See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341482143

Adopting an SFL Approach to Teaching L2 Writing through the Teaching

Learning Cycle

Article in English Language Teaching · May 2020

DOI: 10.5539/elt.v13n6p64

CITATIONS READS

10 1,703

1 author:

Akiko Nagao
Ryukoku University
39 PUBLICATIONS 130 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Akiko Nagao on 19 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 English Language Teaching; Vol. 13, No. 6; 2020
ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

Adopting an SFL Approach to Teaching L2 Writing

through the Teaching Learning Cycle
Akiko Nagao1
1
Department of Global Studies, Faculty of International Studies at Ryukoku University, Kyoto, Japan
Correspondence: Dr. Akiko Nagao, Department of Global Studies, Faculty of International Studies at Ryukoku
University, 67 Tsukamotocho, Fukakusa Fushimi Ward, Kyoto 612-8577, Japan.

Received: April 13, 2020 Accepted: May 15, 2020 Online Published: May 19, 2020
doi: 10.5539/elt.v13n6p64 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n6p64

Abstract
This study applied a Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) model to explore how 27 first-year university
students in two different English proficiency groups improved their lexicogrammatical choices and
metafunctions for writing analytical exposition essays during a 15-week course. To explore how “the teaching
learning cycle” influences students’ understanding of the target genre essay, a survey was conducted; furthermore,
to explore changes in students’ understanding of metafunctions (ideational, experiential, and textual meanings)
of the target genre essay, students’ pre- and post-essays were scored by raters using the SFL framework rubric.
Then, six students with lower rating scores at the pre-essay stage from both English proficiency groups were
selected to explore how they progressed differently in the target linguistic resources. The results demonstrated
that applying an SFL framework of writing assessment to English students’ understanding of essay writing can
be used to explicitly examine their improvements.
Keywords: academic writing, analytical exposition genre essay, metafunctions, teaching and learning cycle,
systemic functional linguistics
1. Introduction
1.1 Difficulties of Writing Essays in Higher Education in Japan
One of the issues facing Japanese university students today is that most have limited writing experience and few
opportunities to write in English. English writing classes in Japan have mainly focused on writing abstracts
rather than whole essay writing. Moreover, English students in Japan are exposed to a limited number of genre
types and high school students have fewer learning opportunities regarding how to write. In this learning
environment, Japanese university “English as a foreign language” (EFL) students struggle with English essay
writing because they lack explicit writing instruction.
The concept of the Teaching and Learning Cycle (TLC) was originally developed in Australia (Martin & Rose,
2008) and later applied to writing and teaching research for both first language (L1) and second language (ESL)
students of English, which demonstrated it to be an effective approach (Burns, 1990; Hammond & Hood, 1990).
1.2 Objectives of the Research
The TLC enables students to raise their awareness of both text and context (Burns, 1990; Hammond, 2001). By
integrating language and content, the TLC can provide the scaffolding needed for students to communicate
effectively in writing (Carlson, 2009), and can influence students’ understanding of target texts’ social and
communicative purposes (Paltridge, 2001). The TLC can also be applied to the Genre-Based Curriculum Cycle
to enable students to consider language at the text, clause, and sentence levels (Gibbons, 2002; Martin & Rose,
2008). Most research related to TLC and the genre-based approach (GBA) lessons have concluded that applying
TLC and GBA facilitated improvement in students’ awareness regarding their writing and the effectiveness of
TLC and GBA; however, fewer studies have examined the scoring rubric and students’ self-assessed areas of
improvement and the usefulness of GBA writing lessons. Moreover, few studies have been conducted in Japan
focusing on L2 writing and the EFL learning classroom using GBA.

58
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 13, No. 6; 2020

1.3 Literature Review

In Japan, research has been conducted on uses of the TLC approach within the context of L2 academic writing in
language classes. Explicit genre-based writing instruction can support L2 students with their writing output
(Palmer, 2012). Palmer (2012) explored L2 writing using an Information and Communication
Technology-mediated, Genre-based Approach (GBA) with an SFL framework for Japanese university students.
Matsuo and Bevan (2002) understood that Japanese students might have a different mind-set than Australian
students and feel more comfortable focusing on the grammatical features characteristic of the Sydney School
approach (SFL). Thus, their work was less focused on teaching lexicogrammatical features. They applied a
combined three-genre approach, including New Rhetoricians, Systemic Functional Linguistics, and English for
Specific Purposes, to second-year English majors taking writing lessons at the university and implemented the
following cycle: first, students were asked to write an essay on a specific topic, and teachers explained the
audience and social context; second, students focused on language forms, but many previous studies did not
mention the particular genre text as the model for the deconstruction stage. The results demonstrated that some
students did not distinguish between the unique features of spoken language and written composition.
Watanabe (2016) studied writing tasks from university entrance examinations in Japan and found an excessive
focus on a limited number of genre types, most of which comprised expositions and personal reflections, with
common essay questions formulated to persuade readers to think in a certain way. One of example questions is:
Is eating junk food good or bad for people’s lives? Present reasons for your opinion. It means that most learners
are familiar with subjective and personal reflection essays; however, many of them may not have gotten enough
exposure to a variety of genres such exposition, information report, and discussion genres.
1.3.1 Systemic Functional Linguistics and the Genre-Based Approach to Language Teaching
Within the SFL framework, written and spoken genre texts involve several states (structures) to achieve goals
(e.g., discussion essays comprise four paragraphs to introduce both sides: introduction, pros, cons, and writer’s
opinion). Writers’ goals and appropriate lexicogrammatical choices in written and spoken texts, such as
procedure, recount, and description genre texts, are influenced by the writer’s understanding of (a) what the text
is about, (b) who the audience is, and (c) whether it is spoken or written, which is known as the “staged,
goal-oriented, social process” (Martin & Rose, 2008). Martin and Rose’s (2008) research on SFL genre theory in
classroom contexts has influenced current generic structures and lexicogrammatical features of various genres.
During the 1980s in Australia, Systemic Functional Linguistic Genre Pedagogy (SFL-GP) was developed
(Martin & Rothery, 1980) and applied in various educational contexts by David Rose. In the SFL genre
framework, students understand the literacy of a target genre in context and learn how to read and write through
explicit scaffold writing instruction, in what is known as the teaching–learning cycle (TLC). However, several
criticisms have been outlined in relation to the teaching of genre in education: for instance, since the SFL
genre-based approach is explicit in nature, some believe it to be unnecessary except when editing texts, and that
such explicit teaching can lead to overlearning and misapplications among students (Freedman, 1993). Moreover,
practitioners may not understand a genre well enough to teach it, and if they are not sufficiently familiar with the
target genre texts, they may not be able to fully understand the complex theory behind them. Finally, students
who are taught to write using the explicit method may overgeneralize or misapply the rules, potentially leading
to misconceptions and poor writing performance. However, a number of studies have addressed these critiques,
and both qualitative and quantitative investigations have demonstrated the viability of explicit genre instruction
as a teaching method (Chivizhe, McKnight, & Smith, 2003; Schleppegrell, 2010; Chen & Su, 2011; Yasuda,
2011, 2012, 2015, 2017).
1.3.2 Teaching Genre in Education
SFL is concerned with the relationship between language and society in a motived way and suggests that the
social (genres) can be naturally related to language (meanings) (Martin, 2000). An SFL-GBA (genre-based
approach) allowed participants to focus more on a contextual, purposeful, and reader-oriented view of writing.
Tshotsho (2014) found it important to explicitly teach textual features in academic English writing. Gómez
Burgos (2017) examined the expository essays of undergraduate students who had experienced a genre-based
approach to writing in the TLC. Following the intervention period, their understanding of compositions had
improved. Thus, many SFL genre-based writing studies have been conducted, most focusing on changes in
students’ understanding of the generic structure and lexicogrammatical features of target genre essays. However,
few studies have tracked such features using the SFL framework of metafunctional features, that is, Ideational
(experiential and logical), Interpersonal, and Textual meaning, for assessment.
According to Yasuda’s (2015) summary of EFL writing, three GBAs are mainstream: English for Specific

59
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 13, No. 6; 2020

Purposes of GBA by Swales (1990), Systemic Functional Linguistics (Sydney School) by Halliday (1994), and
Rhetorical Genre Studies by Miller (1984, 1994). Regarding the SFL framework in the genre-based approach,
one of the unique features of GBA is to analyze multiple layers of one written or spoken sentence. Halliday
(1994) developed a theory of the fundamental functions of language in which he categorized lexicogrammar into
three broad metafunctions: ideational, interpersonal, and textual, each of which regard a different aspect of the
world. Ideational meanings refer to what is going on, the participants, circumstances, and surrounding events, or
in other words, the when, what, who, and background information (Droga & Humphrey, 2002; Kobayashi, 2017,
p. 12); Interpersonal meanings refer to reader–writer relationships or ways of instituting relationships with others
(Halliday, 1994; Oliveria, 2015, p. 231) and also “create impersonality, more subjective and involved style”
(Kobayashi, 2017, p. 12; Oliveria, 2015, p. 233). “The interpersonal metafunction uses language to encode
interaction and to show how defensible or binding we find our proposition or proposal” (Butt, Fahey, Feez,
Spinks, & Yallop, 2000), which expresses phenomena such as living things and events (Gerot & Wignell, 1994).
Finally, textual meaning is “language-oriented and deals with cohesive and coherent text production by
organizing and structuring the linguistic information in the clause” (Halliday & Martin, 1981, p. 328; Haratyan,
2011, p. 261; Kobayashi, 2017, p. 12). Textual meaning conveys the message related with the text’s coherence
and cohesion (Gerot & Wignell, 1994).
In summary, when writers and speakers attempt to convey their intended meaning, these metafunctions can
reflect the social roles of their texts through their choice of lexicogrammatical features. In the SFL framework,
the three features of ideational, interpersonal, and textual meaning serve as a system network of meaning
potentials with a set of semantic features. To fully understand a text, it is necessary to consider all these
metafunctions simultaneously (Butt et al., 2000). Therefore, in this study, by analyzing or identifying
lexicogrammatical features, including their ideational meaning, we can understand what picture of reality writers
seek to convey and encode their experience in.
1.4 Research Questions
The current study was conducted in a first-year Pre-Enrollment English Program (PEP) at a Japanese university
in which most English classes were comprised of novice students with limited previous experience of genre
essay writing in English. In this study, analytical exposition essays were selected for the pre- and post-essays, as
argumentation is a necessary skill for university courses and students are more likely to encounter this genre in
their future study abroad experiences. The exposition essay’s generic structure and language features were
adopted from Martin and Rose (2008), Rose and Martin (2012), Butt et al. (2000), and Knapp and Watkins
(2005). In contrast to many Japanese-based genre-writing studies, which have focused solely on assessing
writing using SFL-GP (genre pedagogy) principles, I emphasize the important role of explicit instruction, as
provided through SFL genre-based literacy intervention lessons, in allowing students to encounter different types
of genre text over a 15-week course. I aimed to answer the following questions: (RQ1) How will L2 writers
change from novice to experienced writers through the TLC?; (RQ2) How do learning tasks influence
understanding of the target genre essay through the TLC?; and (RQ3) How does the EFL students’ understanding
of generic structure, lexicogrammatical features, and ideational meaning, experiential meaning, and text meaning
exposition of the target genre essay change through the implementation of writing lessons using SFL GBA L2
writing?
2. Method
The research participants (N = 27; F = 20; M = 7) comprised first-year students in their second semester of the
2018 academic year, who attended two different classes taught by the author of this research (Table 1). Each
class took six or seven different PEP English lessons (90 minutes per lesson) per week, such as reading, writing,
speaking, and listening practice, in preparation for future study abroad programs. All students took the SFL-GBA
writing lessons at a private university in Japan from April to August 2018. They were assigned to different
classes according to their Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL iBT) scores. Before delivering the
informed consent materials, the study rationale and meaning of the research were explained to all participants
and repeated each time the participants submitted relevant materials to the researcher. All participants understood
the research purpose and that their identities would remain anonymous.

60
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 13, No. 6; 2020

Table 1. Research participants

Class n A B C D
C1 12 11 46% Higher 84-85
C2 15 13 46% Lower 62-63
Total 27
Note: A = The number of experienced students of SFL-GBA language learning lessons, B = Never previously
learned the target genre, C = English Proficiency Group, D = Mean score of TOEFL iBT
2.1 Classroom Interventions
In the SFL model of reading and writing tasks, it is possible to design a curriculum and teaching plan with genres
and to provide explicit guidance for each dimension of the tasks (Rose, 2015). A set of coherent learning stages
derived from Feez and Joyce’s (1998) TLC was applied to the course. These learning stages comprised: 1)
building a context; 2) modelling and deconstructing an existing text; 3) joint construction of a text; 4)
independent construction of a text; and 5) linking related texts. Three cycles of the TLC were introduced during
the 15 weeks of the semester. Each TLC cycle took three or five weeks to complete.
The original five stages in the TLC were modified and extra scaffolding tasks were introduced for the EFL
learning classroom contexts in Japan (Table 2). Table 2 provides an overview of the teaching methodology
through the TLC. First, students listened to the explanation of generic structure and lexicogrammatical features
of the target genre essay and deconstructed a model essay with their teacher. They then deconstructed and
analyzed the model as the target genre text.
Second, students found authentic texts similar to the target genre essays in terms of structure and
lexicogrammatical features. They deconstructed these texts to understand how to write the target essay. The
essay topic was then introduced and students listened to the teacher’s explanation and students had sufficient
time to individually research the relevant information via the Internet before they began to write the target genre
essay. They then engaged in a timed writing during class. The researcher wrote feedback on the target genre texts
using a rubric-evaluation table of her own devising, which was based on Deng, Yang, and Varaprasad (2014),
Melissourgou and Frantzi (2017), Ingebrand (2016), Whitfield (2000), and Pessoa, Mitchell, and Miller (2018).
Before analyzing peers’ essays, students had the opportunity to revise their essays. The students deconstructed
and analyzed their peers’ essays to understand the uses of lexicogrammatical features and the generic structure of
the exposition (analytical) genre essay. For instance, students identified target vocabulary items such as auxiliary
verbs (i.e., as modalities to express their opinions). In Task 2, they summarized the results of their peer genre
analysis. All of these SFL GBA lessons were conducted by the researcher of this study as the teacher.

61
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 13, No. 6; 2020

Table 2. Example of teaching and learning cycle in the ESL writing content for this study (weeks 6 to 10)
The original concept of the teaching and
Weeks learning cycle (Feez & Joyce, 1998; Rose & Scaffolding tasks
Martin, 2012, pp. 63-79)
Week 6 1) Building the To understand the (A) To have peer and group discussions about
context purpose of the text and why they are writing this target genre essay, its
when the target text is purpose, and reader–writer relationships
used (B) To connect their future academic
experience (study abroad) and the target genre
essay
Week 6 2) Modelling and To understand the (A) To find an authentic text as similar to the
Week 7 deconstructing an structure and target genre text as possible, through online
existing text lexicogrammatical sources; (B) to analyze its generic structure
features of the target and vocabulary; (C) to write a reflection sheet
genre text (process/procedures were based on the Nagao,
2018); (D) to analyze the model text that the
teacher prepared using the SFL framework
rubric
Week 8 3) Joint Before students write the target genre essay:
construction (A) The teacher provides relevant information
on the topic.
(B) Students read the relevant journals and/or
articles (three in Japanese and three in
English) and write a summary of what they
read. Then, they revise it again.
(C) Students gather information about the
topics online
(D) Grammar and vocabulary training are
provided
Week 9 4) Independent To write the essay (A) To conduct timed writing for 50 to 60
construction of without the teacher’s minutes in class
the text help (B) To allow students to check how to write by
using the model texts
Week 10 2) Modelling and (A) 2) Deconstruct an existing text: edit and
deconstructing an revise their essays and genre analysis on peers’
existing text essays (e.g. scanning lexicogrammatical
features, move analysis)
(B) To write the analysis sheet (regarding the
three SFL metafunctions)
(C) Mini quiz
Week 10 5) Linking related To find similar texts to the target genre text
texts
Note. This teaching and learning cycle has been modified from Nagao (2018).
2.2 Data Sources
2.2.1 Phase 1: Survey to Understand the Influence of the TLC on Students in EFL Classrooms
To explore RQ1, how learning tasks influence students’ understanding of the target genre essay through the
teaching learning cycle, students answered the survey once they had completed the TLC. The survey questions
were divided into two parts. Part 1 evaluated students’ awareness of their engagement in tasks during each stage
of the TLC. They assessed each statement on a 5-point Likert scale (5 = “strongly agree,” 1 = “strongly
disagree”). Survey questions were qualitatively analyzed to evaluate how useful the students felt tasks were in
each stage of the TLC (Table 3). In part two, the multiple-choice questions were designed to assess students’
difficulties when participating in the tasks.
2.2.2 Pre-Instruction and Post-Instruction Essays
In Phase 2, to obtain in-depth qualitative insight into students’ generic structure and lexicogrammatical features
awareness, the exposition (analytical) genre essays were collected before and after the classroom intervention. In
the first data collection (before the classroom intervention, Week 5), participants were assigned a timed writing

62
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 13, No. 6; 2020

task (pre-essay writing task) for 50 minutes during class time. All participants wrote an analytical exposition
essay without explicit instruction on how to construct their texts. However, they were briefly informed on how to
write the target essay generic structure. The topic for the pre-analytical exposition genre essay was whether to
support or oppose the self-responsibilities of journalists in conflict zones. Explicit explanation of the relevant
background information on the topic was introduced by the teacher before the students started to write the
pre-essay.
Regarding the post-essay timed writing task in week 9, the topic of the post-analytical exposition genre essay
was to support or oppose early EFL education in elementary schools in Japan. When they had completed the
classroom interventions of stages 1, 2, and 3, all participants completed the timed writing task (50–60 minutes).
The post-essay data were collected during stage 4 (Table 3).
The target genre in this study was analytical exposition, introduced during the second TLC (Weeks 6 to 10). The
purpose and generic structure of the target genre were to introduce a perspective related to the topic and then
provide supporting evidence. The generic structure of the analytical exposition genre is: Statement of position ^
Arguments ^ Reinforcement of statement of position (Adiantika, 2015; Emilia, Habibi, & Bangga, 2018; Martin
& Rose, 2008). Writers provided examples and statements that supported their arguments; in other words, they
used condensed language and specific information from other texts (Hasanah, 2017; Schleppegrell, 2010).
According to the author’s observation in the classroom, many Japanese university students struggle to employ
textual resources (e.g., cohesive links) in the analytical exposition genre.
To understand how students assess these different tasks during the TLC, the survey (Table 3) was conducted after
students had completed the cycle in Week 11. The survey contents were based on Pessoa et al. (2018), Martin
and Rose (2008), Rose and Martin (2012), Butt et al. (2012), Knapp and Watkins (2005), Emilia et al. (2018),
and Promwinai (2010), and created by the author for this research. The Scale Reliability Statistics Cronbach’s α
is 0.803.

63
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 13, No. 6; 2020

Table 3. Survey questions

Stages of the When did students
Questions teaching and engage in this
learning cycle task?
Interacting with peers (exchanging information with Stage 1. Building Weeks 6 and 8
peers) to discuss the essay topics inside/outside of the the context
Q1
classroom was helpful for writing the analytical Stage 3. Joint
exposition essay (the target essay). construction of text
Analyzing peers’ analytical exposition essay (e.g., Stage 2 Modelling Week 10
scanning lexicogrammatical features and move and deconstructing
Q2
analysis) was helpful/useful for writing analytical the text
exposition essays (the target essay).
Writing the comparison analysis result between peers’ Stage 2. Modelling Week 10
and my essay in terms of genre analysis: the SFL three and deconstructing
Q3
metafunctions were helpful/useful for understanding the text
the analytical exposition essay (the target essay).
Outside the classroom, reading relevant articles for the Stage 3. Joint Week 8
Q4 essay topic was helpful/useful for writing the analytical construction of the Week 9
exposition essay (the target essay). text
Reading six different journal articles relevant to the Stage 3. Joint Week 8
Q5 essay topic was helpful/useful for writing the analytical construction of the
exposition essay (the target essay). text
My prior writing experience of the analytical Stage 1. Building
Q6 exposition essay was helpful/useful for writing the the context
analytical exposition essay (the target essay).
Analyzing and referring to the model text of the Stage 2 Modelling Week 6
analytical exposition essay was helpful/useful for and deconstructing
Q7
writing the analytical exposition essay (the target the text
essay).
Editing and revising your analytical exposition essay Stage 4: Week 10
was helpful/useful for understanding how to write the Independent
Q8
target essay. construction of the
text
Summarizing the contents of journal materials was Stage 3. Joint Week 8
Q9 helpful/useful for writing the analytical exposition construction of the
essay (the target essay). text
Note. Survey questions are linked to the target essay criteria (Table 4) so that EFL learners can conduct
self-assessment regarding their understanding of the three metafunctions, lexocogrammatical features, and
generic structure. Some of survey questions were created with reference to Pessoa and colleagues (2018), Martin
and Rose (2008), Rose and Martin (2012), Butt and colleagues (2012), Knapp and Watkins (2005), Emilia and
colleagues (2018), and Promwinai (2010) and modified by the author.
2.2.3 Phase 2-1: Scoring the Target Genre Essays Using the SFL Framework Rubric
To explore RQ2, participants’ essays were rated (scored) using the SFL framework rubric (Pessoa et al., 2018).
The first part of Phase 2-1 comprised comparison between the higher and lower English proficiency groups’

64
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 13, No. 6; 2020

understanding of three metafunctions of the pre- and post-analytical exposition genre essay (Pessoa et al., 2018).
Additionally, the second part of Phase 2-1 comprised selecting data from three students from the lower and
higher rating scores groups on the pre-essay task and analyzing their pre- and post-essays to understand the
change in their lexicogrammatical features based on the three metafunctional categories as rubric (Pessoa et al.,
2018).
To track changes in students’ understanding of lexicogrammatical features of the analytical exposition genre
essay, one rater assessed the students’ pre- and post-essays using the assessment rubric deductively (Table 4).
The rater for phase 2 was a researcher who was familiar with the theoretical aspects of SFL. The inter-rater
reliability text was α = 0.80. The criteria of the rating rubric (see Table 4) were adopted from Pessoa et al. (2018,
p. 87), and also referred from Martin and Rose (2008), Rose and Martin (2012), Butt et al. (2012), Knapp and
Watkins (2005), Emilia et al. (2018), and Promwinai (2010). To summarize the rubric, regarding ideational
meaning, students were required to provide accurate and relevant knowledge on the topic from online resources
or subject reading materials. They were also expected to use specialized or technical vocabulary related to the
topic to show both perspectives. Regarding experiential meaning, students were required to present their
opinions using appropriate lexicogrammatical features rather than merely stating the facts of the events. This
involved using external voices to provide relevant evidence for the central claims of the essay by summarizing
the factual contents from the reading materials. Finally, regarding the textual meaning of the analytical
exposition genre essay, students were required to use specific vocabulary items and fixed phrases related to
coherency and cohesion. These criteria were explained during the lesson and students were given exposure to
analyzing the target genre text using these criteria by applying genre analysis to their peers’ essays and writing
up the analysis sheet.
Table 4. Scoring rubric for students’ analytical exposition essays
Category No. Criterion
Ideational The essay is grounded in accurate and relevant knowledge from the source text(s).
meaning (For post essay: a set of journal articles was provided to students; three articles in
1
Japanese, three articles in English at stage 3: joint construction of the teaching and
learning cycle).
2 The thesis uses specialized/technical vocabulary to characterize an overarching claim.
The supporting claims are relevant and clearly create an analytical framework for the
3
essay.
Readers can clearly understand when, where, what, and who because relevant
4
lexicogrammatical features are used in this essay (particularly in the first paragraph).
Interpersonal The essay uses expanding resources (attribute) to bring in the source text. (i.e.,
meaning 5 learners are allowed to cite information from other materials that were recommended
by the teacher.)
The essay uses contracting resources (endorsement) to show how the cited material
6
supports the claims.
The essay uses lexicogrammatical features related to the writer’s opinions to show
7 their support for or opposition to the topic (e.g., modalities: auxiliary verbs and -ly
adverbs).
The writer avoids using lexicogrammatical features related with personal pronouns,
8
especially “I,” and instead uses other words to replace subjective words.
Textual The writer uses reporting verbs, e.g., Author’s name (2005), such as claimed that,
9
meaning argued, supported, explained, criticized that.
10 Nominalization
11 Linking/signpost words are introduced in the body of the essay.

12 Sub-claims are placed at the beginning of the paragraph.

Note. In the criterion, No. 1~ No.3, No. 5, No. 6, and No. 12 were adopted from Pessoa et al. (2018, p. 87). Other
part of this criterion were referred from Martin and Rose (2008), Rose and Martin (2012), Butt et al. (2012),
Knapp and Watkins (2005), Emilia et al. (2018), and Promwinai, (2010) and modified by the author. The rating

65
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 13, No. 6; 2020

scale was: 1 - Poor execution or no use or almost no use of linguistic resources, 3 - Limited use of linguistic
resources, 5 - Only fair or problematic use of linguistic resources, 8 - Fairly good use with minor problems or
inconsistencies using linguistic resources, and 10 - Excellent use of linguistic resources.
3. Results
3.1 Phase 1: Students’ Reflections on the TLC in EFL Writing
The results of descriptive statistics for the 5-point Likert scale demonstrate that most students found stage 3 to be
the most beneficial: Joint construction of the text, helpful for understanding (or writing) the target genre essay
(M = 4.26, SD = 0.81). Participating in stage 3 enhanced their understanding of SFL ideational meaning such as
the participants and circumstances surrounding events on the exposition genre essay topic. Furthermore, many
students found editing and revising the essay, individually and with the teacher’s guidance, useful for
understanding how to write the target essay. This above task was conducted between stage 4: Independent
construction of the text and stage 5: Joint text, in Week 10 (M = 4.22, SD = 0.64). Additionally, students’
awareness of Stage 2 of the TLC was useful for writing the analytical exposition essay was also higher (M = 4.07,
SD = 0.83). Finally, students’ understanding of these three metafunctional features was also higher than other
tasks: e.g., interacting with peers (exchanging information with peers) to discuss the essay topic inside/outside of
the classroom was helpful for writing the analytical exposition essay (TLC stage 1. building the context and
stage 3. joint construction of the text); analyzing and referring to the model text of the analytical exposition essay
was useful for writing the analytical exposition essay; 2. modelling and deconstructing the text). However, fewer
students found that their prior writing experience of analytical exposition genre essays (e.g., at high school) was
extremely useful for writing the target essays (M = 2.96, SD = 1.37). The results of former writing experience of
the target genre differed between higher and lower English proficiency groups. For instance, most higher
proficiency students reported having no experience of writing training in exposition genre analysis (M = 2.77),
while six students reported having 70% (rather yes) of the writing analytical exposition essay experience, with a
mean value of 3.14 among the lower proficiency groups (Appendix A). This result implied that lower proficiency
students might have had previous writing experience of this target genre essay. However, according to Watanabe
(2016), high school students are exposed to limited varieties of genre for their entrance examinations, with
typical genres they practice comprising personal recount and personal opinion essays. In other words, the novice
L2 writers in this study were probably not equipped with the skills required to evaluate information and
perspectives, select and interpret evidence to support their claims, or to control a range of linguistic resources
(Pessoa et al., 2018, p. 81).
Additionally, most higher proficiency students chose “It was challenging for me to identify the zig-zag writing
pattern technique in a peer’s analytical exposition essay” (M = 4.38). This may be because identifying the
zig-zag writing pattern was less common in their L2 writing history. Successful L2 writers are expected to
employ a zig-zag pattern of theme progression in their essays (Emilia et al., 2018).
The second part of the survey was multiple choice and asked students what tasks were challenging during the
TLC. The findings demonstrated that (a) reading the journal articles (n = 5), (b) revising the summary from the
journal articles (n = 5), and (c) identifying the zig-zag writing pattern technique in a peer’s analytical exposition
essay (n = 5) were challenging for higher proficiency students, while summary writing of the contents from
journal articles was the most difficult task for lower proficiency students (Appendix B).
Many lower proficiency students chose “It was challenging for me to read the journal articles that the teacher
provided (six different journal articles)” (M = 4.29). This may be because these students had less experience
reading academic journals and had limited experience evaluating information and perspectives and selecting and
interpreting evidence to support their claims.
3.2 Phase 2: Raters’ Scores on Pre- and Post-Essays.
3.2.1 Phase 2-1 Comparison of Rating Scores between Lower and Higher English Proficiency Groups
To explore the changes in EFL students understanding of the metafunctions of lexicogrammatical features, the
raters’ scores on the pre- and post-essays were examined using the rubric assessment criteria. The quantitative
analysis involved reliability statistics for these ideational, interpersonal, and textual metafunctions and
demonstrated Cronbach’s alphas of 0.95, 0.80, and 0.79, respectively, for the lower proficiency group and 0.86,
0.88, and 0.82, respectively, for the higher proficiency group.
The results of comparison of mean scores (average scores) on the pre- and post-analytical exposition essays
demonstrated that, overall, the mean scores of post-essay results improved in both groups (Appendix C). In detail,
the results of the mean values of the pre-essay scores (see Appendix C and Figure 1) demonstrated that both

66
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 13, No. 6; 2020

groups scored higher on ideational meanings than other metafunctions.

The results of comparisons between post-scores and pre-scores illustrate that the greatest improvement among
the lower proficiency group was in interpersonal meaning, which is related with impersonality, personality,
subjectivity, and objectivity of the target text (post score = 20.79, pre-score = 6.14). The result of comparison
mean scores for the lower proficiency group is that larger improvements occurred in interpersonal meaning (post
score = 25.0, pre-score = 13.3) and textual meaning: cohesion and coherence of the target text (post-score = 19.3,
pre-score = 7.8) (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. The results of comparison of mean scores (average scores) on the pre- and post- analytical exposition
essays
Note. The lower English proficiency group is shown on the left and the higher English proficiency group is
shown on the right.
Ideational meaning is related with students understanding of background information regarding the essay topic.
Regarding ideational meaning among the lower proficiency group, the scores improved dramatically for the
features: 1. grounding in accurate and relevant knowledge from the source texts; 2. using specialized/technical
vocabulary to characterize an overarching claim; and 3. it seemed difficult to support claims that are relevant and
clearly create an analytical framework for the essay (Appendix C) while clearly writing specific features (when,
where, what, and who) in the first paragraph. For the higher proficiency group, the mean value score of the
above features on their pre-essay was slightly higher than for other features, while the other three features of the
ideational meaning scores were similar. The post-essay mean value score showed improvement in 1, 2, and 3, but
4 improved only slightly.
Interpersonal meaning refers to expressing ways of instituting relationships with others. At the pre-essay stage,
the mean score of interpersonal meaning among the lower proficiency group was higher for item 8: Replace
subjective vocabulary such as personal pronouns, especially “I,” with other words than for the other three
features. Additionally, they demonstrated their difficulties in using lexicogrammatical features related to the
writer’s opinions to demonstrate their support for or opposition towards the topic (e.g., modalities: auxiliary
verbs and -ly adverbs in the body) at the post-essay mean score. The higher proficiency group made dramatic
improvements in the mean score on 5. The usage of expanding resources (attribute) to bring in the source text
and 6. The usage of contracting resources (endorsement) to demonstrate how the cited material supports the
claims in interpersonal meaning. They also acknowledged how challenging it was to improve the usage of
modalities such as auxiliary verbs and -ly adverbs.
Textual meaning refers to cohesive and coherent text production. In both proficiency groups, few
lexicogrammatical features were found in their essays that were related with 9. The uses of reporting verbs, such
as author name (published year) claimed/argued/suggested that and 10. Nominalizations (e.g. 10. nominalization:
M = 0.36 for lower; M = 0.75 for higher English proficiency group). On the other hand, most students managed
to use 11. linking or signpost words and 12. sub-claims at the beginning of the paragraph in the pre-essay. In the
post-essay, the score of textual meaning, the score for 9. to use reporting verbs, increased sharply in both groups
(i.e., difference post – pre: 4.43 for lower and difference of 3.92 for higher English proficiency group).

67
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 13, No. 6; 2020

3.2.3 Phase 2-2: Individual Changes; Comparing Raters’ Scores

In this section, to understand how individual students’ scores on ideational, interpersonal, and textual meaning
changed from the pre- to post-essays, each of the score elements was analyzed. The lowest rating score at the
pre-essay, mid-rating score at the pre-essay, and highest score at the post-essay from both proficiency groups are
summarized in Figure 2 and Appendix D. Students with lower scores on the pre-essay had limited understanding
of the three metafunctions at the beginning and, in particular, their understanding of the textual meaning of the
essay did not improve significantly in the post-essay. For instance, according to the analysis sheet of student No.
8 in the lower proficiency group, which was collected between stages 4 and 5 (Table 2), “in terms of writing
nominalization in my and my classmate’s essay, no nominalization was found. Personally, I have some
difficulties with writing sentences using the participial construction as nominalization in the essay. I usually
write simple structure sentences (e.g., subject, verbs, and objectives, such as ‘The Japanese government will
introduce the English curriculum at elementary schools’) and I realized that I need to practice nominalization to
be able to use this structure in my essay” (quote from student No 8’s genre analysis sheet, personal
communication, 11/28/2018/).

Figure 2. Individual changes: comparing raters’ scores on their metafunctions on the analytical exposition genre
essay
The change in both groups’ metafunctions between the pre- and post-essays were relatively similar. In the
post-essay, the scores of the three metafunctions were dispersed; thus, the score for ideational meaning was
highest, followed by interpersonal meaning and textual meaning on the post-essay tasks. These results may
indicate that it is easier to improve understanding of ideational meaning while understanding of textual meaning
can be challenging.
The common feature of students who scored higher in their pre-essay was that the textual meaning score was
lower than the other two metafunctions in both the pre- and post-essays. The genre analysis sheet of student No.

68
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 13, No. 6; 2020

9 in the higher proficiency group was collected between stages 4 and 5 (Table 2), as this learner focused on using
reporting verbs and nominalization to explore the lack of use of textual meaning in his or her essay.
“Nominalization: I found two sentences were nominalized in my essay while I could not find any in student No.
3’s essay. I assume that student No. 3 could start with -ing sentences instead of writing sentences that started
with using non-human nouns often. In addition, for the textual meaning in this essay, I used the reporting verbs
‘stated’ and ‘reported’ and I found the reporting verbs ‘investigated’ and ‘advocated’ in student No. 3’s essay. To
show supportive or opposing evidence on the topic, the vocabulary item ‘advocated’ is appropriate. I have never
used this word” (extract from the genre analysis sheet of student No. 3 in the high proficiency group, personal
communication, 11/20/2018/).
4. Discussion
In this study, I modified a set of learning stages regarding the TLC to explicitly teach first-year EFL students
how to write in the analytical exposition genre. I documented the writing development of twenty-seven students,
focusing specifically on six students, particularly on experienced and novice writers. The quantitative analysis to
explore (1) how learning tasks influence students’ understanding of the target genre essay through the TLC found
that most students in both the lower and higher proficiency groups lacked prior writing experience of analytical
exposition genre essays. One of the challenges for students was to include description, explanation, and
information reports in the target essay. Features of “subjective or objective” and “personal reflection or not,”
which influenced their lexicogrammatical features choice and meaning-making choice, influenced their
exposition (analytical) genre essay writing. These features are related to the interpersonal meaning of the SFL
rubric in Table 4. For example, in the pre-essay, 7 out of 14 in the lower proficiency group and 3 out of 11 in the
higher proficiency group avoided using the personal pronoun “I” to express their opinions. Another possible
technique is to use contracting resources (endorsement) to show how the cited material supports the claims and
to use cited information with reporting verbs, e.g., AAAA (2019) claimed that / argued
Multiple tasks at each stage of the TLC influenced students’ understanding of how to write analytical exposition
essays. The survey results demonstrated that the tasks related to “Modelling and deconstructing the text” (stage 2
of the TLC), particularly the task of highlighting specific vocabulary, were the most helpful for the lower
proficiency group. The revisiting and editing task and exchanging information with peers in order to understand
the topic content also enhanced their understanding of the generic structure, lexicogrammatical features, and
three metafunctions. Students in the higher proficiency group found editing and revising their essay to be the
most helpful task, followed by deconstructing the model essay, and peer interactions to exchange information in
order to understand the topic content. Overall, Weber (2001) states that this model of teaching and learning
writing can enhance awareness of particular areas of difficulty in writing the target genre essay. In this study, for
both groups of students, some tasks related with “modelling and deconstructing the text” could impact their
understanding of the target genre text.
The quantitative analysis found that students incorporated the targeted lexicogrammatical features in their
writing in ways that enhanced their understanding of appropriate lexicogrammatical choices for the target genre
text. To explore RQ2, how students understand generic structure, the lexicogrammatical features, ideational
meaning, experiential meaning, and text meaning exposition of the analytical genre essay changed over the
15-week course in which participants wrote essays rated using the SFL framework rubric. Overall, participants’
scores in terms of all metafunctions, ideational, interpersonal, and textual meaning, improved in the post-essays.
However, the changes in ideational meaning, which is related to understanding of the background information of
the essay topic, demonstrated only slight improvement. A notable result was that lower proficiency students
understanding of interpersonal meaning and textual meaning were dramatically improved in the post-essay.
Using the explicated analytical learning methods of SFL-GBA possibly enhanced their understanding of
appropriate vocabulary choices (Yasuda, 2015). This was particularly the case for students who scored lower on
the pre-essay. Through the SFL genre-based approach to writing lessons, their understanding of these two
metafunctions, ideational and interpersonal meaning, achieved similar scores in the post-essay. The changes to
metafunctions among individual cases demonstrated that textual meaning can be the key target feature in this
study. Students with the highest rating score in the pre-essay demonstrated significant improvement in the textual
meaning in the post-essay, while students with the lowest and mid-scores in their pre-essay had difficulties
improving the textual meaning in the post-essay score.

69
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 13, No. 6; 2020

5. Conclusion
It is important to acknowledge other factors that may have impacted students’ writing development, such as
students’ previous learning experiences. The input tasks related to the target genre texts can improve the quality
of feedback from instructors and peers, their input and output in terms of reading and writing in other lessons,
and their clear understanding of the learning goals for writing class. Additionally, the contents of the SFL rubric
need to be developed. The conclusion regarding the effectiveness of the teaching methodologies and introduction
of relevant tasks may also be limited, as no control groups were available for comparison of the results. Further
research could introduce more relevant reading and writing tasks (i.e. Reading tasks should be related to
students’ interests and curriculum; different types of tasks and editing tasks may be necessary during the Joint
construction.)
Despite these above limitations, the study findings discovered some positive support for the degree of explicit
disciplinary writing instruction with an explicit focus on generic structure and lexicogrammatical features,
particularly in narrowing the gap between different levels of English proficiency. Furthermore, this research
highlights the value of introducing the writing teaching methodology at the tertiary level. Doing so exposed
students to different genre texts to meet the needs of academic writing in higher education in Japan. Furthermore,
a new assessment rubric using the SFL framework was developed in this research to enable SFL to be used in
language learning classroom contexts. In the future, this SFL rubric will need to be tested in different reading
and writing contexts. By connecting students’ assessments related with their understanding of linguistics
resources to their ability to write effectively, I hope that applying the SFL genre-based approach to writing in
EFL classrooms will allow English students to see the structure of the texts and learn how to control their
lexicogrammatical choices in order to express their meaning more fully when writing texts.
Acknowledgments: I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.
Further, I would like to acknowledge the contribution of Dr Peter Mickan (The University of Adelaide), whose
thoughtful comments and feedback significantly improved the teaching method as well as the manuscript.
Declaration of Interests: None
Funding: This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) as a Grant-in-Aid
for Early-Career Scientists, Grant number JP 19K13278.
References
Adiantika, H. N. (2015). Cohesive devices in EFL students’ expository writing. English Review: Journal of
English Education, 4(1), 94-102. Retrieved from
https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE/article/view/316/242
Burns, A. (1990). Genre-based approaches to writing and beginning adult ESL learners. Prospect, 5(3), 62-71.
Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., Yallop, C. & Macquarie University Department of Linguistics. (2000).
Using functional grammar. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research,
Macquarie University.
Carlson, D. M. (2009). The nature of English language learners' descriptive and explanatory writing: An
exploratory study (Order No. 3372025). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(305090810). Retrieved from
http://simsrad.net.ocs.mq.edu.au/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.simsrad.net.ocs.mq.edu.au/docview
/305090810?accountid=12219
Chen, Y. S. & Su, S. W. (2011). A genre-based approach to teaching EFL summary writing. ELT Journal, 66(2),
184-192. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr061
Correa, D. & Echeverri, S. (2017). Using a systemic functional genre-based approach to promote a situated view
of academic writing among EFL pre-service teachers. How, 24(1), 44-62.
https://doi.org/10.19183/how.24.1.303
Deng, X., Yang, Y. & Varaprasad, C. (2014). Thesis writing course: Students’ perceptions and attitudes toward
the impact of the course on their thesis writing knowledge and skills. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning, 4(3), 180-191. Retrieved from
http://nus.edu.sg/cdtl/docs/default-source/engagement-docs/publications/ajsotl/archive-of-past-issues/year-2
014/v4n3_september2014/pdf_vol4n3_dengxd-et-al.pdf?sfvrsn=7d044fc8_2
Droga, L. & Humphrey, S. (2002). Getting started with functional grammar. Berry, N.S.W.: Target Texts.

70
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 13, No. 6; 2020

Emilia, E., Habibi, N. & Bangga, L. A. (2018). An analysis of cohesion of exposition texts: An Indonesian
context. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(3), 515-523. http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i3.9791
Feez, S. & Joyce, H. D. S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. National Centre for English Language Teaching
and Research, Macquarie University.
Freedman, A. (1993). Show and tell? The role of explicit teaching in the learning of new genres. Research in the
Teaching of English, 27(3), 222-251. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171225.
Gerot, L. & Wignell, P. (1994). Making sense of functional grammar: An introductory workbook. Queensland:
Antipodean Educational Enterprises.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gómez Burgos, E. (2017). Use of the genre-based approach to teach expository essays to English pedagogy
students. How, 24(2), 141-159. https://doi.org/10.19183/how.24.2.330
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Martin, J. R. (1981). Readings in systemic linguistics. London: Trafalgar Square
Publishing.
Hammond, J. (2001). Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education. Marrickville, New
South Wales: Primary English Teaching Association.
Hammond, J. & Hood, S. (1990). Genres and literacy in the adult ESL context. Australian Journal of Reading,
13(1), 60.
Haratyan, F. (2011). Halliday’s SFL and social meaning. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on
Humanities, Historical and Social Sciences IPEDR (Vol. 17, pp. 260-264).
Hasanah, A. D. (2017). The use of photograph and realia to teach students in writing descriptive text. A quasi
experimental study at the seventh grade students of SMP Negeri 1 Kalinyamatan in academic year of
2016/2017 (Master’s thesis, Semarang State University, Indonesia). Retrieved from
https://lib.unnes.ac.id/30370/1/2201413075.pdf
Ingebrand, S. W. (2016). The development of writing skills: The use of genre-specific elements in second and
third grade students’ writing. Arizona: Arizona State University.
Knapp, P. & Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, text, grammar: Technologies for teaching and assessing writing.
Randwick, Australia: UNSW Press.
Kobayashi, I. (2017). An approach to “meaning” from a viewpoint of Hallidayan linguistics. Cognitive Studies,
24(1), 8-15. https://doi.org/10.11225/jcss.24.8
Martin, J.R. (2000). Grammar meets genre: Reflections on the “Sydney School.” Arts: The Journal of the Sydney
University Arts Association, 22, 47-95. Retrieved from
https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/index.php/ART/article/view/5596/6265
Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.
Martin, J. & Rothery, J. (1980). Writing project report (Working papers in linguistics (Sydney, N.S.W.) no. 1).
Linguistics Dept., University of Sydney, N. S. W., Australia.
Matsuo, C. & Bevan, G. (2006). Two approaches to genre-based writing instruction: A comparative study.
Fukuoka University Review of Literature & Humanities Departmental Bulletin Paper, 38(1), 155-195.
Retrieved from
https://fukuoka-u.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=pages_view_main&active_action=repository_view_main_item_det
ail&item_id=871&item_no=1&page_id=13&block_id=39
Melissourgou, M. N. & Frantzi, K. T. (2017). Genre identification based on SFL principles: The representation of
text types and genres in English language teaching material. Corpus Pragmatics, 1(4), 373-392.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-017-0013-z
Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151-167. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00335638409383686
Miller, C. R. (1994). Rhetorical community: The cultural basis of genre. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.),
Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 67-78). London: Taylor & Francis.
Nagao, A. (2018). A Genre-Based Approach to Writing Instruction in EFL Classroom Contexts. English

71
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 13, No. 6; 2020

Language Teaching, 11(5), 130-147. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n5p130

Oliveria, L. C. (2015). A systemic-functional analysis of English language learners writing. DELTA:
Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 31(1), 207-237.
https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-4450364601799092306.
Palmer, R. (2012). Genre-based writing instruction and learning. Hirao School of Management Review, 2, 53-65.
https://doi.org/10.14990/00001643
Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the language learning classroom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Pessoa, S., Mitchell, T. D. & Miller, R. T. (2018). Scaffolding the argument genre in a multilingual university
history classroom: Tracking the writing development of novice and experienced writers. English for
Specific Purposes, 50, 81-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.12.002
Promwinai, P. P. (2010). The demands of argumentative essay writing: Experiences of Thai tertiary students
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wollongong. Retrieved from
https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=4298&c
ontext=theses
Rose, D. (2015). Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. In N. Artemeva & A. Freedman (Eds.),
Genre studies around the globe: Beyond the three traditions (pp. 299-338). Ottawa: Inkwell.
Rose, D. & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge, and pedagogy in the
Sydney School. Sheffield: Equinox.
Rose, D., Chivizhe, L. L., McKnight, A. & Smith, A. (2003). Scaffolding academic reading and writing at the
Koori Centre. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 32, 41-50.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1326011100003811
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2010). Language in mathematics teaching and learning: A research review. In J. N.
Moschkovich (Ed.), Language and mathematics education: Multiple perspectives and directions for research
(pp. 73-112). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tshotsho, B. (2014). Assessing students’ academic writing using systemic functional linguistics at a university in
South Africa. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 6(3), 425-433.
https://doi-org.simsrad.net.ocs.mq.edu.au/10.1080/09751122.2014.11890154
Watanabe, H. (2016). Genre analysis of writing tasks in Japanese university entrance examinations. Language
Testing in Asia, 6(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-016-0026-8
Weber, J. J. A. (2001). Concordance- and genre-informed approach to ESP essay writing. ELT Journal, 55(1), 15.
http://doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.1.14
Whitfield, A. (2000). Lost in syntax: Translating voice in the literary essay. Meta: Journal des Traducteurs/Meta:
Translators’ Journal, 45(1), 113-126.
Yasuda, S. (2011). Genre-based tasks in foreign language writing: Developing writers’ genre awareness,
linguistic knowledge, and writing competence. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 111-133.
Yasuda, S. (2012). The implementation of genre-based tasks in foreign language writing instruction: A
longitudinal study of writers’ rhetorical awareness, writing quality, and lexicogrammatical choices
(Doctoral dissertation). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Yasuda, S. (2015). Exploring changes in FL writers’ meaning-making choices in summary writing: A systemic
functional approach. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 105-121.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.03.001
Yasuda, S. (2017). Toward a framework for linking linguistic knowledge and writing expertise: Interplay
between SFL-based genre pedagogy and task-based language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 51, 576-606.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.383

72
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 13, No. 6; 2020

Appendix A
Results 1. EFL learners’ understanding of the target genre
Table A1. The results of learners’ understanding depending on their English proficiency difference (Part 1: A
5-point Likert scale)
Higher English Proficiency

Scales Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
1 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0
2 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0
Group

3 3 6 2 2 1 2 3 1 5
4 6 3 3 8 4 3 4 6 4
5 4 4 6 2 7 2 6 6 4
M 4.08 3.85 4.00 3.77 4.31 2.77 4.23 4.38 3.92
1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
Proficiency Group
Lower English

2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
3 5 2 4 6 2 3 5 2 3
4 5 6 8 6 7 6 7 9 9
5 4 6 2 2 5 1 2 3 2
M 3.93 4.29 3.86 3.71 4.21 3.14 3.79 4.07 3.93
Note
1. It was challenging to understand the explanation of the target genre text provided by the teacher at the
molding text stage.
2. It was challenging for me to read the journal articles provided by the teacher (6 different journal articles).
3. It was challenging for me to write a summary of the journal article contents.
4. It was challenging for me to revise and edit the summary text of the journal articles.
5. It was challenging for me to read and understand the exposition analytical essays written by my peers.
6. It was challenging for me to analyze my peers’ exposition analytical essays.
7. It was challenging for me to clarify the author’s opinion (supportive or opponent) when reading my peer’s
essay.
8. It was challenging for me to identify the zig-zag writing pattern technique in peers’ exposition analytical
essays.
9. It was challenging for me to identify the nominalization technique in peers’ exposition analytical essays.
Appendix B
Results 2. Survey Q10: challenging tasks during the teaching and learning cycle
Table B1. The result of multiple-choice questions on challenging tasks during the teaching and learning cycle
Higher English proficiency group Lower English proficiency group
Q10 n n
1 2 2
2 5 4
3 3 7
4 5 4
5 1 1
6 3 4
7 1 2
8 5 1
9 3 3

73
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 13, No. 6; 2020

Appendix C
Results 3. Mean scores on the pre- and post-exposition analytical essays
Table C1. The results of comparisons of mean scores (average scores) on the pre- and post-exposition analytical
essays in both the lower and higher English proficiency groups
(A) Ideational meaning (Mean value)
English
1 2 3 4 Total
proficiency
Pre 1.38 2.07 2.00 5.71 11.17
Post 6.07 5.57 5.36 6.07 23.07
Lower

Difference (Post - Pre) 4.69 3.50 3.36 0.36 11.90

Post – Pre-difference total (1–4) = 46.14
Pre 4.50 4.75 5.42 5.58 20.25
Post 7.08 7.17 7.17 6.50 27.92
Higher

Difference (Post - Pre) 2.58 2.42 1.75 0.92 7.67

Post – Pre-difference total (1~4) = 55.83
Total Pre (L+H) 31.4
Total Post (L+H) 50.99
Total Post - Pre (L+H) 19.57
(B) Interpersonal meaning (Mean Value)
5 6 7 8 Total
Pre 1.64 0.86 1.07 2.57 6.14
Post 5.71 4.86 3.86 6.36 20.79
Lower

Difference (Post - Pre) 4.07 4.00 2.79 3.79 14.64

Post – Pre-difference total (5 ~ 8) = 41.57
Pre 4.83 4.75 2.25 1.50 13.33
Post 6.75 6.75 4.00 7.50 25.00
Higher

Difference (Post - Pre) 1.92 2.00 1.75 6.00 11.67

Post – Pre-difference total (5 ~ 8) = 50.00
Total Pre (L+H) 19.48
Total Post (L+H) 45.79
Total Post - Pre (L+H) 26.31
(C) Textual meaning (Mean value)
9 10 11 12 Total
Pre 0.64 0.36 2.14 2.23 5.37
Post 5.07 1.79 4.07 4.93 15.86
Lower

Difference (Post - Pre) 4.43 1.43 1.93 2.70 10.48

Post – Pre-difference total (9 ~ 12) = 31.71
Pre 0.75 0.75 2.08 4.25 7.83
Post 4.67 3.25 5.00 6.33 19.25
Higher

Difference (Post - Pre) 3.92 2.50 2.92 2.08 11.42

Post – Pre-difference total (9 ~ 12) = 38.50
Total Pre (L+H) 13.21
Total Post (L+H) 35.11
Total Post - Pre (L+H) 21.90

74
 elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 13, No. 6; 2020

Appendix D
Results 4. The changes of EFL learners’ understanding on SFL metafunctions
Table D1. Individual changes of metafunctions: Comparing raters’ scores
Ideational Interpersonal Textual
Lower English Proficiency

Students meaning meaning meaning Total

Pre 0 0 0 0
Low No. 8 Post 16 16 8 40
group

Pre 13 6 3 22
Mid No. 12 Post 25 20 8 53
Pre 18 15 13 46
High No. 14 Post 29 31 26 86
Pre 9 9 8 26
Proficiency group
Higher English

Low No. 4 Post 11 16 9 36

Pre 23 10 8 41
Mid No. 6 Post 32 24 19 75
Pre 26 25 9 60
High No. 9 Post 32 32 30 94

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

75

View publication stats