DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS
Seminal authors
Gibbons 2003
Caplan 2016
According to Nigel Caplan i(2018), Joint construction is one example of collaborative writing-multiple authors interact and share responsibility for writing (Storch,
2013) because of “languaging”(Swain, 2006), collaborative scaffolding (Donato, 1994), and cognitive apprenticeship (Daiute and Dalton, 1996)
Framework
Scaffolding interaction
cycle, Mark Brooke,
Singapore
ESL writing development
Nature of writing
Reference
key concepts
A dozen head is better than one (caplan 2016): a model of TLC in intermediate class with JC is key stage with description
Details Reference
1. prepare (text, para/sentence meaning, postion of working, meaning within sentence)
2. Identify-- affirm--highlight
3. Elaborate: meaning beyond sentence-- define-explain-discuss
Rose, 2005; Rose et al, 2008
drawing on the work of Manchon ( ´ 2012), it is evident that writing development
concerns much more that lexical-grammatical development. What’s more is that we don’t
know much about how individual issues such as motivation, goal setting, and beliefs about
writing affect lexical-grammatical development
Dimensions in L2 writing theory and
three orientations which are referred to in the literature as “learning-to-write” research: Learning to write and
(LW), “writing-to-learn-content” (WLC), and “writing-to-learn-language” (WLL), writing to learn
respectively (Manchón 2011a). Each of these three orientations is ultimately related to Alan Hirvela, Ken Hyland, and Rosa
the variables of purposes of learning and teaching writing M. Manchón
In terms of instructional contexts, the LW dimension of L2 writing is generally associated
with L2 composition classes, while the WLL dimension is primarily related to SL and FL
learning contexts.
currents gaps
1. although many has analyzed the linguistic demands of text that Ss are expected to write, especially for academics purposes, few studies
explore how the meanings of texts are negotiated through classroom interaction
Therefore, my study focuses on co-construction method as a collaborative writing process, which many referred to as joint -construction process
in a genre-based writing approach.
2. Previous studies provided insights into the overall structure of lessons, the negotiation of social roles and adaptation to online teaching
environment.
However, there has been limited understanding of how meanings are negotiated to achieve the "target"/ end product (ie. The scribed text) as
well as of how language choices are related to each other and Ss' future writing.
Therefore, my study centres on the linguistic challenges that many Ss might face in academic English (AE) writing. It concerns how T-S and S-S
interaction affects (support or limit) the development of academic language.

In the TLC, teachers guide their students through five stages of teaching and learning (as shown in Figure 1):
1. Building the field
2. Exploring the structure and language of text types
3. Jointly constructing texts
4. Independently constructing texts
5. Reflecting on one’s own written texts
Most teachers are familiar with stage one, “building the field” (i.e., building deep content knowledge through language-rich experiences), and
stage four (students writing independently). However, stages two, three, and five are often absent from typical classroom instruction. Teachers
may model writing for their students or show them a “mentor text” (i.e., an example of good writing), but it is rare for teachers to explicitly
analyze the language of particular texts with their students and to facilitate discussions connecting these language explorations to their content
learning goals. In the scenario at the beginning of this article, for instance, Ms. Castro engaged her students in stage one of the TLC throughout
the unit
and then, at the end of the unit, asked her students to write about the topic (stage four). However, to help her students learn to write effectively
about the content they have learned, Ms. Castro must also focus on stages two, three, and five, which contain rich opportunities for the
concurrent development of academic oral and written language development and deep content learning

Research questions

Question Method instrument Data collection Data analysis Expected results

1 What beliefs and Quantitative Questionnaire FELTE and KTA, Questionnaire --> Many teachers have Adapted from Dix GRS 2020
practices of co- method and in-depth email sent to preliminary co-constructed text (2014), Appendix 11, An insight
construction (survey) semi-structured each teacher to results for with Ss in class as phD Mapping into practice
method in interview invite selecting and one writing method representations of of EFL writing
 writing participants inviting to support SS' teacher discursive co-
instruction (50Ts), Google "targeted" learning to write, practice constructive
characterise a forms interviewees for but they are not Book: dynamics of instruction
group of writing personal fully aware of ESL writing: chapter
teacher at a interviews ; theoretical basis 3, Alister Cummings
university in descriptive and principles of co- Experienced ESL/EFL
Vietnam? analysis, mean construction writing writing instructors’
and SD method. conceptualizations of
Some might show their teaching
comprehensive L. V. Canh, phd theis,
understanding of appendix
different writing
instructions but A teaching and
practice few of learning cycle,
them or even not Derekwanka
any practice of co-
construction
method in their
teaching.
There might be few
teachers both
understand and
enact co-
construction
method in their
writing class.
2 What is it that T Qualitative Video invite Ts of Me: create Watanabe 2014 phd
and Ss do in co- method, recordings, relevant groups google folder, thesis : relationship
construction longitudinal Stimulated from results of transcribe video, between
writing lesson? observation (1 recall interview to thematic coding collaborative writing
1. What tasks do semester): 2-3 agree to 1, ask T for and writing process,
Ss perform in the teachers partcipate into stimulated recall text quality and Ss
lesson? G1: experiment the study. on their acts at attitudes
2. How does the co-construction Me: create class, thematic sample coding
teacher organise in writing class google folder, coding 2, connect scheme;
Ss activity to (1 T) transcribe video, results of coding questionnaires,
complete the G2: thematic coding 1&2 interviews,
writing lesson? contemporary 1, ask T for Nvivo software stimulated recall
enactment of stimulated recall for coding appendix
co-construction on their acts at
 in writing class class, thematic
(2 Ts) coding 2, Discourse
connect results analysis (SFL -
of coding 1 & 2 bottom up
approach): 1/
examine micro-
interactions of T-S
to understand
how their
teaching acts
gradually creates
a tex
2/ consider the
flow of T-S talk
and connections
between periods
of activity.
3 How do/ does Qualitative Video Transcribe video conversation
T(s) open up method, recordings recordings in analysis
and/or constrain longitudinal (major) and C.A.
space for Ss to observation (1 occasional transcription,
offer wordings? semester): 2-3 interview Ss' turn analysis
teachers feedback
G1: experiment (minor - for
co-construction triangulation)
in writing class
(1 T)
G2:
contemporary
enactment of
co-construction
in writing class
(2 Ts)
4 How does Watanabe 2014 phd
metalanguage thesis : relationship
use relate the between
current writing collaborative writing
task to future and writing process,
independent text quality and Ss
writing tasks? / attitudes
 affect Ss
indepedent
writing?

Significance

1 The study focuses on text creation in classroom talk, ie. What kinds of meaning Ss need to write and how meanings are negotiated

2 The study focuses on T-S interaction to further understand how metalnguage use supports Ss to learn academic registers.

3 The study provides linguistic interpretation of vague terms: scaffolding, mediation, negotiation

Research Question 1

What beliefs and Quantitative Questionnaire FELTE and KTA, Questionnaire --> Many teachers have co- Adapted from Dix GRS 2020
practices of co- method and in-depth email sent to preliminary results constructed text with Ss (2014), Appendix An insight into
construction (survey) semi-structured each teacher for selecting and in class as one writing 11, phD Mapping practice of EFL
method in writing interview to invite inviting "targeted" method to support SS' representations of writing co-
instruction participants interviewees for learning to write, but teacher discursive constructive
characterise a (50Ts), Google personal they are not fully aware practice instruction
group of writing forms interviews ; of theoretical basis and
teacher at a descriptive analysis, principles of co- L. V. Canh, phd
university in mean and SD construction writing thesis, appendix
Vietnam? method.
 Some might show A teaching and
comprehensive learning cycle,
understanding of Derekwanka
different writing
instructions but practice
few of them or even not
any practice of co-
construction method in
their teaching.
There might be few
teachers both
understand and enact
co-construction method
in their writing class.

Starting out with genre-based writing instruction

To mark the publication of Inside Writing, a series of genre-based writing textbooks from Oxford University Press, I’m writing a series
of blog posts about my understanding of genre-based writing pedagogy. Today’s post is inspired by a conversation I had in the faculty
lounge yesterday. A colleague told me he was interested in breaking away from (your friend and mine) the five-paragraph essay, but he
wasn’t sure where to start. After the break, I’ll tell you …

Many of us teach courses that include learning outcomes (or in some places, objectives) that vaguely direct us to teach “descriptive
paragraphs,” “argument essays,” or (from the department of unnecessary redundancy) “compare and contrast writing.” These rhetorical
modes, however, are not genres. We do indeed write descriptions, arguments, comparisons, and so on, but we do so for particular
reasons in specific contexts. To do so just for the sake of writing a paragraph produces what Elizabeth Wardle has colorfully called a
“mutt genre” — a piece of writing utterly divorced from any communicative purpose.

A genre-based approach would start by asking this question: when, why, and where do we write descriptions, comparisons, and
arguments?
For example, my intermediate-level writing class was supposed to cover descriptive writing, so instead of assigning descriptions of
students’ heroes, or hometowns, or dorm rooms, I looked for genres and tasks that demand good description. I asked them to write a
product review for a website like amazon.com (this is one of the units in Inside Writing 2, incidentally!). I also asked them to write an
essay (yes, I teach essays!) of 4-5 paragraphs (goodness, a five-paragraph essay!) for a magazine in which they describe a vacation
destination and explain whether or not it is environmentally friendly, and why. My colleague here at the University of Delaware ELI also
has students write restaurant reviews and post them on her blog and — my personal favorite — write letters of complaint to their
landlord in which they describe three problems with their apartment and demand redress! And not surprisingly we see some fantastic
writing. One student even wrote a parody of the famous reviews of a banana slicer, which are themselves parodies of the online review
genre!

Arguments are certainly found in student essays, and that’s a valid genre to teach. But they’re also found in more interesting places. For
instance, in Q: Skills for Success, Reading/Writing 5 (also from Oxford), we have students imagine they are an advertising agency, and
they write a proposal to a (usually fictitious) client describing an ad they would make (think Mad Men, ESL style, and with less smoking
and drinking). By way of peer review, they swap papers, and readers take on the role of executives who decide whether or not to run the
ad: that is, are they persuaded by the writers’ arguments? In Inside Writing 4, one of our argument units is a true piece of persuasive
writing: a fundraising letter for a charity (we used the actual charity Music and Memory as an example).

None of this is to say that we shouldn’t also teach students to write highly-structured essays for standardized tests. However, I do argue
(to anyone who’ll listen to me) that we do our students a disservice if we only teach formulaic, simplistic, five-paragraph essays. As a
former colleague used to say, writers need a toolbox, and the traditional essay is one tool. But if you need a screwdriver and you’ve only
got a hammer, you’re likely to make a mess.

What do you think? How could you incorporate genres in your course and still meet your learning outcomes? What assignments have
worked for you? How could you modify your current assignments to make them genre-based? Leave a comment below!

Next time, how to analyze (or, deconstruct) models of your target genre.

Jumping into Genre

This post is the second in a series of blogs I’m writing with an introduction to genre-based writing instruction to coincide with the
launch of Oxford’s new writing textbook series, Inside Writing. Last time, I talked about how to shift your focus from a rhetorical view
of writing 5-paragraph essays to a genre-based concern with how language is used in different social contexts, including the context of
schooling.

In this post, I’d like to move into classroom practice: how do you help students learn to write in your target genre? The method I use is a
well-developed technique that originated in Australian middle schools called the “Teaching-Learning Cycle” (Rothery, 1996)*. Typically,
this starts with an activity they call “Deconstruction,” which is basically a teacher-led analysis of several writing models to help students
deduce staging (the typical structure of information) and features of the language used (especially for ESL or other linguistic minority
populations). I happened to hear a great example of this on NPR recently about a 6th-grade English class in Chicago. One of the merits
of the new Common Core State Standards in both English Language Arts and other disciplines is a great deal of interest in genres of
writing. Notice that the students already have a pretty sophisticated understanding of genre — they know that argument is different
from persuasion. Now, they look at examples of arguments about about banning cell phones in school (I used almost exactly the same
topic, except set at a university, for a unit in Inside Writing!)

She divides the class into small groups and hands them two non-fiction articles. One is a study from 2010 that found more than three-
quarters of American teens own a cell phone and makes the case for allowing them in school. […] But the other article, also a 2010
study, found that 71 percent of students with cell phones had sent or received text messages during classroom time. Bell’s 30 sixth-
graders fill out charts to help them organize the two arguments before they begin writing their own. Lucy Skorey and Hilda Grullon
sit at a table near the back of the room discussing both sides.
This is deconstruction in action. The students have a sense about what makes an argument (claims + evidence). Now, they look at two
competing arguments, and discuss how each writer makes a case. Yes, there’s the inevitable graphic organizer (which has become a bit
of an obsession in American schools these days), but if used appropriately, it can show students how different writers approach the
same task. The students now have choices and examples, not five-paragraph formulas to follow. Notice as well that the teacher has the
students collaborate on this task, which is a nice segue to the next stage of the Teaching/Learning Cycle, where students will jointly
construct a new text in the target genre. But more on that in the next post.

The trick with deconstruction is to avoid structural labels and focus on functions. For example, if I ask my students what the structure of
[insert any genre] is, they will invariably reply “introduction, body, conclusion” because that’s what they’ve been taught. But pretty
much every piece of writing has a beginning, middle, and end, and while Aristotle could get away with claiming that as valuable insight
into the genre of tragedy 2500 years ago, it’s just not very helpful to students learning how to write. You can see in the case of argument
writing, that “claims” and “evidence” are much more useful than “introduction” and “body.” As for the online product review, which I
mentioned in the last post, it turns out that there’s a pretty predictable structure: why I bought the product and (usually) an overall
evaluation, description of the product, good features (with reasons), bad features (with reasons), and recommendation (positive,
negative, or hedged). Of course, in a negative review, the bad features might come first and the writer might not see any redeeming
qualities worth mentioning, but the structure works well, is easily identifiable, and helps students to control their writing. Even better,
you can show students how to expand from a single paragraph review to a multi-paragraph piece.

Back to Chicago now, where the NPR reporter quickly learned that students in this class understand not only the structure but also the
social function of the genre: they’re not just mindlessly regurgitating an empty form:

So why should they know how to write an argument? “We might want to become a lawyer or something. It’s good practice for us to
learn how to make a claim and tell what we think on paper,” Grullon says.
I would also add to this lesson a focus on language. So, what verbs do the authors use to introduce evidence (i.e., reporting verbs)? What
tenses do they use? Do you see certain types of grammar in the claims but not the evidence (e.g. modals)? Are the claims hedged at all,
and if so, how? How do the writers use relative (adjective) clauses, e.g. to specify which schools, students, and cell phones they are
discussing? Once you start asking these questions, you’ll be amazed what you and your students notice about your genres!
You can find a description of all 50 genres taught in Inside Writing on the Inside Writing Teachers’ Site (free registration to OUP’s
Teacher’s Club is required) along with my essay on genre-based writing pedagogy. In the next post in this series, we look at joint
construction, a form of collaborative writing.

* Joan Rothery’s chapter, “Making Changes: Developing an Educational Linguistics” is in the book Literacy in Society (e.g. Hasan &
Williams; Longman, 1996). However, you can also read a rather more complex description of the TLC in J.R. Martin’s 2009 article,
“Genre and Language Learning: A social Semiotic Perspective” and also in David Rose and Jim Martin’s book, Learning to
Write/Reading to Learn (Continuum, 2012). I discussed the TLC with examples in a 2013 presentation at Penn-TESOL-East, and it’s
the basis of the units in Oxford’s new writing textbook series, Inside Writing.

The crux of the genre: Joint Construction

In part 3 of my series of posts on genre-based (ESL) writing pedagogy, we arrive at the heart of the Teaching/Learning Cycle. In the first
stage, the teacher guided students to analyze, or deconstruct, the target genre for its organization, purpose, and language. Now, students
collaboratively write a new text in that genre. Although there are different ways to do this collaborative writing, the Australian literature
in particular focuses on one activity: teacher-led, whole-class Joint Construction.

For this, you need to prepare students by helping them brainstorm ideas for the writing (this is called “building field”). For example,
today, my advanced students were learning to writing summaries, so we all read a short article and students worked individually and in
pairs to locate the main ideas and the logical relationship between them (it’s just think-pair-share!). In another example, ripped from
the pages of Inside Writing 2, my colleague had her students read a bad product review and discuss what elements of the genre needed
improvement. Now, we’re ready to write!

In Joint Construction, the teacher acts as the scribe while students propose words, phrases, and sentences. As you can see on the left,
we’re lucky to have SmartBoards in our classrooms, so I can type what the students say and edit as we go, but the activity works just as
well on a chalkboard or flip chart. You can even designate a student as scribe. Usually, you have to start with a lot of prompting,
reminding students where you are in the genre and what they need to provide next. The key to the success of the writing activity comes
from your ability to scaffold the students’ learning. This means giving them just the right amount of support when they need it in order
to complete the task — and then gradually taking away the support as they approach mastery. After all, when the building is finished,
the scaffold is removed. So, you might start by asking for the next sentence, and then prompt for a connector, and if it’s quiet, supply
a however, and if they still need help, keep building the support until together you can co-construct a sentence (Dreyfus et al., 2011).
Another important way teachers direct the task is by recasting a student’s sentence, with the help of other students, so that it is accurate
and appropriate for the text.

In research I presented earlier this year with colleagues from Delaware, I found that Joint Construction is an engaging task that raises
lots of opportunities for language learning at many different levels while demonstrating to students how to construct a good example of
the target genre. Other types of collaborative writing have focused on teaching writing strategies, self-regulation strategies (“I can’t
think of an idea so I’m going to re-read the paragraph I’ve already written”), and audience awareness. Collaborative writing can also be
done in pairs or small groups, on paper, on a laptop, and even using wikis and online chat (although the jury is still out on whether that
works as well as face-to-face writing). Research has found that collaboratively written texts are more complete, more accurate, and
generally of higher quality than individually-written texts, and there is some evidence of transfer to students’ subsequent independent
writing, both in terms of writing quality (for all students) and language acquisition (for second-language writers, cf Storch, 2013).

Did I mention that it’s really fun, too? You never get the same text twice, and students often come up with ideas and sentences you’d
never have imagined by yourself. And that’s exactly the point: collaborative writing means “two or more individuals with
complementary skills interacting to craft a text that neither could have created on his/her own” (Schrage, 1994, p. 18). When you’re
leading the class, you can encourage equal participation, which prevents a common problem in group and pair writing of one student
adopting a passive role. Even students who are quiet are often very engaged in the task, and everyone takes away a good piece of writing.
In fact, Rose and Martin (2012) go so far as to call Joint Construction “the most powerful classroom practice currently available as far as
learning written genres is concerned” (p. 73). David Rose, incidentally, is the man standing at the whiteboard on the right, so he should
know.

Give it a go! You’ll be surprised at what you can write …. together.

In the next post in this series, I’ll move on to independent writing.

Further reading:

Dreyfus, S. J., Macnaught, L., & Humphrey, S. (2011). Understanding joint construction in the tertiary context. Linguistics and the
Human Sciences, 4, 135–160. doi:10.1558/lhs.v4i2.135 [nice examples of Joint Construction in action in real classrooms]
Schrage, M. (1994). Writing to collaborate: Collaborating to write. In J. S. Leonard, C. E. Wharton, R. M. Davis, & J. Harris
(Eds.), Author-ity and textuality: Current views of collaborative writing (pp. 17–22). West Cornwall, CT: Locust Hill Press.

Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters. [excellent review of the literature]

Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. London:
Equinox. [a very clear description of the Systemic Functional Linguistic approach to genre instruction in both reading and writing]
i
https://nigelteacher.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/many-hands-make-writing-work.pdf