
meaning—what part the language is playing. These three meanings are always present when language is used and their
realization is dependent upon the situational contexts, such as school. Understanding how the situational context of
science uses language in particular ways helps us to see the linguistic demands and challenges of scientific language
for ELLs. SFL offers a framework for instruction, as a pedagogical tool that can be used in classrooms to help teachers
and students analyze the language of a particular science text from this point of view so ELLs understand what they
read and write.
The concept of genre and its accompanying instructional method has been taken up in U.S. K-12 school contexts in
support of the academic writing development of ELLs (Byrnes, 2013). Crucial evidence of the important role played
by genre in U.S. K-12 instructional contexts is provided in some research conducted in U.S. elementary schools (see,
for example, Brisk & Zisselsberger, 2010; Gebhard et al., 2010; Schleppegrell, 2010; Schulze, 2011) as well as the
recent exploration of the special issue in the Journal of Second Language Writing, ‘‘Writing as Meaning-Making—
Teaching to Mean’’ (Volume 22, Issue 2). Among the contributors of this special issue, Harman’s (2013) study places
emphasis on the need for teacher education programs to better prepare teachers to incorporate explicit instructional
focus on genre and genre-based pedagogy informed by SFL for teaching writing to upper elementary and secondary
students, including ELLs.

Genre-based pedagogy: teaching–learning cycle

Based on SFL as a pedagogical tool to help teachers support students in learning to write effective school texts,
Martin and Rose (2005) extend the teaching–learning cycle developed by Rothery (1994) and emphasize the role of
interaction and guidance in learning to read and write academic texts. This teaching–learning cycle is made up of three
[(Fig._1)TD$IG] L.C. de Oliveira, S.-W. Lan / Journal of Second Language Writing 25 (2014) 23–39 27

Fig. 1. Teaching/learning cycle (based on Martin & Rose, 2005, p. 252).

phases of activity: Deconstruction, Joint Construction, and Independent Construction. One representation of the
teaching–learning cycle is depicted in Fig. 1.
As this figure shows, these three phases highlight teacher ‘‘guidance through interaction in the context of shared
experience’’ (Martin & Rose, 2005). In genre-based pedagogy, the teaching–learning cycle takes novice writers
through these three phases of deconstructing model texts, joint construction, and independent construction, allowing
students different points of entry and enabling teachers to start at any one of these three phases. This process can be
recursive and repeated as students become more familiar with specific genres. Setting context is important to build
with students as they think of the specific ‘‘context of situation’’ within other possible contexts. The notion of building
field at all phases is key as students develop their knowledge of the content and context of particular texts. Students
also build a critical orientation to text by not just learning about the genre but being critical of its usage. Whichever
phase is introduced first, the teaching–learning cycle aims to provide students with teacher interaction, guidance, and
support as they go through these three phases. Typically, teachers start with the deconstruction phase to introduce
students to model texts and move through the other phases in a sequence. However, if teachers already introduced the
genre, they can move to the other phases of activity. Below, we explain the three phases of the teaching–learning cycle.
Deconstruction: teachers introduce model texts in a specific genre that students are expected to read and write (e.g.,
procedural recount); guide students to deconstruct model texts through demonstration, modeling, and discussions
about their purpose, text structures (stages), and language features typical of a specific genre; and build up students’
knowledge of the content information (i.e., building field).
Joint construction: teachers share responsibility with students for writing the same genre and co-construct another
example of this genre based on suggestions from students. In this phase, teachers and students work together to co-
construct texts that are similar to model texts that they already learned in the deconstruction phase. Students start
applying the linguistic features of the specific genre about which they are learning. In co-constructing texts, teachers
28 L.C. de Oliveira, S.-W. Lan / Journal of Second Language Writing 25 (2014) 23–39

are expected to provide a bridge for students between their everyday language and the academic language of school
(Martin & Rose, 2005, 2007) and thereby attention will be directed to the text structures such as purpose, stages, and
language features. The teacher is typically in front of the room scribing while everyone is writing together.
Independent construction: students are ready to work independently to construct their own texts in the specific
genre. Teachers are expected to minimize their support, scaffolding, and guidance so students are given more
opportunities for their independent writing of the specific genre.
These three phases of the teaching–learning cycle, unlike the traditional grammatical approaches with specific
focus on decontextualized grammatical features, start with the whole text as the unit in focus rather than the individual
sentence. Thus these three phases of the teaching–learning cycle enable teachers to support their students in
developing their knowledge and control of school genres across disciplines. This teaching methodology has been
employed beyond Australian elementary and secondary schools. More recently, the concept of genre and its
accompanying instructional method has been taken up in the U.S. elementary school contexts in support of the
academic writing development of ELLs (see, for example, Brisk & Zisselsberger, 2010; Gebhard et al., 2010;
Schleppegrell, 2010; Schulze, 2011).

Methods

Participants and setting

This study was conducted in a fourth-grade classroom in an elementary school in Indiana. At the time of the study, Mrs.
Darcy had been teaching fourth grade for eight years. Mrs. Darcy teaches in a school district with 30% culturally and
linguistically diverse students and 70% White students. Many of the ELLs come from families whose parents are
associated with ‘‘Midwestern’’ University, including children of international students and immigrants. Mrs. Darcy grew
up among educators. Her mother is a retired 2nd grade teacher and her father is a retired university professor. Mrs. Darcy
believes in making things exciting for kids and finds it important to keep kids involved in the classroom. She had
completed a Master’s degree in Literacy and Language Education at Purdue University. Mrs. Darcy learned about SFL
through readings and activities during the course EDCI 526, Language Study for Educators, a course that Luciana taught
at Purdue University during the Spring Semester 2007. The course emphasized SFL as a theory that does not separately
address language and content, but instead sees the language as the realization of meaning in context. Students read Martin
and Rose (2003) and subsequently completed text analyses based on different meaning-making systems described in the
book. Because of Mrs. Darcy’s interest in applying what she was learning to her classroom, Luciana approached her
during the semester to ask if she would like to implement some of the ideas in her classroom and her teaching of science, to
which she responded positively. Luciana, a university instructor with expertise in ELLs, Shu-Wen, a Ph.D. candidate in
literacy and language education, and Mrs. Darcy collaborated over the course of four years to incorporate a focus on
language in Mrs. Darcy’s science teaching. Our collaboration has continued since then and has involved three phases
entitled reading science, writing science, and talking science (for further details on our collaboration, see de Oliveira,
2010, 2011; de Oliveira & Dodds, 2010; de Oliveira & Lan, 2012; de Oliveira, Lan, & Dodds, 2013; Lan & de Oliveira, in
press).

Research questions

Our research questions and specific focus were developed as a result of concerns generated by our literature review.
We focus on fourth grade for this study because, as Allington and Johnston (2002) established, students in Grade 4 and
after are expected to apply the reading and writing skills learned in earlier years to learn school subjects, including
content area writing. The research by Christie and Derewianka (2008) shows that writing in science involves the
development of a technical language and a set of written genres, including procedural recounts, expressing scientific
principles. The development of technical language was important to establish our focus on technical terms and
procedural recounts. The content area of science is important as research has demonstrated that writing in science
places high linguistic and cognitive demands on ELLs (Carrasquillo et al., 2004; Fang et al., 2010; Richardson Bruna
& Gomez, 2009), but not much work has been done in science (Lee et al., 2008) and especially at the elementary
school level (Schleppegrell, 2010). Our literature review also shows that genre-based pedagogy deserves further
attention in content area writing at the K-12 level, especially from an SFL perspective (Gebhard et al., 2010; Harman,
 L.C. de Oliveira, S.-W. Lan / Journal of Second Language Writing 25 (2014) 23–39 29

2013; Schleppegrell, 1998; Schleppegrell & de Oliveira, 2006). Therefore, the research questions posed by this study
are:

1. How does a fourth grade teacher incorporate genre-based pedagogy into her teaching of science writing?
2. What is the nature of a fourth grade teacher’s guidance through interaction in the context of writing a procedural
recount about a science inquiry activity?
3. Over the course of the teacher’s implementation of genre-based pedagogy, how did Ji Soo’s ability to produce a
procedural recount in science change?

Mrs. Darcy’s class consisted of five Asian-origin ELLs (one Level 2, two Level 3, and two Level 4 on a 1–5 scale of
English language proficiency), three Latino students who were previously designated as ELLs and at the time of
writing were at Level 5, and 17 White students. Out of a total of 25 students in Mrs. Darcy’s classroom, with Mrs.
Darcy’s help, we selected one focal ELL for more focused observation and artifact collection. This article focuses on
one L2 writer to see how the genre work would impact the focal student’s writing development. Ji Soo is originally
from Korea and was 10 years old at the time of the study. Ji Soo was classified as a Limited English Speaker (LEP) at a
Level 3 on a 1–5 scale of English proficiency and had been just integrated into mainstream classes (i.e., Mrs. Darcy’s
classroom) when the study began. We followed this student because the teacher was puzzled and concerned about this
student’s struggles in writing science experiments. Mrs. Darcy was puzzled because Ji Soo, who seemed to have high
oral English proficiency and the ability to write personal stories and narratives in English language arts, did poorly
when writing science experiments. To demonstrate the impact of the genre work on teacher–student interactions and
the focal L2 writer, we present the four stages of the teacher’s genre work implementation (see Fig. 2 for more detail)
into her teaching of science writing and a more in-depth focus on the procedural recounts produced by Ji Soo before
and after the genre work.

Data collection and analysis: Mrs. Darcy’s classroom and Ji-Soo as a case L2 writer

The case we report on here was part of the second phase, writing science, of a 4-year project focused on reading,
writing, and talking about science for mainstreamed ELLs in Mrs. Darcy’s fourth grade classroom. This phase lasted
three months, from January to March 2011, from our beginning meetings to discuss the work through the classroom
implementation period. Here we present data we collected from a qualitative case study of Mrs. Darcy’s fourth grade
classroom over this 3-month period. A case study methodology was selected because of its focus on investigating one
case and gaining in-depth understandings into educational practice and its contextual meanings for one case (Baxter &
Jack, 2008; Merriam, 1998). To support Mrs. Darcy in teaching writing procedural recounts, we worked with the
teacher to incorporate genre-based pedagogy into the science unit on density in her classroom. We had five meetings
with Mrs. Darcy to identify ways that the teaching of genre and writing activities could enhance her teaching of writing
procedural recounts. Based on the topic of density and teaching materials Mrs. Darcy planned to use, together with her
[(Fig._2)TD$IG]

Fig. 2. Modified teaching–learning cycle in Mrs. Darcy’s teaching of science writing.

30 L.C. de Oliveira, S.-W. Lan / Journal of Second Language Writing 25 (2014) 23–39

we worked on how the genre work could better scaffold her teaching of procedural recounts and the writing tasks the
teacher would assign as part of doing and learning science for this density unit.
We then conducted observations of her science classroom activities on the density unit, lasting 11 days for
approximately 50 minutes each day, which were audio-recorded and transcribed. We collected the writing of ELLs
before and after the genre work to determine the impact of the genre work on L2 writers. Notes from our meetings, field
notes, and transcripts of classroom observations, and L2 writers’ pre- and post-genre work samples, both hand-written,
served as data for the case study and were examined to determine how Mrs. Darcy incorporated genre-based pedagogy
into her teaching of science writing and the nature of her guidance through interaction in the context of writing a
procedural recount about a science inquiry activity.
Using the constant comparative method (Merriam, 1998), themes that emerged in repeated readings of the data
were identified. Themes that emerged from the data were related to the content of the interaction between the teacher
and ELLs, the types of answers the teacher gave students, and specific language features the teacher highlighted with
students. The transcripts of classroom observations were analyzed to focus specifically on the interaction between the
teacher and students. Data analysis concentrated on the type of guidance provided by the teacher in implementing the
genre approach in her classroom. We were interested in the adaptations that Mrs. Darcy implemented in the teaching/
learning cycle given the constraints of her classroom and other issues. In addition to the classroom observation data,
the products of L2 writers were collected and analyzed to determine whether the genre work had an impact on their
writing. To present an in-depth analysis of how an SFL analysis can demonstrate aspects of students’ writing
development, we present a short analysis of the work of the focal L2 writer, Ji Soo. We conducted an SFL analysis of
this student’s texts to determine if there were differences in his writing following Mrs. Darcy’s implementation of
genre pedagogy. SFL analysis of Ji Soo’s pre- and post-genre work samples reflects his progress over the course of
Mrs. Darcy’s genre-based pedagogy implementation.
The textual analysis is based on a functional linguistic framework, which sees language not as a set of rules to be
followed but rather as a set of language choices for making meaning (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). This
functional linguistic view of language enables us to recognize the appropriateness of language choices in a specific
context. To facilitate the textual analysis, we typed the focal student work samples into a Word document and
divided the student texts into clauses. To analyze the content of the student texts, we focused on ideational meaning
and, therefore, identified participants, processes, and circumstances, labeled as they occurred in each clause.
Especially noteworthy are the patterns of participants and processes, which show how the content of a text is
presented through language. Participants are linguistically expressed through nouns, and what participants are
doing is linguistically expressed through verbs. The textual analysis presented in the results section below focuses
on the language resources that the focal L2 writer draws on to construct the content of procedural recounts. Such
textual analysis can further illustrate the impact of the teacher’s implementation of the genre work on the focal L2
writer’s writing development.
To check the strengths of the findings, Luciana involved a Ph.D. student in data analysis from the beginning of the
project. When the project started, Shu-Wen was developing expertise in SFL and was able to assist in data analysis,
including both classroom observation data analysis and textual analysis. For the classroom observation data analysis,
we independently coded all classroom observation transcripts totaling 100 double-spaced pages. We also
independently conducted textual analysis of the focal student work samples. We then involved Mrs. Darcy by
discussing the findings of data analysis and the interpretation with her in order to verify and expand the depth of our
understanding and meaning making. We checked our understandings and interpretations with her when we needed to
clarify any issues. Then we compared notes on links between transcripts and our representations of them. We co-
constructed preliminary results to create a concise file representing findings. This file enabled us to construct data
displays (Miles & Huberman, 1994) and to report on various patterns.

Results and discussion

In order to foster the incorporation of genre-based pedagogy in Mrs. Darcy’s classroom, we supported the teacher in
understanding the purpose and language features typical of the procedural recount genre, which guided her interaction
with students to explicitly talk about this genre. Thus, at our first meeting, we provided the following table
accompanied by a sample text and highlighted some typical features of the genre. Table 1 displays the purpose, text
structure, and grammatical features of the procedural recount genre.
 L.C. de Oliveira, S.-W. Lan / Journal of Second Language Writing 25 (2014) 23–39 31

Table 1
Procedural recount genre.
Genre Purpose Text structure Grammatical features
Procedural recount To recount in order and with precision; a procedure  Aim (materials)  Declarative sentences
recount records the aims, steps, results, and conclusion of  Record of events  Use of 1st person pronouns
a scientific activity already conducted  Conclusion to retell the events
 Action processes
 Past tense
 Time connectors

Sample text.
Procedural recount Text
Materials required 2 pill bottles (one with a cup)
50 Beans
Water
Aim To demonstrate that plants need air
Record (What we did/What What we did:
we observed) First we soaked 50 beans. Then we filled both bottles with the soaked beans and put a little water in
the bottom of each. Next we put the cap tight on one of the bottles and left the other open. Finally
we shook the water over the beans.
What we observed:
The seeds [in the bottle with the cap off ] started to sprout.
Conclusion Plants need air to grow.

(Adapted from Christie & Derewianka, 2008, p. 155).

Table 1 and the sample text both display the features typical of the procedural recount genre. A procedural recount
records the aim, steps, results, and conclusion of a specific scientific experiment already conducted. The components
of a procedural recount include the aim, in which the writer attempts to state what the purpose of the scientific
experiment is to be and to include advice about materials or equipment to be used; the record of events, in which the
writer records what was done in a sequenced way; and the conclusion, in which the writer constructs the general
conclusion based on the experiment results. In addition to our discussion with Mrs. Darcy about the features typical of
the procedural recount genre, we also talked about the teaching–learning cycle and how she could provide explicit
instruction about the specific genre.
To present the results of our analysis and to answer research question 1, ‘‘How does a fourth grade teacher
incorporate genre-based pedagogy into her teaching of science writing,’’ and research question 2, ‘‘What is the nature
of a fourth grade teacher’s guidance through interaction in the context of writing a procedural recount about a science
inquiry activity?’’ we take a close look at the teacher’s instructional practices with a specific focus on the modified
teaching–learning cycle in Mrs. Darcy’s teaching to write science (see Fig. 2). In order to address research question 3,
‘‘Over the course of the teacher’s implementation of genre-based pedagogy, how did Ji Soo’s ability to produce a
procedural recount in science change?’’ we identify how these instructional practices impacted Ji Soo’s textual
practices. Given the limits of this article, we present an analysis of the procedural recounts produced by Ji Soo before
and after the genre work to show how the teacher’s instructional practices impacted the L2 writer’s writing
development. Our textual analysis of this L2 writer’s procedural recounts is integrated into our description of the
teacher’s implementation of genre-based pedagogy. Such a detailed description of the teaching context of genre work
and this L2 writer’s textual practices facilitates the construction of a detailed and in-depth understanding of how this
L2 writer learned to write science experiments during the course of genre-based pedagogy.

Modified teaching–learning cycle in support of Mrs. Darcy’s teaching science writing

While sharing many similarities with the teaching–learning cycle described by Martin and Rose (2005) with three
phases of deconstruction, joint construction, and independent construction, Mrs. Darcy expanded and modified the
32 L.C. de Oliveira, S.-W. Lan / Journal of Second Language Writing 25 (2014) 23–39

three-phase teaching–learning cycle with an emphasis on how to incorporate genre-based pedagogy into her teaching
of science writing. As a way of illustrating how she expanded and modified the three-phase teaching–learning cycle,
we present an overall picture of our collaboration, including our planning for the science writing project and the
implementation of genre-based pedagogy in Mrs. Darcy’s teaching.
As Fig. 2 shows, all our meetings, observations of Mrs. Darcy’s science classroom activities, and preparation for the
genre work constitute our planning for the science writing project, the initial stage of the modified teaching–learning
cycle. The other five stages of the cycle are constituted by the teacher’s implementation of the genre work during the
four school days. In order to provide a realistic picture of the implementation of this genre pedagogy, we further
provide a close look at the major teaching and learning activities Mrs. Darcy integrated into her density unit.

Major teaching and learning activities of genre work and Ji Soo’s texts

On Day 1 of the genre work, Mrs. Darcy undertook two main tasks. The first was to lead her students to carry out
Experiment 1 in groups to observe layered liquids. The second task was to ask students to write down what they had
observed from Experiment 1. At the beginning of Experiment 1, Mrs. Darcy briefly outlined what the students were
expected to do—pour four different liquids into a cup and observe what would happen. The teacher distributed one
empty clear plastic cup and four different liquids to each group of students. Then each group was guided to carefully
pour corn syrup, dishwashing soap, water with red food coloring, and corn oil—in that order—into the cup. After all
four liquids had been poured into the cup, Mrs. Darcy asked students to discuss with their group what had happened in
the cup. Then one student from each group was asked to share what they had observed from Experiment 1. Based on
their observations and classroom discussions of the results of Experiment 1, students were asked to write down what
they had observed and thought about Experiment 1, as their first text before the genre work.
As instructed, Ji Soo wrote down what he observed and thought about Experiment 1 as his text before the genre
work shows. His text is presented in Fig. 3 with connectors in bold, participants, realized in nouns, underlined, and
processes, realized in verbs, in italics.

Analysis of Ji Soo’s text before genre work

Ji Soo’s choices of participants and processes are everyday vocabulary words. Although Ji Soo identified the
liquids—‘‘the soap thingy,’’ ‘‘the corn syrup,’’ ‘‘red water,’’ and ‘‘the corn oil,’’ his text with these everyday
vocabulary words lacked the explicitness and precision required in naming experiment materials in procedural
recounts, the targeted genre. This text does not identify which experiment materials were used. For example, with Ji
Soo’s choice of ‘‘the soap thingy,’’ readers would not be able to clearly understand which material—dishwashing
soap—was used. Along with his choice of ‘‘red water,’’ it would be difficult to understand that students used water with
red food coloring. Additionally, Ji Soo’s choices of participants and processes focus the content on the change of liquid
[(Fig._3)TD$IG]colors in his text (e.g., ‘‘the soap turned kind of green, it turned kind of blue again’’) not the layers of liquids, which

Fig. 3. Ji Soo’s Text 1 before genre work.

 L.C. de Oliveira, S.-W. Lan / Journal of Second Language Writing 25 (2014) 23–39 33

was the focus of Experiment 1 expected by the teacher. Furthermore, Ji Soo’s repeated use of everyday connectors such
as ‘‘when’’ and ‘‘then when’’ in Text 1 did not effectively express the sequence of the experiment in his text.
Regarding the analysis of Ji Soo’s text before genre work, the challenge for Mrs. Darcy was to provide Ji Soo with
the kind of instruction that would allow him to produce effective procedural recounts, learning to better record the
explicit and accurate experiment materials and steps/results of a specific experiment already conducted. In support of
Mrs. Darcy’s teaching of writing, we worked on the implementation of genre pedagogy to draw her students’ attention
to the key language features and structures of procedural recounts, including how to accurately and explicitly describe
experiment materials, steps, and conclusion. This was accomplished through the major teaching and learning activities
of genre work on Day 2 through Day 4.
On Day 2, we met with Mrs. Darcy to select a model text that was more characteristic of the procedural recount,
following Christie and Derewianka (2008). It is important to note that the model text was developed from one of the
texts collected from Mrs. Darcy’s students before the genre work. The model text was used on Day 3. On Day 2, Mrs.
Darcy and her students read the textbook passage on density and learned the field-specific vocabulary the teacher
considered to be the key vocabulary related to the topic of density (e.g., density, mass, volume).

Deconstruction of model text and explicit talk about language

On Day 3, Mrs. Darcy projected the model text on the whiteboard with its four stages, including Materials, Aim,
Record, and Conclusion. The teacher, under the pressure of limited class time, put more emphasis on one key stage of
procedural recount—Record. The teacher wanted to make students more aware of the language features the model text
used in the Record stage to record events in order and with more precision. She focused, then, on connectors and
vocabulary choices and technicality to name specific experiment materials. Table 2 shows the Record stage of the model
text projected on the board. The teacher, together with her students, highlighted the important language features the
model text writer used in the Record stage. Two examples of how the teacher and students explicitly talked about these
language features as well as their function in procedural recounts are evident in the following classroom interactions.
In the first example, accompanying the model text projected on the board, Mrs. Darcy led the class in a discussion of
how the words such as ‘‘first,’’ ‘‘then,’’ ‘‘next,’’ and ‘‘finally’’ (i.e., temporal connectors) in the model text functioned
to ‘‘make their observations clear’’ and ‘‘give some sort of order.’’ First, Mrs. Darcy had each student get a highlighter
and typed copy of the model text. The teacher and students, with highlighters in hands, identified the words and
organizational structures characteristic of the Record stage. The classroom transcript (Extract 1) reveals how the
teacher supported all students, including ELLs, in analyzing the language choices the writer made to express
sequences of the experiment already conducted in the classroom, with a specific focus on temporal connectors.

Extract 1: Explicit Talk about Temporal Connectors in Procedural Recount.

Turn Speaker
1 Teacher Okay, now when you look at this [model text on board]. Are there some words that stick out? That make their observations
clear? That give some sort of order? That make it easier to read? Because when you explain what you observe in science
experiments, it’s important how you lay out, what kind of order you put your words in. What did you notice? Is there
something that makes it easier to read? That’s my question—is there anything here to make it easier to read? What do you
think?
2 Student First, then, next, finally. . .
3 Teacher Yes! Look at the words she noticed right away. These words—first, then, next, and finally, why did these words stick out
to you? Jay?
4 Jay Because they are like, they just, they are kind of making things kind of flow together.
5 Teacher Okay, they make it flow. Okay, what else they tell us? Ryan? So it gives us a flow. Anything else those words can help you
with?
6 Ryan It shows which they poured first, which they poured next.
7 Teacher Okay, I think you are going to say about something. It shows the time. . . when each of these occurs, so putting us in the
order. Those are really good words. So as soon as I read this explanation, I was really impressed with that.
8 ... [Teacher and students continue talking about other kinds of words]
9 Teacher What do we want to call these words in red? [Teacher points to ‘‘first,’’ ‘‘then,’’ ‘‘next,’’ ‘‘finally’’]. What do you think?
What kind of words are they?
10 Students Time words, sequence words
11 Teacher Time or sequence words, maybe even transition word.
12 Student Order
13 Teacher Order words.
(January 27, 2011 Classroom Discourse Data)
34 L.C. de Oliveira, S.-W. Lan / Journal of Second Language Writing 25 (2014) 23–39

Table 2
Recognized and identified language features of model text.

With specific focus on the Record stage of the model text, the teacher asked if her students recognized any key
words in this model text which made the Record stage ‘‘clear’’ or ‘‘give some sort of order’’ in Turn 1. One student
immediately responded ‘‘first, then, next, finally’’ in Turn 2. After recognizing these specific words in Turns 1–2, the
teacher in Turn 3 asked her students to identify how these words ‘‘stick out to you,’’ thereby encouraging students to
think about the function these words have in the model text. In Turn 4, Jay specified the function of these words by
saying ‘‘they are kind of making things kind of flow together.’’ Another student in Turn 6 stated these words could
function to identify the sequence of the poured liquids in the Experiment 1 conducted earlier. After recognizing these
words which function to construct the sequential connectors of the Record stage, Mrs. Darcy and her students named
these words time words, transition words, or order words in Turns 9–13, thereby drawing their attention to the language
features characteristic of procedural recounts in science that typically connect the experiment steps sequentially,
namely, temporal connectors such as ‘‘finally,’’ ‘‘previously,’’ ‘‘next,’’ ‘‘secondly,’’ ‘‘lastly,’’ and ‘‘as.’’ It is important
to note that naming the recognized language features of the model text is significant for it allowed students and
especially ELLs to attach deeper meanings to their recognized language features and to expand their awareness of
these language patterns and their functions in the procedural recount.
In the second example, accompanied by the model text projected on the board, Mrs. Darcy continued leading the
class in a discussion of how the specific names of experiment materials function to help their readers figure out exactly
what they used for Experiment 1. The classroom transcript (Extract 2) reveals how the teacher supported all students in
analyzing the writer’s language choices in naming the specific experiment materials of a written procedural recount.
Extract 2: Explicit Talk about Naming Experiment Materials (Field-specific vocabulary).

Turn Speaker
1 Teacher You know something else I think is important. This person was really specific to say what exactly we used for this
experiment. What do I mean by saying that? So when somebody was reading this the first time, and trying to figure
out what exactly we did. . . . if somebody was trying to figure out what we did, they would have very good ideas because
they also, this person listed what?
2 Students Names of it.
3 Teacher Put the names of what?
4 Students Liquids.
5 Teacher Yes, they were very specific in naming the ingredients. Okay, some people turned it in and only said ‘‘we put liquids
together and layers were formed.’’ But this person took the time to say ‘‘first, this is the first step we did and we used corn
syrup’’ ‘‘we used. . .’’ People called it dishwasher soap, some people said dish soap. A couple of different things. But
look at this, this person gives me the exact ingredients. . .I got corn syrup, dishwasher soap, I got my red food coloring
here.
6 Students Water, corn oil.
7 Teacher I got corn oil. It talked about the soap here. . . .the words of materials, the ingredients we used.
 L.C. de Oliveira, S.-W. Lan / Journal of Second Language Writing 25 (2014) 23–39 35

8 ... [Teacher and students continue talking about other kinds of words.]
9 Teacher What about those words in blue that we see that person includes in his explanations? [the words ‘‘corn syrup,’’
‘‘dishwasher soap,’’ ‘‘water with red food coloring,’’ ‘‘corn oil’’ used by writer)
10 Students ingredient, objects. . .
11 Teacher Ingredient, you could say that, there is no only one right answer. Material, objects used, good!
(January 27, 2011 Classroom Discourse Data)

The teacher, in Turns 1–4, directed her students’ attention to other specific words—names of experiment materials.
These words help readers, who do not share the same context of observing Experiment 1, get a sense of which
materials Mrs. Darcy and her students used. Especially noteworthy is that the teacher supported her students in
analyzing the language choices used by the writer in recording the experiment materials. The teacher instructed
students to identify and highlight those words. Mrs. Darcy said the students ‘‘were very specific in naming the
ingredients’’ and reported these words back to the class in Turns 5–7: ‘‘corn syrup, dishwasher soap, red food coloring,
corn oil.’’ After recognizing these words, which function to construct the specific names of experiment materials in the
Record stage, in Turns 9–11, Mrs. Darcy and her students named these words as ingredients, objects, or material. Such
a process of recognizing and naming the specific words can make students more aware of the exact functions of these
words in the text. Once the students had practiced analyzing and naming the language choices, they turned their
attention to analyzing and revising their own texts. This is evident in Ji Soo’s text of procedural recount after the genre
work.
On Day 4, Mrs. Darcy and her students co-constructed the Conclusion stage based on the results and their
discussion about Experiment 1. Ideally, a teacher deconstructs an entire model text with students and then co-
constructs an entire new text of the same genre with the class. But Mrs. Darcy considered the conclusion to be a key
stage in the procedural recount genre and decided to co-construct it with her students (see de Oliveira et al., 2013, for
an explanation of how this co-construction took place). Then the teacher led her students to do Experiment 2, placing
objects, including paper clips, a piece of rubber band, and a Styrofoam ball, into the cups with layered liquids formed
in Experiment 1. In order to familiarize her students with the structure of procedural recount, the teacher projected the
procedural recount genre stages on the whiteboard and explicitly talked about the four stages with her students:
materials, aim/purpose, record, and conclusion. The last task was for students to construct their individual texts in the
procedural recount genre based on what they did and observed in Experiment 2. With their explicit talk about certain
language choices made by the model text writer and the four stages of procedural recounts, the students were
encouraged not only to understand but to appropriate the language choices in developing their texts. As instructed, Ji
Soo used the procedural recount genre stages as well as the language choices identified by the teacher to produce his
Text 2.

Analysis of Ji Soo’s text after genre work

Our analyses of Ji Soo’s texts produced before and after the genre work reveal the focal L2 writer was better able to
use the language of procedural recounts following genre-based pedagogy. Our textual analyses, based on the detailed
description of this focal L2 writer’s textual practices, provide evidence from a case study of changes in Ji Soo’s texts
using SFL. As seen in the following SFL analysis, we detail noteworthy development in this L2 writer’s use of
language in procedural recounts, including his greater control of naming experiment materials and using temporal
connectors. As Mrs. Darcy deconstructed the model text and explicitly talked about the language of the model text
with highlighters (see Extract 1 and Extract 2), she brought specific attention to the way the writer of the model text
recorded events in order (temporal connectors) and with precision (naming experiment materials). The SFL analysis of
Ji Soo’s text after genre work reflects his increasing ability to record events with precision and in order, especially his
greater control of naming experiment materials and using temporal connectors. First, and perhaps most notably, the
SFL analysis of Ji Soo’s texts demonstrates his increasing use of field-specific vocabulary, or technical terms, in
naming experiment materials. Fig. 4 shows that Ji Soo learned to list the experiment materials with more precision; for
example, he used ‘‘dishwater soap’’ to name one liquid in the text instead of his previous, more colloquial choice ‘‘the
soap thingy.’’ This vocabulary includes not just technical participants in naming the experiment materials ‘‘dishwater
soap’’ and ‘‘Styrofoam ball’’ but also more precise processes in recording the events. He expanded his use of processes
by using words such as ‘‘poured,’’ ‘‘mixed,’’ ‘‘put,’’ ‘‘floated,’’ and ‘‘sank’’ in the new text, whereas he primarily relied
on the process ‘‘poured’’ in the first text. Ji Soo’s choices of these technical terms in participants and processes also
construct a striking difference in the topics; Ji Soo’s Text 1 primarily focused on the change of liquid color, whereas his
[(Fig._4)TD$IG]
36 L.C. de Oliveira, S.-W. Lan / Journal of Second Language Writing 25 (2014) 23–39

Materials styrofoam ball corn oil

rubber band red water

paper clip dishwater soap

cup corn syrup

Aim/purpose To find the density.

Record First we poured corn syrup. Then we poured dishwater

soap and it made 2 layers. Then we poured red water on

the dishwater soap and it mixed a little bit. Finally we

poured corn oil. Then we put a styrofoam ball, a paper

clip, and a rubber band. We thought the ball will float, the

paper clip will be in the middle, and the rubber band will

float.

Conclusion The ball floated, and the paper clip and the rubber band

sank to the bottom.

Fig. 4. Ji Soo’s Text 2 after genre work.

Text 2 focused on how the layers of liquids formed from Experiment 1 and how the placed objects floated or sank in the
layers of liquids.
Second, it seems that the teacher’s deconstruction and explicit talk about the language of the model text
strengthened Ji Soo’s ability to link his ideas in the texts by using temporal connectors. The analysis of Ji Soo’s Text 2
reveals his increasing use of temporal connectors ‘‘first,’’ ‘‘then,’’ and ‘‘finally’’ to link his ideas and especially to
record events in order. Compared to his repeated use of ‘‘then when’’ to link his ideas in Text 1, Ji Soo used a variety of
temporal connector words to record sequentially the poured liquids of Experiment 1. While the connector words do not
appear once in Text 1, after the genre work, they appear at the beginning of the record stage of Text 2.

Summary of findings

The analyses of the focal L2 writer’s texts show that Ji Soo developed a greater ability to use words and phrases to
signal essential genre features found in procedural recounts. He was better able to use lexical–grammatical words and
phrases such as field-specific vocabulary and temporal connectors to record events with more precision and in order. Ji
Soo also shifted from everyday language such as his use of colloquial lexis (e.g., ‘‘the soap thingy’’) and repetition of
the same process (e.g., ‘‘pour’’) to more school-based language such as his use of field-specific vocabulary (e.g.,
‘‘dishwasher soap,’’ ‘‘Styrofoam ball’’) and technical processes (e.g., ‘‘float,’’ ‘‘sink’’). The textual analysis, with the
classroom transcripts, shows that Mrs. Darcy incorporated genre-based pedagogy in her teaching of science writing in
support of all her students in learning to write procedural recounts. In addition, the teacher’s explicit talk about the
language of the model text further supported her students in taking a close look to focus on key areas of the text.
It is also important to note the results of this study are not representative of the whole population of ELLs
mainstreamed to upper elementary classrooms since we employed a qualitative single case study methodology. We
cannot be sure that Ji Soo is representative of all L2 writers. Despite the inherent limitation of a single case, however,
we believe that the description of the teaching context of the teacher’s genre work implementation and the detailed
SFL analyses of Ji Soo’s texts before and after the genre work provide rich evidence for what can be learned about how
teachers can adapt and incorporate genre-based pedagogy into their daily instructional practices to support L2 writers
 L.C. de Oliveira, S.-W. Lan / Journal of Second Language Writing 25 (2014) 23–39 37

in science writing. Our case study aims to focus attention on the details of the case and to convey understanding of the
case, rather than claim generalizability to all L2 writers in upper elementary classrooms. The rich description of the
teacher’s explicit talk about the language for writing procedural recounts and the deconstruction and discussion of the
model text provides a detailed account of how the science writing development of this focal L2 writer is positively
enhanced. For example, as seen in our textual analyses of Ji Soo’s texts, this focal L2 writer developed greater control
of the school-based language for writing procedural recounts, including greater control of naming experiment
materials and using temporal connectors, following genre-based pedagogy.

Conclusion

This article addresses a major need in the field of second language writing: identifying instructional practices for
teaching upper elementary ELLs to write school-based genres. At the upper elementary grades, the content areas
become more specialized and discipline-specific. This article responds and contributes to recent calls for educators to
apply the concept of genre to writing instruction to support L2 writers in mainstream content area classrooms, and in
particular genre-based approaches informed by SFL (e.g., Gebhard & Harman, 2011).
This article shows how a fourth grade mainstream teacher developed support for her diverse students writing
procedural recounts about hands-on experiments in science. We identified ways that the genre-based pedagogy
informed by SFL could enhance Mrs. Darcy’s teaching of writing procedural recounts. We collaborated with Mrs.
Darcy and showed how she could use the teaching–learning cycle in her classroom and highlighted the importance of
using model texts for students, especially ELLs. Both fluent English speakers and L2 writers struggle with learning
science genres, but language challenges may be more pronounced for L2 writers developing both their language and
content knowledge through language.
The findings of this study contribute to the existing body of knowledge established by SFL researchers whose work
has explored how genre-based pedagogy can support the academic writing development of ELLs in K-12 school
contexts in Australia (Christie & Derewianka, 2008; Martin & Rose, 2007) and North America (Brisk & Zisselsberger,
2010; Gebhard et al., 2010; Schleppegrell, 1998; Schulze, 2011). The results of this implementation are similar to
those of Harman (2013), who found that an explicit focus on genre is key at the elementary school level. Harman
showed that the teacher’s explicit focus on language helped the focal fifth-grade students, Bernardo and Miguel, write
about literature, as we found Mrs. Darcy’s explicit focus on language helped Ji-Soo write about science. Like with the
current study, Brisk et al. (2011) and Brisk and Zisselsberger (2010) found much value in using SFL as a theoretical
framework to analyze elementary students’ writing. The current study adds the element of science writing to what
Schleppegrell and de Oliveira (2006) and Schleppegrell (2010) found in their studies on the content areas of history
and English language arts.
This study points to the importance of systemic functional linguistics as an analytical and pedagogical tool that can
support science writing instruction in mainstream elementary classrooms. SFL is an effective way to address language
and genre among teachers and helps researchers to identify changes in the writing that students do (Gebhard et al.,
2010; Schleppegrell, 2010). The upper elementary classroom is particularly relevant as it provides a concrete example
of teachers in a realistic classroom environment where science may not be as emphasized as other content areas such as
mathematics and English language arts. This complements other work within the SFL framework focused on language
arts at the elementary level (Brisk et al., 2011; Harman, 2013; Schleppegrell, 2010). The classroom metalanguage—or
language to talk about language—offers ideas for teachers and teacher educators of ways to guide L2 writers in the
classroom. For example, Mrs. Darcy guided her students through a process of recognizing and naming specific words
to help them understand their specific functions in the text. After this process, students turned their attention to
analyzing and revising their own texts, as we notice in Ji Soo’s procedural recount after the genre work. Her guidance
through interaction in the context of a shared experience—writing about a specific science experiment—helped her
students develop more knowledge about the specific genre of procedural recount.

References

Allington, R. L., & Johnston, P. H. (Eds.). (2002). Reading to learn: Lessons from exemplary fourth grade classrooms. New York, NY: Guilford.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. Qualitative Report, 13,
544–559.
38 L.C. de Oliveira, S.-W. Lan / Journal of Second Language Writing 25 (2014) 23–39

Brisk, M. E., Hodgson-Drysdale, T., & O’Connor, C. (2011). A study of a collaborative instructional project informed by systemic functional
linguistic theory: Report writing in elementary grades. Journal of Education, 191(1), 1–12.
Brisk, M. E., & Zisselsberger, M. (2010). ‘‘We’ve let them in on the secret’’: Using SFL theory to improve the teaching of writing to bilingual
students. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 111–126). New
York: Taylor & Francis.
Byrnes, H. (2013). Positioning writing as meaning-making in writing research: An introduction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 95–106.
Carrasquillo, A., Kucer, S. B., & Abrams, R. (2004). Beyond the beginnings: Literacy interventions for upper elementary English language learners.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters LTD.
Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. London: Continuum.
de Oliveira, L. C. (2010). Enhancing content instruction for ELLs: Learning about language in science. In D. Sunal, C. Sunal, M. Mantero, & E.
Wright (Eds.), Teaching science with Hispanic ELLs in K-16 classrooms (pp. 135–150). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
de Oliveira, L. C. (2011). A linguistic approach in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms: A focus on teacher education. Linguistics and the
Human Sciences, 4(2), 101–159.
de Oliveira, L. C., & Dodds, K. N. (2010). Beyond general strategies for English language learners: Language dissection in science. Electronic
Journal of Literacy Through Science, 9(1), 1–14. Available at: http://ejlts.ucdavis.edu/article/2010/9/1/beyond-general-strategies-english-
language-learners-language-dissection-science
de Oliveira, L. C., & Iddings, J. (Eds.). (2014). Genre pedagogy across the curriculum: Theory and application in U.S., classrooms and contexts.
London: Equinox Publishing.
de Oliveira, L. C., & Lan, S.-W. (2012). Preparing nonnative English-speaking (NNES) graduate students for teaching in higher education: A
mentoring case study. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 23, 59–76.
de Oliveira, L. C., Lan, S.-W., & Dodds, K. (2013). Reading, writing and talking science with English language learners. In J. Nagle (Ed.), English
learner instruction through collaboration and inquiry in teacher education (pp. 3–23). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 491–520.
Fang, Z., Lamme, L. L., & Pringle, R. M. (2010). Language and literacy in inquiry-based science classrooms grades 3–8. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press.
Fradd, S. H., & Lee, O. (1999). Teachers’ roles in promoting science inquiry with students from diverse language backgrounds. Educational
Researcher, 28, 14–20.
Gebhard, M., & Harman, R. (2011). Reconsidering genre theory in K-12 schools: A response to school reforms in the United States. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 20, 45–55.
Gebhard, M., Willett, J., Jimenez, J., & Piedra, A. (2010). Systemic functional linguistics, teachers’ professional development and ELLs’ academic
literacy practices. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 91–110).
New York: Taylor & Francis.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.
Harman, R. (2013). Literacy intertextuality in genre-based pedagogies: Building lexical cohesion in fifth-grade L2 writing. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 22, 125–140.
Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 17–29.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 148–164.
Klein, P. D., & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (2010). A framework for content area writing: Mediators and moderators. Journal of Writing Research, 2(1), 1–54.
Lan, S.-W., & de Oliveira, L. C. (in press). Layers of complexity: Nouns in fourth-grade science textbooks. Electronic Journal of Literacy Through
Science, (in press).
Lee, O., Maerten-Rivera, J., Penfield, R. D., LeRoy, K., & Secada, W. G. (2008). Science achievement of English language learners in urban
elementary schools: Results of a first-year professional development intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 31–52.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2005). Designing literacy pedagogy: Scaffolding democracy in the classroom. In Hasan, R., Matthiessen, C., & Webster, J.
Eds. Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective. Vol. 1 (pp. 251–280). London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Interacting with text: The role of dialogue in learning to read and write. Foreign Studies Journal Beijing, 4(5), 66–
80. Available at: http://www.readingtolearn.com.au/images/pdf/Interacting_with_Text.pdf
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Reppen, R. (1994). A genre-based approach to content writing instruction. TESOL Journal, 4(2), 32–35.
Richardson Bruna, K., & Gomez, K. (Eds.). (2009). The work of language in multicultural classrooms: Talking science writing science. New York:
Routledge.
Rothery, J. (1994). Exploring literacy in school English. Write it right: Resources for literacy and learning. Sydney: Metropolitan East
Disadvantaged Schools Program.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (1998). Grammar as resource: Writing a description. Research in the Teaching of English, 32, 182–211.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2010). Supporting a ‘‘reading to write’’ pedagogy with functional grammar. NALDIC Quarterly, 8, 26–31.
Schleppegrell, M. J., & de Oliveira, L. C. (2006). An integrated language and content approach for history teachers. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 5(4), 254–268.
 L.C. de Oliveira, S.-W. Lan / Journal of Second Language Writing 25 (2014) 23–39 39

Schulze, J. (2011). Writing to persuade: A systemic functional view. GiST – Education and Learning Research Journal, 5, 127–157.
Schulze, J., & Ramirez, J. A. (2007). Intertextuality as resource for building ELL’s generic competence: A systemic functional view. Colombian
Applied Linguistics Journal, 9, 69–98.
Tardy, C. M. (2006). Researching first and second language genre learning: A comparative review and a look ahead. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 15, 79–101.
Tower, C. (2005). What’s the purpose? Students talk about writing in science. Language Arts, 82(6), 472–483.
Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean – Scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie & J.
Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 161–195). London: Cassell.
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Worth, K., Winokur, J., Crissman, S., Heller-Winokur, M., & Davis, M. (2009). Science and literacy: A natural fit: A guide for professional
development leaders. Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann.

Luciana C. de Oliveira is Associate Professor of TESOL and Applied Linguistics in the Department of Arts and Humanities at Teachers College,
Columbia University. Dr. de Oliveira’s research focuses on issues related to teaching English language learners (ELLs) at the K-12 level, including
the role of language in learning the content areas and teacher preparation for ELLs.

Shu-Wen Lan is an assistant professor in the Department of Modern Languages at National Pingtung University of Science and Technology in
Taiwan. She recently completed her Ph.D. in Curriculum & Instruction with a focus on language and literacy education at Purdue University. Her
research focuses on the teaching of English language learners (ELLs) in elementary science classrooms, classroom discourse analysis, and
qualitative research. She can be reached at lanshuwen2013@gmail.com.