1085993

research-article2022
WCXXXX10.1177/07410883221085993Written CommunicationFang et al.

Article
Written Communication

Genre and Register

2022, Vol. 39(3) 426­–461
© 2022 SAGE Publications
Article reuse guidelines:
Features of Sixth- sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/07410883221085993
https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883221085993
Grade Students’ Factual journals.sagepub.com/home/wcx

Writing

Zhihui Fang1, Valerie Gresser2,

Peijuan Cao1, and Huibin Zhang1

Abstract
Factual writing is a key macrogenre of American K-12 schooling that is also
valued in workplace and society. This study examined the genre and register
features of two subgenres of factual writing—biography and report—
composed by 48 sixth-grade students in a curriculum unit on scientists
and science-related careers aimed at developing students’ understanding of
the nature of science. These texts were analyzed for a range of schematic,
lexical, and grammatical features that instantiate the two target genres.
Statistical and descriptive analyses revealed that the students demonstrated
a fairly mature control over the schematic and lexical features that realize
the purpose of either genre and relied heavily on the grammatical resources
characteristic of everyday registers in constructing both genres. Additionally,
there was a positive relationship between the students’ genre/register
familiarity and the holistic quality of their writing, and the students’ reading
proficiency was a significant predictor of their genre familiarity and holistic
writing quality, but not their register understanding. These findings suggest
that learning the grammatical resources characteristic of academic registers
remains a major and potentially daunting task for many adolescents.

1
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
2
Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Corresponding Author:
Zhihui Fang, PhD, School of Teaching and Learning, University of Florida, 286 Norman Hall,
Gainesville, FL 32606, USA.
Email: zfang@coe.ufl.edu
Fang et al. 427

Keywords
discourse analysis, English for academic purposes, linguistics, writing in the
disciplines

Factual writing is a type of writing whose main purpose is to present factual

information about a person (e.g., biography) or a thing (e.g., report). It is one of
the three major genres of schooling—personal, factual, and analytical (Martin,
1989)—that students in the United States and elsewhere are expected to master
during their K-12 education. Each of these genres (and their subgenres) mar-
shals a distinct set of schematic, lexical, and grammatical choices that realizes
the purpose of the genre and construes the situational context in which the
genre is produced. A macrogenre emphasized in the Common Core State
Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA) &
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), 2010), factual writing has
received a considerable amount of attention in literacy education, where it is
often treated synonymously with informational writing (e.g., Donovan &
Smolkin, 2011; Duke, 2014; Maloch & Bomer, 2013). Although prior research
has investigated children’s understanding of the genre, the bulk of this work
focuses on young children and their knowledge of its schematic and/or lexical
features as demonstrated in the texts they produced in contrived, quasi-experi-
mental, or natural conditions (e.g., Brisk, 2012; Donovan, 2001; Purcell-Gates
et al., 2007; Wollman-Bonilla, 2000). Much less attention has been paid to
older children and their control of the grammar that instantiates the genre and
construes the context in which the genre is produced. Our study examined the
schematic and lexicogrammatical features of two subgenres of factual writ-
ing—biography and report—composed by middle school students in a science
curriculum unit on scientists and science-related careers aimed at developing
students’ understanding about the nature of science. Simultaneous examination
of students’ genre and register understanding can, according to Gardner (2012),
offer deeper insights into their discursive competence and inform efforts to
support their language/literacy development and disciplinary learning.

Theoretical Perspective
Our study is informed by systemic functional linguistics, or SFL (Halliday &
Matthiessen, 2014). SFL is a meaning-based theory about language use. It
sees language not as consisting of prescriptive rules to be followed or pro-
scriptive rules to be avoided but as a creative resource for making meaning.
According to the theory, language use is functional, meaning that people use
language for authentic purposes, such as recounting a past experience,
428 Written Communication 39(3)

describing an object, explaining a phenomenon, and arguing for/against a

particular point of view. To achieve these purposes, people choose from the
various options that the grammar of a language makes available. The gram-
matical choices they make vary across cultural and situational contexts,
depending on the topic they are dealing with, the task they are engaging in,
the audience they are addressing, and the broader and immediate contexts of
their social interaction.
Two key SFL concepts particularly relevant to language and literacy edu-
cation are genre and register. From an SFL perspective, genres are textual
realizations of recurring, recognizable communicative events that enact the
social practices of a given culture (Martin & Rose, 2008). They emerge from
and respond to sociocultural contexts in which they achieve their purposes.
Each discipline as a culture has its own genres that catalogue its social prac-
tices and codify its content. Each of these genres calls for a different configu-
ration of schematic, lexical, and grammatical choices that realizes the purpose
of the genre. Learning to write (and read) these (and other) discipline-legiti-
mated genres—that is, genres valued and used by disciplinary experts in their
social practice—is, therefore, widely considered the sine qua non of develop-
ing academic literacy (Brisk, 2015; Christie & Derewianka, 2008; Fang &
Schleppegrell, 2008; Schleppegrell, 2004). Because genres are culturally
situated and socially mediated, school teachers have certain assumptions and
expectations, albeit often implicit, about how they will be constructed for
academic purposes. This means that “writers need to be aware of the conven-
tionalized forms of established genres, and students need to learn the gram-
mar and discourse structures that help them write school-based genres”
(Schleppegrell, 1998, p. 185).
Register, on the other hand, refers to functional variation in language use
across situational contexts (Halliday & Hasan, 1985). People make different
lexicogrammatical choices in different contexts based on what they are talk-
ing about, who they are interacting with, and the channel of communication.
Learning discipline-legitimated genres in school requires students to make
not only schematic and lexical choices that realize the purposes of these
genres but also grammatical choices that meet the demands of specific tasks
and situational contexts. As students progress through K-12 schooling, they
are expected to broaden their repertoire of grammatical resources so that they
are equipped to make meaning in increasingly abstract ways across a wide
range of genres, tasks, and contexts (Schleppegrell & Christie, 2018). This
grammatical build-up involves expanding from an overreliance on clausal
resources (e.g., finite and nonfinite clauses) to a greater dependence on
phrasal resources (e.g., noun phrases and prepositional phrases) in written
communication. The expansion enables students to create, store, and transmit
Fang et al. 429

knowledge across space and time and to express attitudes and judgments in
nuanced ways.
According to Biber et al. (2011), academic writing, or writing done for the
purpose of schooling, relies more heavily on phrasal than clausal resources,
and this dependence varies across genres. As Biber and Gray (2016, pp. 168–
169) observed,

Most registers in English employ clausal discourse styles, and historically,

clausal discourse styles have been the norm. In fact, some kinds of academic
prose continue to employ clausal styles even up to the present time. For
example, humanities research writing, with its narrative and descriptive
communicative purposes, makes extensive use of a discourse style with many
clausal modifiers that function as adverbials or objects of verbs. Finite relative
clauses are also extremely frequent in this sub-register; these are often non-
restrictive, providing extra information rather than identifying the reference of
the head noun. . . . In contrast, science (and social science) research writing
tends to employ phrases rather than clauses, with information packaged as
noun modifiers rather than as clause constituents.

In other words, grammar is used in different ways according to the purpose

and context of writing. From this perspective, we expect to see some differ-
ences in the way grammatical resources are used in the two focal genres of
our study. Although both biography and report may be considered subgenres
of factual writing, report is generally regarded as more informational in pur-
pose and more specialized in content than biography, which is more narrative
in style and less technical in content. Thus, biography tends to draw more
heavily on clausal resources when telling the life story of a significant indi-
vidual (Coffin, 2006), whereas report tends to rely more heavily on phrasal
resources when describing the attributes of a class of things (Halliday &
Martin, 1993). A firm control over register is needed to develop proficiency
in these and other school-based genres (Schleppegrell, 2004).

Review of Related Literature

School is a cultural institution with its own expectations for particular ways
of using language (Schleppegrell, 2004). It has its own genres that students
are expected to master to ensure academic success and career readiness.
Martin (1989) described three major categories of school-based genres as
personal, factual, and analytical. Personal genres, which include recount and
narrative, (re)create personal experiences. Factual genres, which include
biography and report, present factual information about a person or a thing.
Analytical genres, which include explanation and exposition, present
430 Written Communication 39(3)

analysis and argument. Each of these genres consists of a series of schematic

stages, or macrostructural elements, that are unique to the genre and is con-
structed with a distinct set of lexicogrammatical resources that are not only
functional for making it the kind of text it is but also appropriate for a particu-
lar context of communication. Control over these structural and lexicogram-
matical resources is widely considered key to genre mastery. As Schleppegrell
(2004) explained, “creating an instance of a genre means using language to
move through a series of stages that are particular to that genre” (p. 83). It is,
thus, crucial that students understand both the schematic stages and the lexi-
cogrammatical resources that construct different kinds of texts valued in
school learning.
A considerable amount of research has documented school children’s
genre learning in K-12 contexts (e.g., Avalos et al., 2017; Seah, 2016; Uccelli
et al., 2012). A comprehensive review of this literature is beyond the scope of
this article. Instead, we limit our review to studies that focus on or include
factual, or informational, genres, with the goal of identifying knowledge gaps
and showing how our study builds on and extends this body of work.
Past studies of factual writing have investigated what children write in
response to a prompt given by the researcher. For example, Donovan (2001)
explored the development of K–5 children’s genre knowledge as revealed in
the macrostructure of stories and reports they wrote in response to the
researcher’s prompts, which are (a) “Make up a story about anything you
want and write the story for other students and teachers to read” and (b)
“Think of a topic, something you know a lot about or are interested in, and
write about the topic you have chosen for other students and teachers to
read.” Each story/report was coded for inclusion of global elements of the
genre (i.e., setting, initiating event, internal response, internal plan, attempt,
consequence, and reaction for story; topic presentation, description of attri-
butes, characteristic events, category comparison, final summary, and after-
word for report), as well as the hierarchical organization of its content units.
The researcher found that (a) all children, including kindergarteners and first-
graders, were able to produce texts that resembled either genre, (b) older
children generally produced more complex stories and reports than did their
younger counterparts, (c) no marked growth was observed in story mastery
from second through fifth grade, and (d) the growth across grade level was
more pronounced for report than for story.
Beers and Nagy (2011) examined syntactic complexity, as measured by
clauses per T-unit (i.e., amount of subordination) and words per clause (i.e.,
lexical density), in four genres of text—narrative, informational (descriptive
and compare/contrast), and persuasive—written in 5 minutes by students
from Grades 3, 5, and 7 at a university summer laboratory in response to
Fang et al. 431

researcher-generated prompts. They found that measures of syntactic com-

plexity did not increase in their differentiation among the four genres across
the grade levels and that at each grade level students used more clauses per
T-units in persuasive texts than in narrative or informational texts and more
words per clause in descriptive texts than in persuasive texts. The researchers
concluded that although students could produce distinct texts representing
each of the four genres, their ability to do so was likely compromised by their
limited knowledge of the syntactic structures required to achieve text-level
genre goals.
Focusing solely on factual writing, Fang (2014) asked children in Grades
3-5 to write, during a language arts class period, an informational report
about a familiar type of animal that interested them for a peer audience who
knew little about the animal. The children’s reports were examined from the
perspectives of both genre (macrostructure) and register (lexicogrammar).
The researcher found that although the reports composed by older children
tended to incorporate more structural elements, most children’s reports were
structurally incomplete, containing an average of less than two out of three
obligatory elements (a general statement introducing the topic, a body of
facts about various aspects of the topic, and a summary statement about the
topic). Moreover, the children, regardless of grade level, demonstrated con-
siderable expertise in using language (e.g., generic participants, present
tense) to instantiate certain features of report (e.g., timelessness, nonparticu-
larization), but were much less successful in using language (e.g., technical
vocabulary, linking verb, expanded noun phrase, nominalization) to instanti-
ate other features of report (e.g., technicality, thing-focus, density, abstrac-
tion, objectivity). Instead, they tended to draw on the lexical and grammatical
resources of everyday spontaneous speech (e.g., specific participants, collo-
quial expressions, pronouns, action verbs, past tense, temporal connectives),
presenting information in an interactive, nonauthoritative, and unconvention-
ally structured manner. It was suggested that the development of genre
knowledge is nonlinear and feature specific.
Similar findings were reported for older children by Fang and Park (2019),
which examined register choices in seventh- and ninth-grade students’ fac-
tual writing in response to the same task prompt as Fang (2014). The study
found that (a) the students made much greater use of everyday language fea-
tures than academic language features in their writing, (b) there were no sig-
nificant differences between the two grade levels in academic language use,
(c) there was a significant positive relationship between reading ability and
academic language use, and (d) academic language use was a significant pre-
dictor of writing quality.
432 Written Communication 39(3)

Fewer studies have investigated children’s factual writing produced in

authentic contexts of classroom instruction. One of these is Brisk (2012),
which qualitatively examined 112 pieces of writing produced over the course
of 6 months by 13 bilingual children from six classrooms in Grades 3–5. The
researcher reported that although the children in the study made successful
attempts at writing a variety of genres (i.e., personal recount, autobiography,
biography, procedures, report, exposition), their understanding of the pur-
poses of these genres and their sense of audience and voice were much more
nascent. The children unintentionally mixed genres or used different genres
from what was expected. Moreover, their use of grammatical person—first (I,
we), second (you), and third (s/he, they) person—was not always appropriate
for the given genre. The researcher suggested that these findings were likely
influenced by task prompts and classroom instruction, as well as the chil-
dren’s first languages (Spanish, Vietnamese).
Other studies that use authentic writing samples collected from naturally
occurring classroom instruction adopt a corpus-based, quantitative approach.
For example, Durrant and Brenchley (2019) examined the level of lexical
sophistication in 2024 literary (narrative) and nonliterary (e.g., factual and
analytical) texts produced by children in England as part of their regular
schoolwork across Years 2, 6, 9, and 11. They found that (a) younger children
showed a preference for fictionlike vocabulary over academic-like vocabu-
lary, with their writing characterized by extensive repetition of high-fre-
quency verbs and adjectives and of low-frequency nouns; (b) as children
matured, they made significantly greater use of academic-like vocabulary
and fewer use of fictionlike vocabulary in both literary and nonliterary writ-
ing; and (c) the use of fictionlike vocabulary remained constant across years
but decreased sharply in nonliterary writing. These findings suggest an over-
all, albeit uneven, shift toward more register-appropriate word use through-
out the children’s K-12 schooling experience.
Similarly, Reppen (2007) explored writing development that occurred
between Grades 3 and 6 among two groups of students—those whose first lan-
guage (L1) was Navajo and those whose first language (L1) was English. Over
560 essays, collected from schools in Arizona, were examined using multidi-
mensional analysis first developed by Biber (1988). The researcher found that
(a) as early as third grade, children were able to make different language
choices for different purposes (i.e., description, explanation, argumentation);
(b) all students, regardless of their L1 status, produced written texts with more
literate and fewer oral features from third to sixth grade; (c) both groups of
students were able to use complex linguistic structures such as complement
clauses and other types of subordination to package information; (d) there was
considerable variability within each grade level, with L1 Navajo students
Fang et al. 433

lagging behind their L1 English peers in genre and register awareness; and (e)
although both groups were making progress in their use of academic registers,
they continued to rely heavily on everyday registers to make meaning. She
concluded that both groups of students still had a long way to go before they
would be ready to handle the linguistic demands of academic writing.
Comparable findings were reported in a follow-up study (i.e., Wojtalewicz &
Reppen, 2021) that focused on the use of four-word lexical bundles—stance
bundles (e.g., I want to be), discourse-organizing bundles (e.g., my ideal school
is), and referential bundles (e.g., has a lot of)—in Grade 3–6 students’ writing.
To summarize, the studies reviewed above have examined school chil-
dren’s writing from the perspectives of cognitive linguistics (Beers & Nagy,
Donovan), functional linguistics (Brisk, Fang), and corpus linguistics
(Durrant & Brenchley, Reppen). They have produced valuable information
about school children’s working knowledge of factual writing and its devel-
opment. However, the bulk of this body of work focuses on schematic struc-
ture and/or lexical choices, with much less attention to grammar. Particularly
lacking are quantitative studies that examine children’s discursive compe-
tence from the perspectives of both genre and register within the systemic
functional linguistics framework. Also lacking are studies that explore the
more nuanced relationship between genre/register knowledge and reading
ability, despite the rather general understanding that reading is positively
related to writing (see, e.g., Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000, for a review). Our
study builds on and extends prior work by examining two subgenres of fac-
tual writing—report and biography—produced by middle school students in
an authentic (i.e., naturally occurring) context of science instruction. Because
biography and report serve different purposes and marshal different constel-
lations of schematic and lexicogrammatical features, it is important to exam-
ine whether students were able to differentiate these discipline-legitimated
genres in their writing by drawing on different sets of language resources.
Our study addressed the following four research questions:

1. What genre understanding do students demonstrate of biography and

report?
2. What grammatical resources, or register choices, do students employ
to construct the two genres?
3. What is the relationship between genre/register familiarity and holis-
tic text quality? and
4. What is the relationship between genre/register familiarity and read-
ing proficiency?
434 Written Communication 39(3)

Table 1.  Participants’ Demographic and Reading Profiles.

Biography group Report group Entire sample

a
Gender
 Male 12 8 20
 Female 12 16 28
Race
 White 17 21 38
 Black 7 1 8
 Hispanic 0 2 2
School lunch status
  Free or reduced price 13 3 16
  Full pay 11 21 32
Reading ability
  Below grade level 6 9 15
  On grade level 11 8 19
  Above grade level 7 7 14
a
The binary categories of male and female may not fully capture the complexity of gender as
experienced by these or other students.

Answers to these questions can shed light on students’ discursive competence

in the valued genres of schooling and have important implications for lan-
guage/literacy instruction.

Methods
Setting and Participants
The study was conducted in a public middle school (Grades 6–8) located in a
small southeastern US city. The school, rated average in academic achieve-
ment by the state, had about 1,000 students, equally divided among three
grade levels. The demographics of the student population were as follows:
gender (51% male, 49% female), race (51% White, 34% Black, 9% Hispanic/
Latino, 4% Asian, and 2% Others), and family income (47% on free or
reduced-price school lunch). Students in two sixth-grade regular science
classes participated in the study. The demographic and reading profiles of the
48 consenting students from these two classes are presented in Table 1. These
students, recruited as part of a larger research project through an institution-
ally sanctioned informed consent process, were divided into two groups
because, as described later in the article, they chose to write either a scientist
biography or a science career report in response to the course assignment.
Fang et al. 435

The instructor of the course was a veteran science teacher with a master’s
degree in science education and over 20 years of experience teaching the
same subject in the same school. She embraced an inquiry-based approach
(National Research Council, 2000) to science instruction.

Data Collection
All sixth-grade students in the school were required to take a science class.
The regular science curriculum for sixth grade included a 9-week unit on
scientists and science-related careers. The unit was designed to develop
students’ understanding of nature of science (NOS) and their interest in
pursuing science-related careers. In the unit, students read and discussed
biographies of famous scientists on a weekly basis, learning about the life
stories of scientists, their science careers, the trials and tribulations in their
scientific inquiries, the impact of their discoveries, and personal and pro-
fessional attributes that contribute to their success. For each book read,
students were expected to complete a response sheet indicating how much
they liked the book (on a Likert scale of 1–5), why they liked the book,
something new they learned from the book, and what they wondered about
after reading the book, as well as a graphic organizer documenting the pro-
cess of scientific inquiry in which the scientist sensed a problem, made
hypotheses, conducted experiments or observations, evaluated findings,
and presented his or her work. The biographies were selected from the
annual lists of Outstanding Science Trade Books for Students K-12, com-
piled by the National Science Teachers Association in cooperation with the
Children’s Book Council.
As a culminating project for the unit, each student was required to write
either a biography of a famous scientist or a report on a science career of inter-
est. The assignment was completed outside of school and submitted to the
teacher in class for grading. Students were encouraged to use a stickperson
(see Figure 1) to help them write an outline for the essay. Apart from going
over a handout, reproduced in Figure 2, that presents the grading rubrics for
the assignment, the science teacher provided no further writing instruction or
other language support related to the assignment or the curriculum unit. In
other words, there was no explicit discussion about the specific linguistic
requirements for producing texts in the two target genres. Nor was such
instruction taking place in the students’ English language arts class, where the
emphasis was on reading and responding to literature, with some attention to
vocabulary and traditional grammar (e.g., parts of speech, subject-verb agree-
ment, punctuation, conjunction, and sentence structure). Some of the scientists
students chose to write about include Robert Hanbury Brown, Clara Barton,
Henry Ford, Milton Hershey, Leonardo da Vinci, Madam CJ Walker, Benjamin
436 Written Communication 39(3)

Figure 1.  Stickperson outline.

Franklin, Robert Cade, Lonnie Johnson, Thomas Edison, Elizabeth Blackwell,

Isaac Newton, Edmond Halley, Wright Brothers, Louise Braille, and Jane
Goodall. Some of the science careers students chose to write about include
Fang et al. 437

Figure 2.  Grading rubrics for the biography/report writing assignment.

astronomy, engineering, neonatal nursing, veterinarian, biology, pharmacist,

optometrist, physics, obstetrician, chiropractor, forensics, pediatrician, aero-
space engineer, and computer programmer. These biographies and reports
438 Written Communication 39(3)

were our data source. Students’ scores from a high-stakes state reading test
were also collected as a measure of their reading proficiency.

Data Analysis
All 48 texts, equally divided between scientist biographies and science-career
reports, were analyzed manually for genre and register features, as well as
holistic writing quality. Two researchers well versed in functional linguistics
conducted the analysis. The agreement rates were 97% for genre analysis,
86% for register analysis, and 92% for holistic analysis. Any disagreement
was resolved through discussion in light of the textual context and relevant
research work (e.g., Biber & Gray, 2016; Christie & Derewianka, 2008;
Schleppegrell & Christie, 2018; Staples et al., 2016). For genre analysis, each
text was scored on answers to six questions related to the purpose, as well as
the structural and lexical conventions, of the target genre. These questions
were generated based on prior work by SFL scholars that has identified struc-
tural and lexicogrammatical features characteristic of common school-based
genres (e.g., Brisk, 2015; Christie & Derewianka, 2008; Coffin, 2006; Fang,
2010). An affirmative answer (yes) to each question scores 1 point, and a
negative answer (no) scores 0 point. For the scientist biography, the six ques-
tions are as follows:

•  D
 oes the text include an orientation that provides a synopsis of the
scientist’s life and his/her significant contributions?
•  Does the text include a sequence of events that chronicles key moments
in the scientist’s life?
•  Does the text include a summative evaluation that assesses the scien-
tist’s legacy?
•  Does the text mainly use specific participants?
•  Does the text mainly use past tense verbs? and
•  Overall, does the text accomplish its purpose of telling the life story of
a scientist by highlighting important moments or turning points in the
person’s life?

For the science-related career report, the six questions are as follows:

•  D oes the text include a general statement (e.g., classification, defini-

tion) that indicates what the science career is about?
•  Does the text include a series of facts about various aspects of the sci-
ence career and organize them into topical areas, each led by a topic
sentence and elaborated through definition, exemplification, attribu-
tion, and/or comparison/contrast?
Fang et al. 439

•  D
 oes the text include a summary statement about the science career at
the end?
•  Does the text mainly use generic participants?
•  Does the text mainly use simple present tense verbs? and
•  Overall, does the text accomplish its purpose of providing factual
information about a specific science career?

For register analysis, we adopted a text-linguistic approach, drawing on

the work of Biber (2019), Schleppegrell (2004), and Fang (2021). Each text
was coded (i.e., frequency count) for the presence of six grammatical features
associated with structural elaboration and nine grammatical features associ-
ated with structural compression (Biber & Gray, 2016; Staples et al., 2016).
The six grammatical features characteristic of an elaborated writing (i.e.,
clausal) style are as follows, with examples coming from our study’s data set:

•  f inite complement clause (e.g., I didn’t know [that] some animal sick-
nesses can make a vet sick.),
•  finite adverbial clause (e.g., If you want to be a vet, you will need at
least 8 years of college.),
•  finite relative clause (e.g., It is a science that deals with applying medi-
cal facts to legal problems.),
•  nonfinite complement clause (e.g., They start spaying and neutering at
the age of 8 weeks. This is why I choose to be a forensic scientist.),
•  nonfinite adverbial clause (e.g., Scientists can use brushes to dust an
aluminum powder. Inspired by Plato, he spent twenty years studying in
an academy.), and
•  nonfinite relative clause (e.g., They must search for clues indicating
the victim’s allergies. The following is a model suggested by Kepler.).

The nine grammatical features characteristic of a compressed writing (i.e.,

phrasal) style are as follows, again with examples drawn from our study’s
data set:

•  a ttributive adjective or participle as noun premodifiers (e.g., some bor-

ing lecture, a successful pediatrician),
•  noun as noun premodifier (e.g., substance abuse, water vapor),
•  multiple attributive elements as noun premodifiers (e.g., a life-threat-
ening bladder infection, a famous law firm),
•  prepositional phrase as noun postmodifier (e.g., a significant part of a
pediatrician’s job, the effects on the natural water habitat),
440 Written Communication 39(3)

•  m ultiple prepositional phrases as noun postmodifiers (e.g., It was a

guide to sex education for young people. He had done the experiment
of passing white light through a prism.),
•  prepositional phrase as adverbial (e.g., Little is known about
Pythagorus. The fire broke out along the sails.),
•  appositive as noun modifier (e.g., He also developed calculus, a com-
plicated mathematical law. A German physicist and maker of scientific
instruments, Gabriel Fahrenheit was born on May 24, 1686 in Danzig,
Poland.),
•  nominalization (e.g., One of the most important discoveries that Jane
made was when she watched the chimpanzees making and using tools.
Becoming a pharmacist requires dedication in school.), and
•  passive voice (e.g., Today, Darwin’s science is used in many areas.
Edison was believed to have A.D.D..).

It is worth noting that although passive voice is a clause feature, it serves

some of the same functions as phrasal features, including allowing writers to
maintain the informational focus of the discourse, compress detailed infor-
mation, and facilitate discursive flow (Fang, 2021; Staples et al., 2016).
Each text was also scored on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high) for holistic writ-
ing quality along each of the three dimensions—ideas, organization, and flu-
ency. This means the lowest possible score was 3 and the highest possible
score was 18. The scoring rubric, presented in Table 2, was developed based
on the six-traits rubric, a tool widely used in K-12 contexts for writing assess-
ment, and the Smarter Balanced Performance Task (Informational Writing)
Scoring Rubric for Grades 3–11, an assessment tool aligned with the Common
Core State Standards.
To answer the four research questions, scores from the above linguistic
analyses were analyzed statistically. Specifically, independent sample t test,
chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U test, multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA), and regression analysis were conducted, depending on which
research question was being addressed, whether the data were discrete or
continuous, and whether the data met common statistical assumptions such as
normality, linearity, and equality of variance.

Findings
A Snapshot of Students’ Genre and Register Understanding
Before sharing quantitative results in relation to the four research questions
of the study, we present, in Table 3, two pieces of student
 Table 2.  Holistic Scoring Rubrics.
Ideas/content/purpose
6 •  Exceptionally clear and focused
•  Main ideas stand out
•  Purpose clearly appropriate for
the genre
•  Presents rich, relevant details
•  Details are accurate and thorough
5 •  Clear and focused
•  Main ideas stand out
•  Purpose clearly appropriate for
the genre
•  Contain relevant, carefully
selected details
•  Details are generally accurate and •  Details fit where placed
reasonably thorough
4 •  Mostly clear and focused
•  Clear main idea(s) and purpose
•  Purpose generally appropriate for •  Contains general statement or
the genre
•  Contains relevant details
•  Details are not thorough and are
sometimes inaccurate
441
Textual organization
•  Organization clear and appropriate to
the genre
•  Effective sequencing, easy to follow
•  Contain general statement, body
of logically sequenced details, and a
satisfying conclusion
•  Smooth transitions
•  Details fit where placed
•  Organization clear and appropriate to
the genre
•  Clear sequencing, easy to follow
•  Contain general statement and body of
logically sequenced details
•  Smooth transitions
•  Organization generally clear and
appropriate for the genre
conclusion, as well as details, although
logical sequence of these details not
always clear
•  Transitions are somewhat stilted
•  Fairly easy to follow, with details that fit
Grammatical fluency
•  Use language appropriate for the genre and register
•  Exceptional control of conventions such as spelling,
paragraphing, and punctuation
•  Unusual use may occur for stylistic effect
•  No need for editing
•  Extensive variation in sentence structure
•  Sentence structure clearly conveys meaning
•  Use language appropriate for the genre and register
•  Correct grammar, usage, spelling
•  Few capitalization, punctuation, or spelling errors
•  Little need for editing
•  Some variation in sentence structure
•  Sentence structure clearly conveys meaning
•  U se language largely appropriate to the genre and
register
•  Basically sound paragraphing structure
•  Minor, occasional lapses in grammar, usage, spelling,
and punctuation
•  Errors don’t confuse reader
•  Moderate need for editing
•  Some repeated patterns of structure
•  Strong control over simple sentences
•  Variable control over complex sentences
(continued)
 Table 2.  (continued)
442
Ideas/content/purpose
3 •  Identifiable main ideas and
purpose
•  Purpose vaguely appropriate for
the genre
•  Contains relevant details
•  Details are limited and there
is a considerable amount of
inaccuracy
2 •  Unclear main ideas
•  Purpose grossly inappropriate for
the genre
•  Contains few details
•  Details are sometimes inaccurate •  Details are randomly listed without any •  Substantial need for editing
1 •  Unclear main ideas
•  Purpose clearly not appropriate
for the genre
•  Contains minimal details
•  Details are mostly inaccurate
Textual organization Grammatical fluency
•  O rganization is somewhat appropriate •  U se language partially appropriate to the genre and
for the genre register
•  Sequencing attempted, but unclear •  Errors begin to interfere with readability
•  Contains a body of details, but without •  Decent control over basic conventions
general statement or conclusion •  Significant need for editing
•  Details are not logically sequenced •  Some structural variety in syntax
•  Ineffective transition •  Some repetitive sentence structure
•  Little control over complex sentences
•  Sounds stilted or unnatural
•  Organization is largely inappropriate for •  Use language that is largely inappropriate for the
the genre genre and register
•  Contains a body with some details, but •  Little control over basic conventions
without general statement or conclusion •  Errors interfere with meaning and readability
logical sequence •  Awkward, choppy, rambling syntactic construction
•  Transitions missing, ineffective, or •  Sentence patterns overly repetitive
overused
•  Confusing to read
•  Organization is clearly not appropriate •  Use language that is clearly inappropriate to the
for the genre genre and register
•  Contains a body with very limited details •  Very limited skills in conventions
and does not have a general statement •  Errors interfere with meaning and readability
or a conclusion •  Need for extensive revision
•  Details randomly listed •  Lack of control over basic sentence structure
•  No attempt at sequencing •  Fragmented, confusing, choppy, rambling sentences
•  Transitions missing, ineffective, or
overused
•  Confusing to read
 Table 3.  Sample Biography and Report.
Text 1: Scientist biography
Jane Goodall
Have you ever heard of a lady by the name of Jane Goodall?
She is a scientist who studies the awesome primate, the
chimpanzee. One interesting thing that most people don’t
know about Jane is that she was the first person to touch
a chimpanzee in friendship, other than touching them after
you have killed them. In the next few paragraphs Jane
Goodall’s life, family and her job will be explained.
Jane Goodall was born on April 3, 1934 in London. She is
from a very small family and only has one sister. As a child
Jane always had a big interest in all types of animals, and
over the years she was inspired by Tarzan and The Jungle
Book. She always loved to explore the outdoors in search
of animals that she could observe. One day Jane went to
Coryndon Museum of Natural History to meet a famous
paleontologist/anthropologist by the name of Louis Leakey.
Mr. Leakey was very enchanted with jane’s love of animals
and her determination to get to Africa that he offered her
a job researching the chimpanzees. When Jane was 23 years
old she took her first trip to Africa to stay with her friend
and that is when she really fell in love with Africa and all its
beauty. She entered Cambridge University in London when
she was 27, and earned her PhD in Zoology.
443
Text 2: Science career report
Biology
This essay is about the career choice of biology. The topic of
this essay is biology. The point of this essay is to inform you
about the possible career choice of biology.
Do you think to the future about a possible career? If you do,
think about biology, the study of living organisms. There are
many different classifications of biology to choose from, it
earns a suitable amount of money, and many more exciting
features.
There are many different classifications of biology to fit
anyone’s lifestyle. Anatomists study animal bodies and
there organs and cell structure, this has to do with human
medicine. Botanists study plants. Some botanists specialize
in biochemistry. Entomologists study insects and other life
forms. Geneticists study heredity; they are concerned mainly
about color, size and resistance to disease. Limnologists study
freshwater organisms. Marine biologists study marine life
forms. They gather samples to test and mainly work with
saltwater life forms. Microbiologists study bacteria, fungi,
viruses, mods, algae, and other microscopic organisms.
Wildlife biologists study habitats and other necessities that
animals need to live. Zoologists study all animals and there
origin, classifications, habitat, growth, and genetics. There
are many other types of biologists too but these are the
most common ones.
(continued)
 Table 3.  (continued)
444
Text 1: Scientist biography
In 1964 Jane married her first husband Hugo Van Lawick a
photographer for the National Geographic society and in
1967 they had a child named Hugo Eric Louis. Then in 1973,
Jane divorced Lawick. She married her second husband
Dereck Bryceon, and five years after they had married,
Bryceon died tragically of cancer and Jane was left alone.
Jane Goodall’s job was to work and study the chimpanzee.
When Jane first started working with the chimps, they
weren’t very comfortable with her; but then over time the
chimps gave her trust and she was able to observe them.
One of the most important discoveries that jane made was
when she watched the chimpanzees making and using tools.
Another discovery that she made was that chimps ate baby
baboons, young monkeys, and wild pigs; not fruit, small
rodents, and insects as research scientist originally thought.
In 1965 the first film about Jane was made called “Miss
Goodall and the Wild Chimpanzees.” Her first book was
published in 1971 and it was called “In the Shadow of Man.”
This was the first of many books about Jane to come.
Jane Goodall is truly an amazing woman and we should all
respect her for what she has accomplished. Without Jane
we would know very little about the chimpanzee. Most
of Jane Goodall’s life, family, and job have been explained
but to find out more about her check out one of her
magnificent books. (473 words)
Text 2: Science career report
To be a biologist in general, normally you would need the
following requirements. In high school you should take
English, biology, physics, chemistry, Latin, geometry, and
algebra. In college you should take courses in all phases
of biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, modern
languages, English, biometrics, statistics, and computers.
Many institutions offer under graduate training in botany,
zoology, and much more (courses like these should be taken
if they match the specification of biology you are looking
to work in). After college you should take more courses
specifically involved with your specification of biology. Many
specifications require other certifications. Once you have
your requirements you could make a suitable amount of
money ranging from $27,930 to $86,020.
There are many exciting features of working in the field of
biology. You can work with plants, animals, and much more.
You may become famous with some scientific discovery.
You can work outdoors or in a lab. There are many exciting
features with the field of biology.
As you can see biology is an exciting with many features you
could love. This may be the career that is perfect for you
and if it is you now realized it now that you have read this
paper. (407 words)
Fang et al. 445

writing—a biography about primatologist Jane Goodall (Text 1) and a report

on a science career in biology (Text 2). These two texts are meant to offer a
snapshot of students’ genre and register understanding, giving readers a feel
of the kinds of texts students generated in response to the assignment and a
sense of how coding was done in our data analysis. Although somewhat rep-
resentative of the corpus, they do not illustrate the full range of variation in
the data set. These two samples are presented here as they were originally
written, with no corrections made to spelling, punctuation, or grammar. Text
1, rated 17 for holistic writing quality, was written by Grace (pseudonym),
whose reading proficiency score was 367, rated Level 4 on a scale of 1–5,
with 1 and 2 considered reading below grade level, 3 reading at grade level,
and 4 and 5 reading above grade level. Text 2, also rated 17 for holistic writ-
ing quality, was written by Kelly (pseudonym), whose reading proficiency
score was 351, also rated Level 4 on the same reading scale of 1–5.
From the perspective of genre, both texts have the shape and flavor of their
target genres. Text 1 starts with an orientation (first paragraph) that identifies
who the scientist is (Have you ever heard of a lady by the name of Jane
Goodall?), what she does (She is a scientist who studies the awesome pri-
mate, the chimpanzee.), and what her main contribution is to the science field
(. . .she was the first person to touch a chimpanzee in friendship.). It also
previews what the rest of the text will be about (In the next few paragraphs
Jane Goodall’s life, family, and her job will be explained.). The next three
paragraphs describe Goodall’s early life (second paragraph), family (third
paragraph), and major professional accomplishments (fourth paragraph). The
last paragraph provides an overall evaluation of Goodall (Jane Goodall is
truly an amazing woman.) and assesses her legacy (Without Jane we would
know very little about chimpanzee.). The text mainly uses past tense verbs
(e.g., had, married, made) and specific participants (e.g., Jane Goodall, Hugo
Van Lawick). It achieves the purpose of chronicling Goodall’s life and career.
Similarly, Text 2 begins with an introduction that identifies the science
career to be described (first paragraph) and what the career is about (second
paragraph). It then discusses the many branches of biology (third paragraph),
as well as what it takes to become a biologist and how much a biologist earns
annually (fourth paragraph). The next paragraph explains the exciting fea-
tures of working in the field of biology, and the last paragraph encourages
people to choose biology as a career. The text mainly uses generic partici-
pants (e.g., entomologists, a biologist) and simple present tense verbs (e.g.,
is, offer). It achieves the purpose of providing factual information about a
career in biology.
From the perspective of register, both texts draw on a wide range of clausal
and phrasal resources. Text 1 uses finite complement clauses (e.g., Another
446 Written Communication 39(3)

discovery that she made was that chimps ate baby baboons.), finite adverbial
clauses (e.g., She entered Cambridge University in London when she was
27.), finite relative clauses (e.g., She is a scientist who studies the awesome
primate, the chimpanzee.), nonfinite complement clauses (e.g., She was the
first person to touch a chimpanzee in friendship.), nonfinite adverbial clauses
(e.g., . . . she took her first trip to Africa to stay with her friend.), and nonfi-
nite relative clauses (e.g., He offered her a job researching the chimpanzees.).
In addition to these elaborative devices, the text also uses many compres-
sive devices, including adjectives/participles as noun premodifiers (e.g., the
awesome primate, an amazing woman), nouns as noun premodifiers (e.g.,
baby baboons, research scientist), prepositional phrases as noun postmodifi-
ers (e.g., her PhD in Zoology, a photographer for the National Geographic
Society), multiple prepositional phrases as noun postmodifiers (e.g., a lady by
the name of Jane Goodall, the first of many books about Jane), prepositional
phrases as adverbials (e.g., Without Jane we would know very little about the
chimpanzee. She is from a very small family.), appositives as noun modifiers
(e.g., She is a scientist who studies the awesome primate, the chimpanzee. In
1964 Jane married her first husband Hugo Van Lawick a photographer for
the National Geographic Society.), nominalizations (e.g., determination, dis-
covery), and passive voice (e.g., was published, have been explained).
Similarly, Text 2 uses a number of finite adverbial clauses (e.g., Once you
have your requirements you could make a suitable amount of money . . . ) and
finite relative clauses (e.g., This may be the career that is perfect for you.),
but zero finite complement clauses. The text also uses nonfinite complement
clauses (e.g., The point of this essay is to inform you about the possible career
choice of biology.), nonfinite adverbial clauses (e.g., They gather samples to
test and mainly work with saltwater life forms.), and nonfinite relative clauses
(e.g., After college you should take more courses specifically involved with
your specification of biology.).
Besides these elaborative devices, the text also uses many grammatical
features associated with structural compression, including adjectives/partici-
ples as noun premodifiers (e.g., a suitable amount, living organisms), nouns
as noun premodifiers (e.g., cell structure, the career choice), multiple attribu-
tive elements as noun premodifiers (e.g., the possible career choice, saltwa-
ter life forms), prepositional phrases as noun postmodifiers (e.g., the field of
biology, resistance to disease), multiple prepositional phrases as noun post-
modifiers (e.g., courses in all phases of biology, courses specifically involved
with your specification of biology.), prepositional phrases as adverbials (e.g.,
Some botanists specialize in biochemistry. You can work outdoors or in a
lab.), appositives as noun postmodifiers (e.g., If you do, think about biology,
Fang et al. 447

the study of living organisms.), nominalizations (e.g., choice, growth, require-

ments), and passive voice (e.g., should be taken).

Quantitative Results
Before presenting the results related to the four research questions, it is
important to note that there was no significant difference in reading profi-
ciency between the students who chose to write a scientist biography
(M = 313.83, SD = 36.91) and those who chose to write a science career report
(M = 318.79, SD = 43.45), t(46) = 0.43, p = 0.67. Additionally, no significant
difference in length of production (i.e., word count) was found between biog-
raphies (M = 512.46) and reports (M = 501.53), t(46) = 0.16, p = 0.87.
To answer the first two research questions, which probe students’ genre
understanding and register choices, we first generated descriptive statistics
for all dependent measures. The means and standard deviations for genre and
register measures, as well as for holistic writing scores and length of produc-
tion (word count), are presented in Table 4. As can be seen from the table, the
sixth-grade students as a whole demonstrated fairly mature control over the
two genres (biography and report). About 80% of students successfully
achieved the purpose of the target genre in the text they wrote. Of the 24
biographies, 19 included an orientation that overviews the scientist’s life and
contribution, 21 included a sequence of events that chronicles key moments
in the scientist’s life, 16 included a summative evaluation about the scientist’s
legacy, 22 used predominantly past tense verbs to indicate past events, and 24
used predominantly specific participants to focus on a particular scientist. Of
the 24 reports, 21 included a general statement that classifies or defines the
science career, 23 included a series of facts about various aspects of the sci-
ence career, 15 included a summative statement about the science career, 24
used predominantly simple present tense verbs to indicate timelessness of the
facts presented, and 23 used predominantly generic participants to indicate
the science career in general.
To provide further insights into students’ understanding of the two genres,
we conducted a number of statistical analyses. Mann-Whitney test indicated
no significant differences in students’ overall understanding of the two genres
(U = 252.50, p = 0.42). Pearson’s chi-square tests indicated no significant dif-
ferences in students’ understanding of the two genres in each of the following
six measures: purpose, χ2 (1, N = 48) = 0.00, p = 1.00; orientation or general
statement, χ2 (1, N = 48) = 0.60, p = 0.44; sequence of events or series of facts,
χ2 (1, N = 48) = 1.09, p = 0.30; summative evaluation or summary statement, χ2
(1, N = 48) = 0.09, p = 0.76; generic or specific participant, χ2 (1, N = 48) = 1.02,
p = 0.31; simple present or simple past tense verb, χ2 (1, N = 48) = 2.09, p = 0.15.
448 Written Communication 39(3)

Table 4.  Means and Standard Deviations of Genre, Register, and Other Measures.

Genre Biograph Report

Dependent measure M (SD) M (SD)

Genre measures
  Purpose of genre 0.83 (0.38) 0.83 (0.38)
  Orientation or general statement 0.79 (0.42) 0.88 (0.34)
  Sequence of events or series of facts 0.88 (0.34) 0.96 (0.20)
  Summative evaluation or summary 0.67 (0.48) 0.63 (0.50)
statement
  Specific participant or generic participant 1.00 (0.00) 0.96 (0.20)
  Past tense or simple present tense 0.92 (0.28) 1.00 (0.00)
  Total genre score 5.08 (1.10) 5.25 (1.15)
Register measures: structural elaboration
  Finite complement clause 4.88 (3.92) 4.83 (3.46)
  Finite adverbial clause 7.92 (5.79) 6.38 (4.29)
  Finite relative clause 5.46 (4.15) 6.04 (5.68)
  Nonfinite complement clause 6.79 (5.61) 6.54 (5.36)
  Nonfinite adverbial clause 4.50 (4.27) 6.08 (4.29)
  Nonfinite relative clause 2.04 (1.99) 2.04 (2.73)
  Total elaboration score 32.92 (18.95) 31.92 (18.27)
Register measures: structural compression
  Attributive adjective or participle as 12.04 (6.81) 14.75 (7.20)
noun premodifier
  Noun as noun premodifier 7.33 (5.81) 7.79 (4.28)
  Multiple attributive elements as noun 2.25 (2.03) 3.96 (3.76)
premodifiers
  Prepositional phrase as noun 10.29 (5.05) 11.29 (7.70)
postmodifier
  Multiple prepositional phrases as noun 1.39 (1.38) 1.67 (1.93)
postmodifiers
  Prepositional phrase as adverbiala 34.58 (16.78) 15.08 (8.89)
  Appositive as noun modifiera 1.96 (1.49) 0.54 (0.93)
 Nominalization 8.92 (7.29) 10.00 (7.67)
  Passive voice 5.50 (4.19) 3.42 (3.39)
  Total compression score 84.25 (39.30) 74.04 (43.36)
Other measures
  Length by word count 512.46 (229.90) 501.53 (238.52)
  Holistic writing quality 13.00 (3.24) 13.33 (3.10)
a
Indicates significant differences between the two genres.
Fang et al. 449

Note that p value for chi-square was adjusted to account for the number of
comparisons made (i.e., alpha = 0.05/6, or 0.008).
In terms of register, the sixth-graders used an average of over 30, or 6 per
100 words, linguistic markers of structural elaboration (33 for biography and
32 for report) and close to 80, or 16 per 100 words, linguistic markers of
structural compression (84 for biography and 74 for report). For clausal
resources, students used more finite clauses (about 19 for biography and 17
for report) than nonfinite clauses (about 13 for biography and 15 for report),
with finite adverbial clause, nonfinite complement clause, and finite relative
clause being the most frequently used features and nonfinite relative clause
being the least used feature. For phrasal resources, prepositional phrase as
adverbial, attributive adjective/participle as noun premodifier, prepositional
phrase as noun postmodifier are the most used features; and appositive as
noun modifier, multiple prepositional phrases as noun postmodifiers, and
multiple attributive elements as noun premodifiers are the least used
features.
To provide further insights into students’ register choices across the two
genres, we conducted multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA).
MANOVA indicated no significant differences between the two genres in the
two summative register measures (total elaboration score and total compres-
sion score), Pillai’s trace = 0.02, F(2, 45) = 0.44, p = 0.65, η2  = 0.02. Follow-up
univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed no significant differences
between the two genres in either total elaboration score, F(1, 46) = 0.035,
p = 0.85, η2  = 0.001, or total compression score, F(1, 46) = 0.73, p = 0.40,
η2  = 0.016. Note that p value was adjusted to account for the number of sin-
gle ANOVAs performed (i.e., alpha = 0.05/2, or 0.025).
Additional analysis using MANOVA revealed no significant differences
between the two genres in six elaboration measures, Pillai’s trace = 0.13, F(6,
41) = 1.03, p = 0.42, η2  = 0.13. Follow-up univariate analysis of variance
(ANOVA) showed a lack of significant difference between the two genres in
the use of finite complement clause, F(1, 46) = 0.002, p = 0.97, η2  = 0.00;
finite adverbial clause, F(1, 46) = 1.10, p = 0.30, η2  = 0.023; finite relative
clause, F(1, 46) = 0.17, p = 0.69, η2  = 0.004; nonfinite complement clause,
F(1, 46) = 0.025, p = 0.88, η2   = 
0.001; nonfinite adverbial clause, F(1,
46) = 1.64, p = 0.21, η2  = 0.034; and nonfinite relative clause, F(1, 46) = 0.00,
p = 1.00, η2  = 0.00. Note that p value was adjusted to account for the number
of single ANOVAs performed (i.e., alpha = 0.05/6, or 0.008).
MANOVA revealed significant differences between the two genres in nine
compression measures, Pillai’s trace  = 0.68, F(9, 38) = 8.97, p = 0.00,
η2  = 0.68. Follow-up univariate ANOVA showed significant differences
between the two genres in the use of prepositional phrase as adverbial, F(1,
450 Written Communication 39(3)

46) = 25.31, p = 0.00, η2 = 0.36, and appositive as noun modifier, F(1,

46) = 15.62, p = 0.00, η2  = 0.25; but nonsignificant differences between the
two genres in the use of attributive adjective/participle as noun premodifier,
F(1, 46 = 1.79, p = 0.19, η2  = 0.037; noun as noun premodifier, F(1, 46) = 0.10,
2
p = 0.76, η  = 0.002; multiple attributive elements as noun premodifiers, F(1,
46) = 3.84, p = 0.056, η2  = 0.077; prepositional phrase as noun postmodifier,
F(1, 46) = 0.28, p = 0.60, η2  = 0.006; multiple prepositional phrases as noun
postmodifiers, F(1, 46) = 0.36, p = 0.55, η2  = 0.008; nominalization, F(1,
46) = 0.25, p = 0.62, η2  = 0.005; and passive voice, F(1, 46) = 3.59, p = 0.065,
η2  = 0.072. Note that p value was adjusted to account for the number of sin-
gle ANOVAs performed (i.e., alpha = 0.05/9, or 0.0056).
To answer the third research question, which probes the relationship
between genre or register familiarity and text quality, we performed multiple
regression analysis, using total genre score, total elaboration score, and total
compression score to predict holistic writing quality. Results from the analy-
sis indicated that this model was a significant predictor for holistic writing
quality, F(3, 44) = 17.38, p = 0.00, with the three factors together accounting
for approximately 54% of variance in holistic writing quality. Controlling for
the other two predictors, total genre score was a significant predictor for
holistic writing quality (B = 0.50, p = 0.00), total compression score was also
a significant predictor for holistic writing quality (B = 0.43, p = 0.001), but
total elaboration score was not a significant predictor of holistic writing qual-
ity (B = 0.065, p = 0.61). Individually, total genre score accounted for 32% of
variance in holistic writing quality, total compression score accounted for
29% of variance in holistic writing quality, and total elaboration accounted
for 15% of variance in holistic writing score.
Finally, to examine the relationship between genre or register familiarity
and reading proficiency, we conducted regression analysis. The analysis
showed that reading proficiency, as measured by a high-stakes standardized
test, was a significant predictor for total genre score, F(1, 46) = 12.16, p = 0.01.
With an increase of 1 SD unit in reading proficiency, there was an increase of
0.46 SD unit in total genre score (B = 0.46, p = 0.001). When the Reading ×
Genre interaction term was added to the regression model, R2 change was not
significant, F(1, 44) = 0.28, p = 0.60, indicating that the relationship between
reading proficiency and total genre score did not differ across the two genres.
Regression analysis also showed that reading proficiency was a signifi-
cant predictor of total elaboration score, F(1, 46) = 6.59, p = 0.014. With an
increase of 1 SD unit in reading proficiency, there was an increase of 0.35 SD
unit in total elaboration score (B = 0.35, p = 0.014). When the Reading ×
Genre interaction term was added to the regression model, R2 change was not
significant, F(1, 44) = 0.51, p = 0.48, indicating that the relationship between
Fang et al. 451

reading proficiency and total elaboration score did not differ across the two
genres.
Additionally, regression analysis showed that reading proficiency was not
a significant predictor of total compression score, F(1, 46) = 1.76, p = 0.19,
and there was no moderation effect of genre on the relationship between read-
ing proficiency and total compression score, F(1, 44) = 0.016, p = 0.90.
Regression analysis also indicated that reading proficiency was a significant
predictor of holistic writing quality, F(1, 46) = 12.18, p = 0.001. With an
increase of 1 SD unit in reading proficiency, there was an increase of 0.46 SD
unit in holistic writing score (B = 0.46, p = 0.001).

Discussion
The students in our study demonstrated fairly mature understanding of fac-
tual writing as a macrogenre. They were generally able to produce proto-
typic biographies or reports that used conventionalized forms (e.g., schematic
structure and lexical features) typically associated with each of the two tar-
get genres. This is not surprising for two reasons. First, previous research
(e.g., Fang, 2003; Pappas, 1993) has suggested that children as young as
kindergartners have an emergent understanding of narrative versus informa-
tional genres and are capable of producing texts that incorporate linguistic
features characteristic of either genre. This nascent understanding of the
school-based genres continues to develop over the course of elementary
schooling, as evidenced in their texts becoming more complex as they
advance in grade levels. By third grade, students are aware of genre or reg-
ister differences and able to control language well enough to make sche-
matic, lexical, and grammatical choices in ways that realize their goals
(Donovan, 2001; Fang, 2014; Reppen, 2007). By the time students reach
middle school, they are, in general, reasonably familiar with the two basic
genres of factual writing (Christie & Derewianka, 2008).
Second, the data for our study were collected in an authentic unit of sci-
ence instruction, where students had the opportunity to read and discuss mul-
tiple texts in the target genres and to plan and revise their writing outside of
class. This is different from many prior studies, where the writing task was
timed and completed in class in response to the researcher’s prompt. In our
study, students wrote for a real purpose in science learning and received
explicit directions for how to structure their writing (see Figure 2). They had
ample time to prepare for the assignment through reading and discussing
relevant sources, as well as planning, drafting, and editing. It is also possible
that they received parental assistance or copied from sources during the writ-
ing process because the assignment was completed outside of class. Thus, it
452 Written Communication 39(3)

is not a surprise that they produced reasonably prototypic texts that resemble
the target genres. On the other hand, the finding that not all texts in our study
included all basic structural and linguistic features typical of the target genres
suggests that the sixth-graders were not uniformly proficient in factual writ-
ing. This within-grade variation in genre knowledge, also reported in other
studies (e.g., Durrant & Brenchley, 2019; Fang, 2014; Reppen, 2007), is
likely a reflection of the differences in students’ prior literacy experience,
academic preparation, cognitive aptitude, personal interest, self concept as a
writer, motivation for completing the task, parental involvement, and time
and efforts expended on the task.
Our study showed that the sixth-graders employed many grammatical fea-
tures associated with not only structural elaboration but also structural com-
pression in both target genres. They used similar patterns of grammatical
resources to construct biography and report, possibly without a keen sense of
the register demands of academic writing and of the register differences
between the two genres. Because of their heavy reliance on clausal resources
(finite and nonfinite clauses), coupled with the use of interactive resources
(e.g., Have you ever heard of a lady by the name of Jane Goodall? // Do you
think to the future about a possible career?// As you can see biology is an
exciting [career] with many features you could love. // I think Henry Ford
was interesting to learn about. // I will now tell you more about the history of
Louis Braille and a little about braille itself. // Have you ever wanted to know
what lions, and tigers, and bears oh my, eat well I don’t know what bears eat.
// Hey, don’t leave just yet. I am not done talking with you. // So, did you enjoy
my wealth of information about neonatal nursing?), texts in both genres often
have a strong narrative and interpersonal flavor reminiscent of everyday, con-
versational registers. On this point, it is worth noting that academic writing
tends to rely on phrasal resources more than clausal resources and that report
typically relies on phrasal resources to a greater extent than does biography
(Biber & Gray, 2016). Even though students did draw on a range of phrasal
resources in both genres, the presence of many clausal features (especially
finite clauses), coupled with low occurrence of two particularly powerful
grammatical resources for compacting information (i.e., nominalizations and
noun phrases with multiple pre-/postmodifiers), renders their texts less aca-
demic and more conversational in style. The finding that students employed
many of the phrasal resources in their writing suggests that these linguistic
features were not altogether out of reach for sixth-graders. Related to this
point, scholars (e.g., Christie & Derewianka, 2008; Schleppegrell & Christie,
2018) have suggested that early adolescence is a particularly active period of
literacy development, when students are expanding, as they engage in disci-
plinary learning, their linguistic repertoire to include more academic register
Fang et al. 453

features such as nominalizations, expanded noun phrases, and other forms of

grammatical metaphor. On the other hand, because the writing assignment
was completed at home, it is also possible that some of the more advanced
grammatical resources students used were copied from sources or contrib-
uted by their parents.
Despite the expansion of meaning-making resources, many students in our
sample struggled with deploying academic register features in conjunction
with clausal resources in ways that meet the demands of the task and context.
It is likely that writing in a register-appropriate style is a more demanding
task that requires a considerable amount of scaffolding and practice and a
complex skill that takes many years to develop (Schleppegrell & Christie,
2018). Research (e.g., Beers & Nagy, 2011; Durrant & Brenchley, 2019;
Fang, 2014; Fang & Park, 2019; Reppen, 2007; Wojtalewicz & Reppen,
2021) has suggested that upper elementary and middle school students still
have a long way to go before they are ready to meet the linguistic demands of
academic writing. In fact, even college students have trouble using language
effectively to write for academic purposes (e.g., Aull & Lancaster, 2014;
Staples et al., 2016). On the other hand, it is also possible that students did not
adopt a more academic register in their writing because they did not see the
need for an academic style when their presumed audience was their peers and
because their teacher did not provide explicit mandates for or overt instruc-
tion about academic registers.
Our study found that finite and nonfinite clauses, with the exception of
nonfinite relative clause, were used extensively in both genres. This is
expected, as these linguistic resources are often used in spontaneous speech
and everyday writing. They are likely the type of meaning-making resources
with which students were most familiar. As such, they tend to be the default,
or most natural, choice for most students in meaning making (cf., Newkirk,
2014), regardless of context, especially in the absence of an explicit request
for a more authoritative, academic style of writing. Unlike finite relative
clause, nonfinite relative clause appears to be less common in everyday dis-
course and thus likely less familiar to students. It is an intermediate resource
for compacting information (e.g., In 1967 they had a child named Hugo Eric
Louis.), enabling writers to express in one sentence what could have been
said in two or more sentences (e.g., In 1967 they had a child. The child’s
name was Hugo Eric Louis.). As such, nonfinite relative clause is a linguistic
tool valued by academic writers.
Compared with elementary children in prior studies (e.g., Fang, 2014;
Fang et al., 2021), the sixth-grade students in our study appeared to use a
wider range and a higher frequency of grammatical features characteristic of
structural compression. That is, they employed a slightly greater number and
454 Written Communication 39(3)

a wider variety of phrasal resources, such as appositive as noun modifier,

noun as noun premodifier, and nominalization. This finding may have to do
with the facts that they had more time to write, had more resources (and sup-
port) to draw upon during writing, were more knowledgeable about the topic
of composition, and thus tended to write longer, as task and context have
been found to influence writing outcomes (Schleppegrell & Christie, 2018).
It may also be a reflection of students’ developing linguistic expertise and
cognitive maturity as they grow from late childhood to early adolescence.
The finding that students used significantly more prepositions as adverbi-
als in biography than in report writing makes sense because in biography
there appears to be a greater need to specify the circumstantial features of the
life events being chronicled, such as time (e.g., in 1964, in the winter of
1876), location (e.g., from a very small family, to Africa), cause (e.g., died
tragically of cancer, very enchanted with Jane’s love with Africa and all its
beauty), extent (e.g., over time, over the years), role (e.g., as a boy), accom-
paniment (e.g., without Jane, working with the chimps), matter (e.g., about
her, about the chimpanzee), and agent (e.g., inspired by Tarzan and The
Jungle Book). It is surprising that students used significantly more appositive
phrases in biography than report, as we had expected the feature to be more
common in report. At the same time, however, it is worth noting that the
number of appositive phrases deployed in either genre is very low. This
dearth is understandable as it is likely not a linguistic feature, albeit an impor-
tant one in informational meaning-making, that students encountered often or
to which they paid much explicit attention in their reading practices.
The lack of significant differences in most register choices for the two
genres may be explained by the fact that biography and report belong to the
same macrogenre. As noted earlier, both biography and report belong to the
factual, or informational, genre, with biography considered narrative infor-
mational and report expository informational. Thus, even though report is
considered more informational in purpose than biography, register choices
for the two genres may be so subtle that differences did not typically surface
in the age group examined in this study, but may later emerge with older
children (cf., Schleppegrell & Christie, 2018). It is possible that differences
in register choices are more striking between factual and analytical genres or
between factual and narrative genres, but not as pronounced across the sub-
genres within each macrogenre.
The significant positive relationship between genre/register familiarity and
holistic writing quality is not unexpected. In developing a school-based text,
students depend on schematic, lexical, and grammatical resources for present-
ing information and organizing text. Each text, as an instance of a particular
genre, uses a constellation of conventionalized, or culturally legitimated,
Fang et al. 455

forms that give it the generic shape and flavor. When writers make structural
and lexicogrammatical choices that align with the requirements of the genre
and the expectations of school, their texts tend to be judged to be of higher
holistic quality. It is worth pointing out here that total compression score, not
total elaboration score, is a significant predictor of holistic writing quality.
This appears to confirm the findings from corpus-based and functional lin-
guistics research that academic writing privileges phrasal, rather than clausal,
resources (Biber & Gray, 2016; Schleppegrell & Christie, 2018), even though
this expectation is rarely made explicit to students in class assignments
(Schleppegrell, 2004). In other words, teachers tend to place higher value on
linguistic features that contribute to structural compression in their assessment
of academic writing. Although this bias seems intuitive among teachers, it
manifests in the way they judge the quality of student writing.
Finally, our study found that reading proficiency is a significant predictor
of total genre score, total elaboration score, and holistic writing quality, but
not total compression score. That is, students with higher reading proficiency
tended to produce texts that incorporated more genre-specific structural and
lexical features, used more grammatical features associated with structural
elaboration, and had higher overall quality. This finding is largely consistent
with previous research, which reported a robust, although not perfect, rela-
tionship between reading and writing (see, e.g., Fitzgerald & Shanahan,
2000, for a review). It is possible that students with higher reading profi-
ciency have more exposure to written texts and associated linguistic features.
And because the sort of texts children read (or are encouraged to read) in and
out of school tended to be narrative (e.g., mystery, fantasy, folk tale, fable,
myth, fiction, comic book, graphic novel) or narrative-informational (e.g.,
the Magic School Bus series, historical fictions) and much less often exposi-
tory informational (Bouchamma et al., 2013; Moss, 2008; Renaissance
Learning, 2021), it is conceivable that students would rely more on the famil-
iar resources of everyday registers in their meaning-making, with the conse-
quence that their academic writing mirrors the linguistic patterns (i.e., clausal
elaboration) associated with narration (cf., Beers & Nagy, 2011, and Durrant
& Brenchley, 2019).
On the other hand, it is possible that grammatical patterns characteristic of
a compressed style (i.e., phrasal features) are more challenging to internalize
than those characteristic of an elaborated style (i.e., clausal features) because
the latter bears a greater resemblance to everyday language. In fact, research
has suggested that linguistic markers of a compressed writing style (e.g.,
nominalizations and expanded noun phrases with multiple modifiers) are
more abstract and dense, such that they do not typically fully develop among
students until high school or college years (Schleppegrell & Christie, 2018).
456 Written Communication 39(3)

Thus, it is possible that without frequent exposure and/or explicit scaffolding,

students may not have adequately internalized the grammatical features of
compression for effective use in their own writing. In several recent studies
(e.g., Fang et al., 2020, 2021; Ravid & Berman, 2010), for example, research-
ers found that the noun phrases used in school children’s writing tend to be
short and simple, and although the complexity of these noun phrases grow
with advancing grade levels (e.g., becoming longer, including more modifi-
ers and more varied types of modifiers, revealing greater syntactic depth, and
employing semantically more abstract nouns as heads), such growth is typi-
cally not salient until late adolescence or adulthood. And many adult English-
speaking writers never master this compressed style of academic writing
(Biber & Gray, 2010). In light of these findings, as well as those of other
studies (e.g., Beers & Nagy, 2011; Durrant & Brenchley, 2019; Fang et al.,
2020; Reppen, 2007), it is clear that learning the linguistic resources charac-
teristic of academic registers remains a major and daunting task for many
K-12 students.

Conclusion
Factual writing is a key genre of schooling that is also highly valued in work-
place and society. Gaining control over a range of genre and register options
for creating effective factual (or other school-based) texts is critical to both
academic success and career advancement. To be proficient in factual writing
in particular and academic writing in general, students need to develop a wide
range of linguistic (especially phrasal) resources and be able to choose from
the repertoire of lexicogrammatical options to meet the demands of particular
situational contexts and discursive purposes.
Our study employs an educationally powerful theoretical framework
(i.e., SFL) and a robust, wider-than-normal set of analytical tools (i.e.,
over 20 different genre and register measures). It generates deeper under-
standing of school children’s discursive competence in factual writing.
Like most studies, however, our study has limitations. Our corpus is rather
small, with 24 texts in each of the two genres produced as a homework
assignment by two different but relatively homogeneous groups of stu-
dents. The vast majority of students from low-income backgrounds (as
judged by their school lunch status) chose to write a biography, and two-
thirds of students from middle income backgrounds chose to write a sci-
ence career report. Future research can overcome these design limitations
by using a much larger and more diverse sample of students, having each
student write both genres, and collecting multiple pieces per genre with
some completed at home and others in class. In this connection, it is also
Fang et al. 457

important to document students’ writing process so as to better understand

how they compose from sources and how they import, adapt, invent, mix,
or manipulate linguistic resources to respond to task requirements, realize
their intentions, and achieve their goals.
Future research can also explore students’ discursive competence in a
wider range of school-based, discipline-legitimated genres (e.g., personal,
factual, and analytical) across the years of schooling. The exploration can
focus on an even wider array of linguistic features, such as those associated
with Reppen’s (2007, pp. 151–152) multidimensional analysis (i.e., edited
informational discourse vs. online informational discourse [Dimension 1],
lexically elaborated narrative vs. nonnarrative [Dimension 2], involved per-
sonal discourse vs. nonpersonal uninvolved discourse [Dimension 3], pro-
jected scenario [Dimension 4], and other-directed idea justification/
explanation [Dimension 5]) or Biber’s (1992, p. 335) multidimensional
analysis (i.e., informational vs. involved [Dimension 1], narrative vs. non-
narrative [Dimension 2], elaborated vs. situated reference [Dimension 3],
overt expression of persuasion [Dimension 4], and abstract vs. nonabstract
style [Dimension 5]). It can also be done along the three dimensions that
Schleppegrell and Christie (2018) identified as key indicators of writing
development—control over the discourse patterns of written language (e.g.,
use of reference and thematic progression to shape the flow of information
in a text), capacity to elaborate on and expand experience in writing (e.g.,
use of expanded noun phrases, nominalizations, and other forms of gram-
matical metaphor to compress information and construe abstraction), and
ability to express attitudes and points of view in nuanced ways (e.g., use of
attitudinally rich language to present interpretation and evaluation).
Finally, because writing is a simultaneously cognitive, linguistic, and
social activity, it is also important to explore the role of maturation (e.g.,
working memory capacity of brain, motivation), experience (e.g., the amount
of exposure to a compressed style of academic writing), and support (e.g., the
degree of explicit scaffolding provided and the timing/frequency of such
instruction) in children’s writing development. These research endeavors are
certain to generate more complete and nuanced insights that will be valuable
to literacy scholars and classroom teachers alike.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
458 Written Communication 39(3)

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.

References
Aull, L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced
academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2),
151–183.
Avalos, M., Zisselsberger, M., Gort, M., & Secada, W. (2017). “Hey! Today I will tell
you about the water cycle!”: Variations of language and organizational features
in third-grade science explanation writing. Elementary School Journal, 118(1),
149–176.
Beers, S., & Nagy, W. (2011). Writing development in four genres from grades three
to seven: Syntactic complexity and genre differentiation. Reading and Writing,
24(2), 183–202.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D. (1992). The multi-dimensional approach to linguistic analyses of genre vari-
ation: An overview of methodology and findings. Computers and the Humanities,
26(5/6), 331–345.
Biber, D. (2019). Text-linguistic approach to register variation. Register Studies, 1,
42–75.
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing:
Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
9(1), 2–20.
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical complexity in academic English.
Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conver-
sation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL
Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35.
Bouchamma, Y., Poulin, V., Basque, M., & Ruel, C. (2013). Impact of students’ read-
ing preferences on reading achievement. Creative Education, 4(8), 484–491.
Brisk, M. (2012). Young bilingual writers’ control of grammatical person in different
genres. Elementary School Journal, 12(3), 445–468.
Brisk, M. (2015). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogy
for K-5 classrooms. Routledge.
Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the
years of schooling. Continuum.
Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation.
Continuum.
Donovan, C. (2001). Children’s development and control of written story and infor-
mational genres: Insights from one elementary school. Research in the Teaching
of English, 35(3), 394–447.
Donovan, C., & Smolkin, L. (2011). Supporting informational writing in the elemen-
tary grades. The Reading Teacher, 64(6), 406–416.
Fang et al. 459

Duke, N. (2014). Inside information: Developing powerful readers and writers of

informational text through project-based instruction. Scholastic.
Durrant, P., & Brenchley, M. (2019). Development of vocabulary sophistication
across genres in English children’s writing. Reading and Writing, 32(8), 1927–
1953.
Fang, Z. (2003). Pedagogy and the learning of the school-based language. National
Reading Conference Yearbook, 52, 162–180.
Fang, Z. (2010). Language and literacy in inquiry-based science classrooms, grades
3-8. Corwin; NSTA Press.
Fang, Z. (2014). Writing a report: A study of preadolescents’ use of informational
language. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 10(2), 103–131.
Fang, Z. (2021). Demystifying academic writing: Genres, moves, skills, and strate-
gies. Routledge.
Fang, Z., Cao, P., & Murray, N. (2020). Language and meaning making: Register
choices in seventh- and ninth-grade students’ factual writing. Linguistics and
Education, 56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2020.100798
Fang, Z., Gresser, V., Cao, P., & Zheng, J. (2021). Nominal complexities in school
children’s informational writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100958
Fang, Z., & Park, J. (2019). Adolescents’ use of academic language in informational
writing. Reading and Writing, 33(1), 97–119.
Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A lan-
guage-based pedagogy. University of Michigan Press.
Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relationships and their
development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 39–50.
Gardner, S. (2012). Genres and registers of student report writing: An SFL perspec-
tive on texts and practices. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 52–63.
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language
in a social-semiotic perspective. Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M., & Martin, J. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power.
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar (4th
ed.). Routledge.
Maloch, B., & Bomer, R. (2013). Teaching about and with informational texts: What
does research teach us? Language Arts, 90(6), 441–448.
Martin, J. (1989). Factual writing. Oxford University Press.
Martin, J., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. Equinox.
Moss, B. (2008). The information text gap: The mismatch between non-narrative
text types in basal readers and 2009 NAEP recommended guidelines. Journal of
Literacy Research, 40, 201–219.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA) & Council of Chief
State School Officers (CCSSO). (2010). Common Core State Standards for
English language arts & literacy for history/social studies, science, and techni-
cal subjects: Appendix A. Author.
460 Written Communication 39(3)

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education stan-
dards: A guide for teaching and learning. National Academies Press.
Newkirk, T. (2014). Minds made for stories: How we really read and write informa-
tional and persuasive texts. Heinemann.
Pappas, C. (1993). Is narrative “primary”? Some insights from kindergartners’ pre-
tend readings of stories and informational books. Journal of Reading Behavior,
25(1), 97–129.
Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N., & Martineau, J. (2007). Learning to read and write
genre-specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading
Research Quarterly, 42(1), 8–45.
Ravid, D., & Berman, R. (2010). Developing noun phrase complexity at school age: A
text-embedded cross-linguistic analysis. First Language, 30(1), 3–26.
Renaissance Learning. (2021). What kids are reading: 2021 edition. www.renais-
sance.com/wkar
Reppen, R. (2007). L1 and L2 writing development of elementary students: Two per-
spectives. In Y. Kawaguchi, T. Takagaki, N. Tomimori, & Y. Tsuruga (Eds.),
Corpus-based perspectives in linguistics (Vol. 6, pp. 147–167). John Benjamins.
Schleppegrell, M. (1998). Grammar as resource: Writing a description. Research in
the Teaching of English, 32(2), 182—211.
Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics per-
spective. Erlbaum.
Schleppegrell, M., & Christie, F. (2018). Linguistic features of writing development:
A functional perspective. In C. Bazerman, A. N. Applebee, V. W. Berninger, D.
Brandt, S. Graham, J. V. Jeffery, P. K. Matsuda, S. Murphy, D. W. Rowe, M.
Schleppegrell, & K. C. Wilcox (Eds.), The lifespan development of writing (pp.
111–150). National Council of Teachers of English.
Seah, L. H. (2016). Understanding the conceptual and language challenges encoun-
tered by Grade 4 students when writing scientific explanations. Research in
Science Education, 46(3), 413–437.
Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Academic writing development
at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, dis-
cipline, and genre. Written Communication, 33(2), 149–183.
Uccelli, P., Dobbs, C., & Scott, J. (2012). Mastering academic language: Organization
and stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written
Communication, 30(1), 36–62.
Wojtalewicz, B., & Reppen, R. (2021). Elementary learners’ writing. In E. Friginal
& J. Hardy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus approaches to discourse
knowledge (pp. 219–234). Routledge.
Wollman-Bonilla, J. (2000). Teaching science writing for first graders: Genre learn-
ing and recontextualization. Research in the Teaching of English, 35(1), 35–65.

Author Biographies
Zhihui Fang is an Irving & Rose Fien Endowed Professor of Education in the School
of Teaching and Learning at the University of Florida. He has published widely in the
Fang et al. 461

areas of language and literacy education, English teacher education, and functional
linguistics in education. His latest books include Demystifying Academic Writing:
Genres, Moves, Skills, and Strategies (New York: Routledge, 2021) and Using
Functional Grammar in English Teaching and Learning (Beijing: Foreign Language
Teaching and Research Press, 2021).
Valerie Gresser is a Clinical Assistant Professor in the School of Education at
Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She earned her PhD in Language and
Literacy Education from the University of Florida in 2021.
Peijuan Cao is a doctoral candidate in Language and Literacy Education in the
School of Teaching and Learning at the University of Florida.
Huibin Zhang is a doctoral candidate in Research and Evaluation Methodology in
the School of Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education at the
University of Florida.