Chapter 11

Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics

to Build Educators’ Knowledge of Academic
English for the Teaching of Writing

Frank Daniello, Güliz Turgut and María Estela Brisk

Abstract  The studies presented in this chapter highlight promising ways to foster
inservice teachers and teacher candidates’ knowledge of the complexities of aca-
demic English using systemic functional linguistics (SFL). This linguistic under-
standing is required in order to successfully teach writing in multilingual classrooms
that include native speakers of English, where English is the medium of instruc-
tion. Findings indicate inservice teachers’ newfound linguistic knowledge enacted
changes to writing pedagogy. Specifically, teachers’ writing instruction with ele-
mentary students emphasized genre, language, and tenor. Moreover, the teachers
used a greater repertoire of teaching strategies to teach content, such as decon-
struction and joint construction of text. Similarly, changes to teacher candidates’
proposed writing instruction resulted in an increased focus on genre and language.
The building of the inservice teachers and teacher candidates’ comprehension of
academic English emerged through ongoing professional development and course-
work. This learning was facilitated using SFL. This theory of language provided
the theoretical lens to examine texts and the metalanguage to discuss genre and
language. Developing inservice teachers and teacher candidates’ linguistic knowl-
edge required a significant amount of time and commitment. Educators’ developed
comprehension of language appears to promote robust classroom instruction that
more effectively develops pupils into proficient and purposeful writers.
Keywords Systematic Functional Linguistics, SFL · Field · Tenor · Mode ·
Pedagogical cycle · Teacher development

Teaching writing in English as a foreign or second language has not been successful
particularly with language minority populations (Rose and Martin 2012). The use of

F. Daniello ()
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Lesley University, Cambridge, MA, USA
e-mail: fdaniell@lesley.edu
G. Turgut
Adnan Menderes University, Aydin, Turkey
e-mail: gulizturbc@gmail.com
M. E. Brisk
Lynch School of Education,
Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA
A. Mahboob, L. Barratt (eds.), Englishes in Multilingual Contexts, Multilingual Education 10, 183
DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-8869-4_11, © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
184 F. Daniello et al.

systemic functional linguistics (SFL) informed pedagogies to support this endeavor

is beginning to show promise in such contexts as Australia (Martin 2009; Rose and
Martin 2012) and the United States (Aguierre-Munoz et al. 2008; Brisk et al. 2011;
Daniello 2012; Gebhard et al. 2007). The purpose of this chapter is to present the
impact of SFL informed educator preparation on teachers and teacher candidates.
These teachers work or will be working in multilingual classrooms that include na-
tive speakers of English, where English is the medium of instruction.
Systemic functional linguistics (SFL) is a sociocultural theory of the study of lan-
guage (Halliday and Hasan 1989; Halliday 1994). According to this theory, language
exists in context. Context is comprised of cultural and social aspects that influence
how language is constructed to make a semiotic system (Eggins 1994). This theory
of language was founded by Michael Halliday. According to Halliday (1978):
we are taking a functional view of language, in the sense that we are interested in what
language can do, or rather in what the speaker, child or adult, can do with it; and that we try
to explain the nature of language, its internal organization and patterning, in terms of the
functions that it has evolved to serve. (p. 16)

Language has evolved to serve highly generalized functions or metafunctions in-

cluding: experiential, interpersonal and textual (Halliday and Hassan 1989).
Through the theoretical lens of SFL, language use is not fixed and does not fol-
low pre-determined rules, but rather is dynamic and evolving (Derewianka 1990).
The complexities of language are understood from the lens of its functions to
achieve varying social purposes (Halliday 1994).
These purposes are enacted through text meanings that are context specific.
Realized meanings that come from texts, written or oral, are nested in two contexts:
the context of culture and the context of situation (Butt et  al. 2000). Both affect
language use to make meaning.
The context of culture influences how language is used to achieve social goals or
purposes (Eggins 1994) and also determines the way text is interpreted in its context
of situation (Halliday and Hasan 1989). How speakers or writers use language to
achieve varying purposes differs across cultures, but follows a common framework
within cultures (Eggins 1994). A recurrent configuration of language to make mean-
ing and to achieve a specific social purpose is defined as a genre (Martin and Rose
2008). The most common genres in elementary settings include various types of
recounts (personal, factual, procedural, historical, and imaginative), fictional narra-
tives, procedures, reports, and expositions. Recounts relate a series of events based
on personal experience, an observed incident, or observations of phenomena; they
may take the point of view of the author or of someone else (Martin and Rothery
1986; Schleppegrell 2004). Recounts can also record historical events. By contrast,
fictional narratives tell an imaginative story, although sometimes these are based
on facts. Fictional narratives are structures meant to entertain and to teach cultur-
al values (Martin and Rothery 1986). Typically, procedures provide instructions
for how something is done, whether general or scientific. A report is a factual text
used to organize and store information clearly and succinctly (Schleppegrell 2004).
Finally, expositions persuade people to a particular point of view, with arguments
introduced and supported with evidence. Another type of exposition presents both
points of view (Butt et al. 2000; Dewsbury 1994).
11  Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics to Build Educators’ Knowledge … 185

Table 11.1   Field, tenor, and mode

Metafunction Register
Experiential Field comes from units of meaning
expressed in clauses
Interpersonal Tenor uses language to negotiate rela- Enacted in text through two main
tionships between a speaker or writer
and audience (Droga and Humphrey
2003)
Textual Mode uses language to organize the
experiential and interpersonal mean-
ings in a coherent manner within
texts (Butt et al. 2000; Matthiessen
et al. 2010)
Explanation
Most English clauses have a structure
that is functionally explained through
participant, process, and circum-
stance (Butt et al. 2000)
aspects: the meaning exchanged and
type of interaction, and the position
held by a speaker or writer (Butt
et al. 2000). In addition, the tenor is
influenced by formality of the lexis
Text cohesion is developed through
grammatical resources that include
theme and rheme, paragraph preview
(topic sentences), nominalization,
reference ties, ellipsis, lexical ties,
and text connectives (see Droga and
Humphrey 2003)

The context of situation is nested within the context of culture. In this context,
situational aspects have linguistic consequences (Butt et  al. 2000; Eggins 1994).
SFL recognizes three aspects of any situation that affect linguistics and compose the
register. These are field, tenor, and mode (Butt et al. 2000; Eggins 1994; Halliday
and Hasan 1989).
Field is what is spoken or written about (Butt et al. 2000). Tenor is the relation-
ship between speaker or writer and audience. Mode is the form of text, such as
written, oral, or multimodal. Field, tenor, and mode compose the register and are
enacted in texts through metafunctions (See Table 11.1). These metafunctions are
experiential (field), interpersonal (tenor), and textual (mode). They function to de-
velop meanings in text.

11.1 A Pedagogical Cycle to Guide Teachers’ Classroom

Instruction

SFL theory is not a schooling program and therefore does not provide teachers with
a developed curriculum or mode of instruction. To facilitate classroom instruction,
linguists in collaboration with school teachers designed a pedagogical cycle. This
cycle is developed from insights acquired from child language studies involving
adults teaching children language (Rothery 1996).
The pedagogical cycle is made up of four stages: negotiating field, deconstruc-
tion, joint construction, and independent construction of text (Rothery 1996). In the
negotiating field stage, a teacher and his or her students articulate the field, assess
prior knowledge, and then explore it in-depth. The label given to this stage is rather
186 F. Daniello et al.

misleading, as across all stages of the pedagogical cycle knowledge comes from ne-
gotiating the field of study. Some scholars have re-labeled this stage “preparation”
(see Derewianka 1990, p. 6). Regardless of the specific name of the stage, students
acquire an understanding of a field’s content and how language is used. These two
aspects are inseparable and must be taught in conjunction (Rose and Martin 2012).
In the deconstruction stage, students actively engage in the deconstruction of a
mentor text. This text is of the genre related to the field of study. In this process,
students acquire a developed understanding of how a genre is structured and how
language functions to make meaning and achieve a social purpose. Students’ un-
derstanding of a genre emerges through rich conversations with peers and teachers
about mentor texts.
After deconstruction of text, the joint construction stage ensues. In this stage,
teachers and students’ knowledge of a genre is enacted through collaborative con-
struct ion of a text. Prior to this endeavor, students must “build up the field knowl-
edge they will draw on in jointly constructing a text. In the early stages the stu-
dents need to be taught research strategies such as locating sources of information,
notemaking and summarising” (Rothery 1996, p.  104). When carrying out joint
construction of text, teachers guide text development, offer additional information,
and provide explicit language instruction to students. This aids students’ writing
development and results in a jointly constructed text that achieves its purpose.
In the independent construction stage, students individually create a text. During
this time, teachers continue to provide explicit language instruction to students in
the form of both whole class and individual lessons. This pedagogical cycle is used
to teach writing in Australia. According to Rothery (1996), teachers in Australia
“have tested it in their practice and found that it provides strategies for planning,
teaching and assessment which enable them to work productively with students
to promote development in language and learning” (p. 107). In the United States,
however, this pedagogical cycle is still in its infancy.

11.2 SFL to Inform Teachers’ Language Instruction

In a multilingual context, the teaching of writing in English requires educators

knowledgeable about the language. Presently, many educators from around the
world do not possess this understanding of the English language to teach students
how meaning is made in prose. It is no wonder that in many parts of the world,
educators are raising issues with the quality of writing instruction in schools even in
English speaking monolingual (or perceived monolingual) contexts. For instance,
in the United States, concern with the quality of writing instruction is a recurring
theme among educators (Cutler and Graham 2008; Gilbert and Graham 2010; Na-
tional Commission on Writing 2003, 2004, 2006).
For the past three decades in Australia, elementary and secondary teachers have
used SFL to enhance literacy instruction (Gebhard 2010). Initiatives focused on
11  Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics to Build Educators’ Knowledge … 187

SFL-based pedagogy are often referred to as belonging to the Sydney School, in

reference to Hallidayan educators in the Department of Linguistics at the University
of Sydney (Martin 2009). These scholars further SFL theory and develop initiatives
to inform teachers’ instruction in schools. A key part of SFL-based school initiatives
is genre (see Martin 2009) and explicit teaching of language to address needs of
English language learners (ELLs), disadvantaged students, and Aboriginal students
(Christie 1999).
In the United States, elementary and secondary teachers do not use SFL widely to
teach writing and language development. Instead, most teachers remain unprepared
to make the language demands of school unambiguous to students (Schleppegrell
2004). For instance, in regards to academic texts, a teacher “typically devotes little
attention to the language demands of such texts beyond word recognition, fluency
training, vocabulary development, and background-knowledge-building activities”
(Fang et  al. 2006, p.  248). This lack of explicit language instruction perpetuates
inequalities among members of different social classes in society (Schleppegrell
2004). To enact social change, teachers can use SFL as a theoretical lens to teach
language and specifically writing. SFL-based instruction can effectively educate
students in the language demands of school genres and foster proficiency in writing
(Christie and Derewianka 2008).
Research on teachers using SFL in elementary and secondary school contexts
suggests that this pedagogy is conducive to supporting teachers and students’ lit-
eracy practices (Gebhard and Martin 2011). For example, an ethnographic case
study of Amy, a fourth grade teacher at an elementary school in the United States,
and member of Access to Critical Content and English Language Acquisition (AC-
CELA), recorded how one educator taught personal narrative using SFL (Gebhard
et al. 2011). The study also captured how Eloy, an academically struggling ELL in
Amy’s class, developed competency in narrative writing through the SFL-informed
instruction.
ACCELA is a school-university partnership between two urban school districts
and the University of Massachusetts with a focus on professional development.
Teachers in this alliance attend courses at the university and work collaboratively
with university faculty, some of whom are leading scholars in SFL (e.g. Meg Geb-
hard). The case documents attempts by Amy to teach this genre to her students over
the course of an academic year. During this process, she received ongoing profes-
sional development in SFL theory.
Amy’s most effective approach had five instructional goals: use texts that are
culturally relevant to her students; engage students in a linguistic analysis of a text
to understand the ways setting, character development and other features are con-
structed by the author; teach temporal and logical connectives to make students’
texts more coherent; make explicit to students the difference between oral and writ-
ten language; and model her own writing as exemplar texts (Gebhard et al. 2011).
In addition, Amy devoted tremendous amount of class time to helping students de-
construct texts: mentor books and student writing. Through these processes, text
structure and language features were made explicit.
188 F. Daniello et al.

Analysis of Eloy’s final draft of his personal narrative showed he understood

many aspects of personal narrative. At the discourse level,
Eloy’s narrative included a brief orientation (e.g. Ones my brother, sister and I were at the
church dance); a complication and sequence of events (e.g. we went to see a fight. But I
didn’t know that my sister was the one that was going to fight); a resolution (e.g., My sister
came back from juvenile jail); and an evaluation comment that shifts from the narrative
past to the present and brings the story to a close (e.g., now we are happy she’s back).
(pp. 105–106)

At the lexicogrammatical level, Eloy “exhibited greater control over a more written
as opposed to oral register when compared to the narrative he produced during unit
one…[and] he initiated far fewer clauses with ‘and’” (Gebhard et al. 2011, p. 106).
Eloy’s text also indicated his ability to use
adverbial and adjectival clauses to pack more information into single clauses while also
managing more complex aspects of tense (e.g., But I didn’t know that my sister was the
one that was going to fight; my aunt was at a party near w[h]ere my sister was fighting).
(p. 106)

In addition to Eloy’s increased ability to use these linguistic features, his narrative
also demonstrated the need for further instruction. Eloy’s text showed he lacked the
ability to control for tense, punctuation, and dialogue. Despite these issues, Eloy’s
writing demonstrated overall growth, not only in this particular genre, but also in
regards to differences in register between oral and written language.
This study of Amy documents how a teacher used SFL-based instruction to im-
prove the writing of an ELL student. SFL theory functioned as a theoretical lens
for Amy to examine text. An enlightening “moment for her was how writing and
analyzing her own texts with students made her much more aware of the linguistic
features of narratives in a way that she could transform into concrete teaching prac-
tices” (Gebhard et al. 2011, pp. 106–107). At the core of her SFL-informed writing
instruction was a well-developed understanding of the genre of personal narrative,
which was required in order to successfully teach the students.
Another study also examined teachers using SFL to support ELLs’ learning.
Twenty-one mainstream teachers, from three urban middle schools in California,
attended a week-long professional development. The professional development fo-
cused on an SFL-informed genre-based approach to teaching response-to-literature
writing (Aguirre-Munoz et al. 2008). The training educated teachers on the varying
linguistic choices ELLs make when writing. Prior to the professional development,
teachers’ feedback on ELLs’ writing focused primarily on “spelling, mechanical
errors, punctuation, and grammatical errors (e.g. noun-verb-agreement errors) in a
manner that did not focus students on improving meaning” (p. 307).
A change in teachers’ responses to students ensued after receiving the SFL-in-
formed genre-based professional development. Teachers’ feedback shifted and be-
came more focused on “developing students’ linguistic resources appropriate for
academic language…such as expanded noun phrases, conjunctions and transitions,
as well as clausal units to examine thematic progression” (p.  308). Also, analy-
sis showed a statistically significant “increase in sensitivity to the identification of
11  Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics to Build Educators’ Knowledge … 189

strengths and weaknesses related to field, mode, and tenor characteristics of exposi-
tory texts” in teacher feedback following the professional development (Aguirre-
Munoz et al. 2008 p. 312).
Classroom instruction also was affected. One-third of the teachers implemented
some aspect of functional grammar in their classrooms when teaching academic
language. In conclusion, this study is highly suggestive that SFL enhances teachers’
classroom instruction to more effectively address the language needs of ELLs.
Despite evidence that suggests the effectiveness of SFL to inform writing peda-
gogy in schools, presently in the United States, SFL is not extensively used by
teachers. In fact, only a few cases exist in this country of teachers using SFL in
elementary and secondary schools (see Achugar et al. 2007; Brisk et al. 2011; Brisk
and Zisselsberger 2011; Daniello 2012; Schleppegrell and Achugar 2003).
In the United States, teacher preparation is limited with respect to knowledge
about language (Patel-Stevens 2008), despite calls by scholars for rigorous linguis-
tic preparation (Fillmore and Snow 2000). SFL theory can be used to linguistically
prepare educators for the demands of teaching writing (language) in English to
students who are native English-speakers, multilingual, and learners of English.
At the core of high-quality writing instruction are educators knowledgeable about
language and genres, especially those used in academic writing.
The forthcoming section describes how SFL theory was used by one of the
authors, Maria Estela Brisk, to foster inservice teachers’ and teacher candidates’
knowledge about language and genre. In addition, changes to teachers’ instructional
writing practices and understanding of texts are discussed. The goals of these en-
deavors were to bring about more robust pedagogical writing practices in elemen-
tary schools. The first undertaking, with inservice teachers, occurred in a tradition-
ally underperforming urban elementary school. The second endeavor, with teacher
candidates, took place in a master’s level teaching language arts course in a school
of education at a private college.

11.3 Building Inservice Teachers’ Linguistic Knowledge

The Office of the Mayor in 2006 wanted an urban school district located in the
northeast of the United States to close the achievement gap between performing
and underperforming schools. To accomplish this, the Mayor charged five local
universities with the task of directing resources to ten schools identified as un-
derperforming. In turn, this developed numerous school-university partnerships fo-
cused on school improvement. Maria Estela Brisk led one of these school-university
partnerships.
The school-university partnership was a 3-year collaboration between an urban
elementary school (prekindergarten to fifth grade) and a local private university.
The elementary school had an enrollment of 386 students. The student population
was 27.3 % African American, 11.7 % Asian, 54.5 % Hispanic, 2.6 % White, 0.3 %
Pacific Islander, and 3.4 % Multi-racial (See Table 11.2).
190 F. Daniello et al.

Table 11.2   School site demographics

Title % of school % of district % of state
First language not 62.1 38.8 15.6
English
Limited English 43.6 20.4 6.2
proficient
Low-income 87.7 75.6 32.9
Special education 13.0 19.6 17.0

The collaboration between these institutions was focused on reforming the

school’s writing pedagogy through an SFL-informed writing intervention. At the
core of the writing intervention was teacher profession development (PD). During
the 3-years of the SFL-informed writing intervention, ongoing teacher PD occurred
in multiple forms to develop teachers’ knowledge of language and genre (see Ta-
ble 11.3.). In conjunction with her doctoral students, Maria Estela Brisk, developed
and administered all PD. The PD occurred in summer institutes, monthly afterschool
meetings, monthly grade-level site-based meetings, and teachers’ classrooms.
The summer institutes focused extensively on SFL theory: the context of culture
(genre) and the context of situation (register). Genre and the genre stages were in-
troduced through analysis of reading and writing samples from the elementary high
stakes tests in all content areas. The genres included recount, procedure, narrative,
report, explanation, and exposition (persuasive writing). In addition, the language
demands of these genres were reviewed. Teachers collaboratively created annual
writing calendars outlining which genres would be taught at each grade level and at
what point during the school year they would be taught.
The monthly afterschool meetings occurred only in the first year of the writ-
ing intervention and centered on questions and issues teachers had about language.
These meetings also provided opportunities for teachers to share with one another
instructional writing practices.
The monthly grade-level site-based meetings focused on genre: text structure
and language features. Aspects of tenor were introduced, especially with respect
to making students aware of their audience. The reviewed genres aligned with the
content that teachers were covering in their classrooms at that time. These meetings
were also used to analyze mentor texts and student writing. The classroom sup-
port stemmed from doctoral students observing teachers’ classrooms once a week.
During these observations, they discussed with teachers instructional content and
pedagogical strategies.
The PDs used SFL theory as a theoretical lens to examine and understand texts.
Teacher planning permeated the PDs. Collaboration occurred with grade-level col-
leagues around writing lessons for each genre. In addition, resources for teachers
included an SFL binder that contained a description of the theory, outlines of the
genres taught at the elementary level and their various language features, graphic
organizers, and lists of mentor texts associated with each genre. Teachers also re-
ceived two books authored by Beverly Derewianka entitled, Exploring How Texts
Work and A Grammar Companion for Primary Teachers.
11  Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics to Build Educators’ Knowledge … 191

Table 11.3   Professional development

PD Content
Summer institutes SFL theory: context of culture Resources Teacher planning
(genre) and context of situa-
tion (register)
Language demands of taught
genres
Monthly after school meetings Language questions and issues
(year 1 only) raised by teachers
Teachers sharing instructional
writing practices
Monthly grade-level site-based Genre: text structure and lan-
meetings guage features
Analyses of mentor text and
student writing
Classroom support Instructional writing content
and pedagogical strategies

In conclusion, the PDs educated teachers about SFL theory, the genre structures,
and the language features of the genres. SFL theory was used as a theoretical lens
to facilitate learning. Moreover, the content of the PDs were reinforced by the re-
sources provided to the teachers. In turn, teachers collaboratively used this content
to plan genre-based writing units and writing lessons.
An investigation of five third grade teachers’ classroom writing instruction over
3 years revealed how the teachers operationalized SFL theory. Data sources includ-
ed classroom observations and teacher interviews. To capture the writing instruc-
tion and the complexities of classroom learning, observers used thick descriptions
(Geertz 1973). A total of 66 classroom observations were conducted. Observational
data were coded by content categories informed by SFL theory and by type of in-
structional strategies informed by the pedagogical cycle.

11.4 Findings

Analyses indicated that the teachers overall perceived the SFL-informed writing in-
tervention as beneficial in fostering their understanding of writing. A teacher com-
mented, “It’s been great. I’ve learned probably the most about writing in two years
than I would by doing the [Name of a previous writing program]. I’ve really, I’ve
learned a lot. I think I’ve grown a lot.”
The teachers’ developed knowledge of writing appears to have stemmed from
using SFL theory. The theory facilitated the teachers’ learning about genre and lan-
guage. For example, when discussing SFL theory, a teacher stated, “It helps break-
down all the different categories of writing…it helped me understand all the differ-
ent genres…” Also, another teacher commented, “SFL has helped because I don’t
think I knew all the different language demands of every genre before.”
192 F. Daniello et al.

Analyses also indicated teachers’ writing instruction in the classroom changed

during the SFL-informed writing intervention. These changes were reflected in the
content of the instruction and in the teaching strategies used with students. These
changes likely occurred from teachers possessing a better understanding of genre
and language.

11.4.1 Content of Instruction

The content of the writing instruction from the first to the third year of the interven-
tion evolved to include an emphasis on genre, language, and tenor. The first year
of the intervention, teachers were encouraged to try at least two genres. Each grade
level made a choice independently. In subsequent years, they included four per year,
planned in coordination with all the grade levels.

11.4.1.1 Genre

From the beginning of the intervention, the content of writing instruction addressed
the teaching of genre. Specifically, the teachers focused on the purposes of the taught
genres, which prior instruction had not explicitly reviewed. They also introduced
the stages of each genre using graphic organizers. Across the taught genres, teach-
ers instructionally emphasized the introductory and body stages. Limited amount of
instructional time was devoted to the teaching of the concluding stage. Often they
taught more in depth selected stages. For example, orientation for personal recount,
steps for procedure, and subtopics for reports.
A reason for this likely stems from PD focusing on introductory and body stages
and less on concluding. It was important to note that the lack of attention to this
genre stage was due to having only a limited amount of time for PD. However, this
finding illustrates the power of teacher PD and its effect on classroom instruction.
Teachers transferred what they learned from the PD into their classroom instruction.
Initially, the teachers were not explicit in the purpose of the genre when encour-
aging students to write a piece. For example, when encouraging students to produce
personal recounts a teacher suggested, “How are you going to tell Kindergarteners
about Fall?” Students wrote descriptions of the outdoors in the fall, instructions on
how to play with the fallen leaves, and others. In the second half of the first year,
teachers demonstrated a better understanding of the genres and could more explic-
itly discuss aspects of the genres with students. For example, a class discussion
towards the end of a personal recount unit for the benefit of a new student, suggests
a better understanding of the purpose:
Teacher: What was the genre that we just finished studying?
Student: I think personal recount
Teacher: It’s all about… who?
Whole Class of Students: You!
11  Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics to Build Educators’ Knowledge … 193

Teacher: Yes, you! Now, what kinds of things need to be in a personal recount?
Student: Yourself
Teacher: More than that
Student: Events
Teacher: Y
 es, personal events, stuff that happened to you, a series of events because
you have lived for a while now!
The conversation illustrates how the teacher had a developed understanding of the
genre of personal recount. The teacher displayed this knowledge through her ques-
tions posed to the student(s).
Despite findings that suggest teachers have developed their understanding of
the genres, results also show that teachers struggled as they introduced new genres.
For example, in the third year of the intervention, teachers taught exposition (per-
suasive) for the first time. Inconsistent metalanguage was used across classes and
within classes when discussing some concepts. For example, when discussing thesis
statements with students, teachers used the metalanguage “topic sentence,” “thesis
statement,” and “argument.”

11.4.1.2 Language

The content of the writing instruction increasingly included more of a focus on

language, especially in relation to specific demands of particular genres. All teach-
ers also expressed this change during their interviews. The most commonly taught
language features were verb groups, noun groups, adjectivals, adverbials, text con-
nectors, and reference ties. These language features were taught during the PD to
teachers. Language features not reviewed in the PD were rarely taught to students.
Regardless of this, teachers educated students more about language than in their
past instruction.
When teaching students these language features, teachers used the metalanguage
of SFL theory. This metalanguage enabled the teachers to be more explicit with
their instruction. For example, during the first year of intervention, teachers in their
writing instruction with students frequently mentioned the importance of “details.”
Teachers used the word, “details”, when referring to various aspects of language
(adjectives, adverbials) and genre structure (additional events). After learning SFL
theory, the teachers were provided the metalanguage and knowledge about language
and genre that enabled them to more accurately teach writing.
A 30 year veteran teacher, who exclusively teaches recent immigrant Spanish
speaking students using scaffolded English language instruction, discussed how
using SFL theory to approach writing instruction allowed her to more efficiently
discuss language usage with her students. She commented,
It was something you [referring to teachers] needed, you needed to make them aware of
it, because this is a language that, oh you say it that way, my parents said it this way and
just because everyone around you says it that way, but why do we say it that way? It gave
me leeway to talk about that, and you know legitimately talk about it, not as with the other
programs when I was doing for example [Name of a previous writing program]. If I wanted
194 F. Daniello et al.

Table 11.4   Inferring functions of language features from posed questions or comments
Language feature Teacher’s question or comment
Participants T: Who will be in your story?
Adjectivals T: How much water, what kind of water, hot or cold?
Adverbials T: What are you doing?
S: Spreading the cards
T: How are you doing it?
S: Neatly
T: So that is the adverb.
Text connectors T: And you are not going to say and then, and then
Reference ties S: We went to the clinic
T: Who is ‘we’?

to talk about those aspects of grammar and syntax and so on, I kind of had to do it on the
side…I knew I wasn’t going to be talking about grammar in the middle of my writing pro-
gram, and so on, verses (sic) here [referring to using SFL to inform writing instruction] I
could. If I’m talking about procedure [with students], remember when we [teacher and stu-
dents] were doing that, we keep saying well you know we have to be heavy on adjectives,
because people are not going to know, you had to be precise in all those things.

Prior to the writing intervention, this teacher provided an extensive amount of lan-
guage instruction to her students, which may have coincided with the students being
non-native English speakers. This also may be due to the fact that this teacher is a
non-native English speaker and identifies the educational benefits of explicit lan-
guage instruction. Regardless, this teacher found using an SFL-informed approach
to writing further provided her with the opportunity to connect language instruction
to writing.
Despite teachers’ increased focus on language features, instruction often did not
include clear descriptions of the functions in texts of the language features. Rather,
students had to infer the functions of the language features from questions posed or
comments made by the teachers. Examples of this are displayed in Table 11.4. All
examples occurred in either the second or third year of the intervention.

11.4.1.3 Tenor

Beginning in the second year of the intervention, teachers gave students authen-
tic writing tasks with specific audiences. A few examples of the assignments and
audiences were writing personal narratives for kindergarten students and writing
a persuasive letter to the school principal advocating for hallway lockers. Teach-
ers mentioned this shift in their instructional practices. For instance, a teacher re-
marked, “we’re [referring to her class] looking at a certain audience for our [writ-
ing] product…it’s been more formalized, and it’s a little bit more authentic than
what I used to demand before.”
With regards to audience, teachers’ writing instruction focused primarily on es-
tablishing an audience. For example, a teacher commented to students, “How are
11  Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics to Build Educators’ Knowledge … 195

Table 11.5   Tenor

Types of clauses Teacher: We have been talking about: statement, question, commands,
and exclamation
Person Student: You don’t use you [referring to writing procedures]
Modality Teacher asked students for examples of persuasive word. Students
responses included:
Must, should, could
Evaluative vocabulary This vocabulary was displayed in a classroom on a poster used by a
teacher during writing:
Interesting, delicious, fantastic

you going to tell kindergarten kids about the fall?” Later in the project there was
some suggestion of the impact on language. For example, when teaching the genre
of procedure, another teacher stated, “Do you think that you can write it very spe-
cific so that people can follow it?” Yet others encouraged students to “choose words
carefully” and “you need to be clear.” Thus, in most cases, teachers established an
audience for writing, but did not provide instruction to students about how audience
affects language use, which is a fundamental aspect of SFL theory.
Teachers did not explicitly educate students about other aspects of tenor. Rather,
teachers’ instruction and students’ comments during writing touched upon linguistic
elements that influence tenor (see Table 11.5), but did not make clear connections.
The inclusion of authentic audiences in student writing tasks suggests teachers
possess an awareness of how audience affects language use. Also, this knowledge
was demonstrated through teachers’ comments with students. Despite this under-
standing, teachers have not explicitly educated students about tenor and how it is
developed in text, such as through the use of types of clauses, person, modality, and
evaluate feedback. Even though this instruction did not occur, students’ writing may
have improved in regards to the interpersonal function. A teacher commented, “the
writing has come to life more, it really has, it’s come to life more…it has a voice and
not all the same, because it used to be so just all the same.”

11.4.2 Teaching Strategies

During the SFL-informed intervention, teachers continued using the architecture of

Writer’s Workshop as a framework for teaching writing. The architecture consisted
of a mini-lesson (10–12 min); independent, partner, or small group writing activ-
ity and teacher conferences with students (35–40 min); and a whole class or pair
share time (8–15 min). Teachers incorporated the new instructional content into the
framework they already used.
Teachers expanded their repertoire of teaching strategies in order to more effec-
tively teach writing content. These strategies included using genre specific graphic
organizers, deconstructing mentor texts, joint construction of texts, joint construc-
tion of language reference materials, and use of questions to guide genre stages
196 F. Daniello et al.

and language features. Many of these strategies derived from the pedagogical cy-
cle, which suggests that students should be taught language by developing content
knowledge, deconstructing text, jointly constructing text with the instructor fol-
lowed by independent construction of text (Martin 2009; Rothery 1996). Moreover,
during the PD these strategies were used to teach genre, language, and several other
aspects of SFL theory to teachers.
Deconstructing mentor texts was the most widely used teaching strategy. When
discussing the use of this teaching strategy with students, a teacher commented,
the kids will deconstruct either a mentor text, their own text, articles, any type of writing
I’ll give them. I’ll say, ‘ok, you know, for instance, today we’re going to look for all the
adjectives about the brown bear and how the author describes the brown bear’ and they’ll
go up and do it themselves. I try to get them to do everything themselves. Then we’ll come
back as a whole and share what we have [learned] and make a chart. Not only do I make a
class chart, but I’ll also make individual charts for their writing folder[s] so they’ll [each]
have their own little piece of paper as a guide.

This teaching strategy enabled teachers and students to explicitly examine language
use in texts.
The SFL-informed writing intervention transformed the third grade teachers’
writing pedagogy. Pedagogical changes occurred to content of instruction and
teaching strategies. These changes came about through teacher learning from on-
going PD. The PD provided SFL theory that facilitated teachers’ education about
genre and language. This newfound knowledge enabled teachers to enact changes
to writing curriculum and instruction.

11.5 Building Teacher Candidates’ Linguistic Knowledge

In the fall of 2010, at a private university in the United States, an instructor of a

graduate-level Teaching Language Arts (the teaching of language skills: writing and
speaking) course incorporated SFL theory and the stages of the pedagogical cycle
into the course content. The SFL-informed course instruction facilitated teacher
candidates’ learning of how to teach writing at the elementary school level.
An examination of teacher candidates’ class responses to tasks revealed how in-
struction through SFL theory fostered candidates’ linguistic awareness. Data sourc-
es included candidates’ responses and semi-structured interviews. The responses
came from two tasks completed by 17 teacher candidates in class. Semi-structured
interviews were conducted with five candidates in order to better understand how
they experienced learning through SFL theory. Task response data were analyzed
using an analytic SFL-informed fictional narrative rubric and interview data were
analyzed using grounded theory (see Charmaz 2000; Glaser and Strauss 1967).
Teacher candidates completed each task at the beginning (pre) of the course and
then again 8 weeks later (post). The first task required the candidates to explain how
they would use a mentor text for writing instruction. The provided mentor text was
in the genre of fictional narrative and was entitled, Amos and Boris. The second
11  Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics to Build Educators’ Knowledge … 197

task involved candidates identifying strengths and weaknesses in a fourth grade

bilingual, Spanish and English speaking, student’s writing. This text was a fictional
narrative in English.

11.6 Findings

Analyses indicated that after taking the course, the teacher candidates expressed a
better developed understanding of language and genre. This knowledge appeared to
facilitate proposed pedagogical aims. Moreover, candidates’ content of instruction
for writing emphasized more aspects of genre and language. Cutting across this
content was a focus on discourse semantics features.

11.6.1 Content of Instruction

Analyses of the pre and post responses from the tasks indicated changes to content
of instruction proposed by teacher candidates after exposure to SFL theory. Specifi-
cally, shifts in content were associated with genre and language. These concepts
were emphasized more in post responses compared with pre responses. Analyses of
interview data suggested the teaching of genre and language enacted this change to
the content of instruction.

11.6.1.1 Genre

Teacher candidates’ post responses in comparison to pre responses on both tasks

focused more on the teaching of genre. Pre responses from the mentor text task of-
ten included general references to the text and were not genre specific. Most often,
teacher candidates’ proposed assignments were based on the content of the mentor
text rather than on the genre of the text and were similar to assignments commonly
done in response to literature activities. Pre responses frequently included propos-
als of student writing assignments that required students to write in many different
genres. For example, one candidate’s pre response listed, “story telling ( adventure
recounts)” and “science plankton ( writing about the ocean)” and “explanation or
report on ocean.”
In comparison, teacher candidates’ post responses focused more on teaching stu-
dents about the genre of the text, which was fictional narrative. For example, one
candidate’s post response to using the mentor text listed: “Orientation: who, where,
when” and “Narrative structure-sequence of events” and “Story mountain-climax,
resolution.” The candidate’s pre response did not contain any reference to the stages
of the genre and instead contained general references, such as “punctuation” and
“Using vocabulary: navigation, various, immense, phosphorescent.”
198 F. Daniello et al.

This shift from an emphasis on general content to genre-based content was also
evident in teacher candidates’ responses to the student writing task. For example,
one candidate’s post response included “conflict and resolution” and “Elements of
fables, moral, personified animals.” The candidate’s post response also included
content associated with writing mechanics. In comparison, the candidate’s pre re-
sponse focused primarily on writing mechanics, such as “Contractions,” “Spelling,”
and “Quotation.”
Teacher candidates’ post responses compared to pre responses may have con-
tained more genre-based content due to the candidates possessing a better devel-
oped understanding of the genres from using SFL theory in the course. During the
interviews, some teacher candidates discussed how they fostered knowledge about
the genres. For example, one candidate stated, “[I] had no idea what they [refer-
ring to genres] were before I took this class.” This knowledge of genre appeared to
inform teacher candidates’ instructional content.

11.6.1.2 Language

Teacher candidates’ post responses compared to pre responses also focused more
on the teaching of language. The candidates’ post responses included references to
“adjectives,” “adverbs,” “pronouns,” and “verb tense.” In comparison, candidates’
pre responses emphasized the content of the text. For instance, one candidate’s pre
response to the mentor text listed “Teach about mammals/sea life” and “Trust.”
Conversely, language features were only rarely linked to their linguistic function
in the text. For example, one candidate’s post response made this connection: “Use
of adjectives and adverbs to add detail and create a mental image for the reader.”
Despite this example, connections were seldom made between language features
and their functions in text. In juxtaposition with this shift to teaching of language,
teacher candidates’ post responses used more precise lexicon to refer to linguistic
elements of text, for example, “adjectives” and “adverbs.” Pre responses contained
vague references, such as “details” and “show-not-tell.” Metalanguage from SFL
theory appeared in some post responses, but was sporadically used. Some teacher
candidates appeared to be cognizant of their change in lexicon. For example, when
being interviewed, one candidate commented, “I would rather stop using the word
‘detail’ or I would be more specific when I use it.”
Teacher candidates’ increased focus on language stemmed from a more pro-
found awareness of language that was likely developed through SFL theory. One
candidate articulated, “I had never really looked at what kind of language specifi-
cally goes into different genres before. I usually just focused on the text structure.”
Teacher candidates’ knowledge of language informed how they approached using
the mentor text and assessing the student writing. For instance, when comparing pre
and post responses to the mentor text task, a candidate stated,
One main difference is this [referring to pre response] is very general and vague and there is
not anything specific…, whereas this one [referring to post response] is broken down more
according to the different aspects of SFL. In this one [referring to pre response] I just kind
11  Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics to Build Educators’ Knowledge … 199

of generally mention characters, dialogue, and showing instead of telling, whereas here
[referring to post response] I actually talked about combining sentences, text connectives,
I am talking about very specific aspects of language the student can pull from the text….

In addition, another teacher candidate commented on their learning of language

from the course, “I had a better grasp of language in terms of how children express
their thoughts through language and the different tools and devices they might use
to do that.” Candidates’ newfound knowledge of language supported critiques of the
students’ writing. For example, one candidate commented,
[Prior to the course] I was basically tearing apart this writing, this is terrible, this is ter-
rible, this is terrible, whereas the second time [after taking the course]…I was able to make
generalizations of the things in what category: capitalizations, proper nouns…it looks like
overall they are having issues with the use of past tense or irregular past tense.

11.6.1.3 Discourse Semantics Features

After learning SFL theory, teacher candidates tended to focus more on teaching
discourse semantics features. Analyses indicated candidates’ pre responses from the
student writing task centered primarily on writing mechanics, such as “apostrophes
in contractions,” “quotation marks,” and “capitalization.” In comparison, their post
responses contained references to writing mechanics as well, but in addition often
had explicit connections to discourse semantics features. For example, one candi-
date’s post response included “Use of pronouns: created ambiguity and reader does
not know who ‘she’ and ‘he’ refers to.” This link between language features and
textual meaning was not evident in the candidate’s pre response that stated “capital-
izing pronouns.” Both the pre and post responses included references to pronouns,
but they each had different instructional aims. The pre response centered on how the
pronouns were capitalized in the text compared with the post response that focused
on the tracking of participants through the use of pronouns in order to foster mean-
ing and reader comprehension. This emphasis on text cohesion was not apparent in
the pre response and illustrates the teacher candidate’s shift from a focus on writing
mechanics to semantics. This newfound focus was a theme across many candidates’
post responses.
Teacher candidates’ new emphasis on semantics after taking the course was evi-
dent during the candidate interviews. For instance, one candidate commented,
As far as looking at language, from [a] teacher’s perspective, in students’ work I think that
it was helpful in that it kind of validated a preference to kind of look at how the student was
trying to communicate, whether they communicated that effectively versus looking at it in
terms of did they use all the right punctuation and stuff… so I think that I progressed on that
front a lot in this course and having to look at students not so much like are their sentences
have all the pieces and did they use periods and commas correctly but ‘did they say what
they were trying to say correctly, was it effective.

During the interviews, numerous teacher candidates also expressed desire to derive
teaching aims from assessment of student writing rather than from prescribed cur-
riculum. For example, one candidate articulated,
200 F. Daniello et al.

[Prior to the course] I was just thinking ‘this week we will do verbs, and this week we will
do punctuation’ rather than customizing it to them [students]… Now I obviously will not do
that… [rather I will] make sure that I am addressing what their [students] needs are because
if they don’t need a lesson in punctuation obviously it will be a waste of time.

11.7 Teacher Candidates’ Perceptions of SFL Theory

In addition to the aforementioned changes to candidates’ writing pedagogy, analy-

ses indicated that teacher candidates had multiple perceptions of SFL theory after
completing the course. These perceptions can be categorized into confusion, resis-
tance, and desire to learn more about the theory.
Some candidates still expressed confusion about the theory. Specifically, misun-
derstanding stemmed from these questions: What is SFL theory? What is not SFL
theory? How does it fit with common writing programs in education? How is it
situated or is not situated with other pedagogical theories, such as inquiry learning?
For example, a teacher candidate commented,
I am still [a] little confused about it, what it really is. Is it the writer’s workshop aspect?
I just do not have a full grasp of what fall[s] under the SFL umbrella…It is still [a] little
foggy to me…

In addition, some candidates expressed resistance to SFL theory. Candidates’ resis-

tance centered on SFL theory being too technical. For example, a candidate stated
that it was “boring” and “very technical and theory based” and “focused far too
much on grammar than ideas…it basically took me back to the beginning step of
mechanics without always telling me how this could have helped the big picture.”
Moreover, one teacher candidate felt that the focus on specific genre and language
demands lead to “… limiting the creativity of students.”
Despite confusion and resistance, some candidates expressed a desire to be
taught more about the SFL theory. A teacher candidate commented,
[SFL theory] kind of extended my knowledge beyond what I had previous to the course,
but at the same time I did not really feel comfortable using it in the classroom yet because
I did not know that much about it… [I need] more exposure to it and read a little bit more
about the actual theory.

Changes to teacher candidates’ responses suggest candidates developed an under-

standing of genre and language from the course. This knowledge enabled more
robust instructional planning to occur regarding the use of mentor texts and assess-
ment of students’ writing. In addition, candidates began to focus more on discourse
semantics features.
11  Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics to Build Educators’ Knowledge … 201

11.8 Conclusion

Effectively teaching academic English writing to students in monolingual and mul-

tilingual contexts involves educators knowledgeable of linguistics. The studies pre-
sented in this chapter show a promising way to develop teachers’ understanding of
the complexities of academic English. This linguistic knowledge can be fostered
using SFL theory and result in rich classroom writing instruction. However, change
agents must recognize this process takes time and commitment.
Findings from the reviewed studies suggest that inservice teachers and teacher
candidates’ learning enacted reform to writing pedagogy. Through building their
linguistic knowledge, changes occurred to educators’ writing curriculum and in-
struction. Reform to inservice teachers’ writing instruction resulted in an emphasis
on genre, language, and tenor. Moreover, inservice teachers used a greater reper-
toire of teaching strategies to teach content, such as deconstruction and joint con-
struction of text.
Similarly, changes to teacher candidates’ proposed writing instruction resulted in
a focus on genre and language. It is important to note that some changes were uni-
versal and cut across inservice teachers and teachers’ candidates’ writing pedagogy.
These included instruction that was more explicit, centered on meaning making,
and student driven.
The building of the inservice teachers and teacher candidates’ linguistic knowl-
edge emerged through ongoing teacher professional development and coursework.
In both these situations, learning was facilitated by SFL theory. The theory func-
tioned as a theoretical lens to examine texts. Through this process, in conjunction
with explicit instruction about genre and language, inservice teachers and course
participants gained a better understanding of the demands of writing. In addition,
SFL theory provided the metalanguage to facilitate rich discussions among partici-
pants about genre and language.
The learning of SFL theory and its pragmatic application to the teaching of writ-
ing involved the coming together of dedicated professional educators: inservice
teachers, teacher candidates, and university stakeholders knowledgeable about SFL
theory. This process is challenging and takes time and professional commitment.
For the inservice teachers, the challenges included understanding the theory
and incorporating the new knowledge into their own knowledge structures. Time,
and the ability to implement the new ideas in the classroom, with constant support
over a 3-year period, allowed for a stronger practice-based understanding. In the
case of the teacher candidates, the limited length of the course (14 weeks) and the
lack of opportunity to fully implement the variety of materials they were learning,
contributed to limiting their understanding. Candidates finished the course with a
sense of having discovered a new way to think about writing instruction, but they
did not have the chance to fully develop the confidence required to implement this
knowledge.
These projects indicate that SFL-informed writing instruction fosters educators’
linguistic knowledge that in turn informs their classroom writing instruction. In
202 F. Daniello et al.

addition, the impact appears to increase with time and practice. Thus, as educators
acquire a better understanding of linguistics and use this knowledge to inform the
teaching of writing, their writing instruction becomes more robust.
Adapting SFL theory is a promising approach to improving the teaching of writ-
ing in American schools and in many other parts of the world. This approach may be
especially beneficial in urban schools with children who are often not socialized to
the language of schooling in other environments. SFL-informed writing instruction
can bring the connection of language and culture to the surface, rather than leaving
it tacit in instruction. In addition, the focus on language in literacy instruction offers
much needed content for second language learners (including speakers of different
English dialects). In conclusion, SFL theory provides educators with the theoretical
lens to understand how language is used to make meaning in texts. This knowledge
can facilitate robust classroom writing instruction that more effectively develops
students into proficient and purposeful writers.

References

Achugar, M., Schleppegrell, M., & Oteiza, T. (2007). Engaging teachers in language analysis: A
functional linguistic approach to reflective literacy. English Teaching: Practice and Critique,
6(2), 8–24.
Aguirre-Munoz, Z., Park, J., Amabisca, A., & Boscardin, C. K. (2008). Developing teacher capac-
ity for serving ELLs’ writing instructional needs: A case for systemic functional linguistics.
Bilingual Research Journal, 31(1), 295–322.
Brisk, E. M., & Zisselsberger, M. (2011). We’ve let them in on the secret: Using SFL theory to
improve the teacher of writing to bilingual learners. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation
for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators. New York: Routledge.
Brisk, M. E., Hodgson-Drysdale, T., & O’Connor, C. (2011). A study of a collaborative instruc-
tional project informed by systemic functional linguistic theory: Report writing in elementary
grades. Journal of Education, 191, 1–12.
Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., & Yallop, C. (2000). Using functional grammar: An ex-
plorer’s guide. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. L. Denzin &
Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Christie, F. (1999). Genre theory and ESL teaching: A systemic functional perspective. TESOL
Quarterly, 33(4), 759–763.
Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of
schooling. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Culter, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 100(4), 907–919.
Daniello, F. (2012). Systemic functional linguistics theory in practice. A longitudinal study of
a school-university partnership reforming writing instruction in an urban elementary school.
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (UMI No. 3503397).
Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Australia: Primary English Teaching Associa-
tion.
Dewsbury, A. (1994). Writing resource book. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Droga, L., & Humphrey, S. (2003). Grammar and meaning: An introduction for primary teachers.
Australia: Target Texts.
11  Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics to Build Educators’ Knowledge … 203

Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Pinter Publishers.

Fang, Z., Schleppegrell, M. J., & Cox, B. E. (2006). Understanding the language demands of
schooling: Nouns in academic registers. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(3), 247–273.
Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. Washington, DC:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
Gebhard, M. (2010). Teacher education in changing times: A systemic functional linguistic (SFL)
perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 44(4), 797–803.
Gebhard, M., & Martin, R. J. (2011). Grammar and literacy learning. In D. Lapp & D. Fisher
(Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (3rd ed., pp. 297–304).
New York: Routledge.
Gebhard, M., Harman, R., & Seger, W. (2007). Reclaiming recess: Learning the language of per-
suasion. Language Arts, 84(5), 419.
Gebhard, M., Willett, J., Caicedo, J. P. J., & Piedra, A. (2011). Systemic functional linguistics,
teachers ‘professional development, and ELLs’ academic literacy practices. In T. Lucas (Ed.),
Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators.
New York: Routledge.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4–6: A national
survey. The Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 494–518.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and
meaning. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. New York: Routledge/Chap-
man and Hall, Inc.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a
social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and
Education, 20, 10–21.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. Oakville: Equinox Publishing.
Martin, J., & Rothery, J. (1986). What a functional approach to the writing task can show teachers
about ‘good writing’. In B. Couture (Ed.), Functional approaches to writing: Research per-
spectives. Norwoood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., Teruya, K., & Lam, M. (2010). Key terms in systemic functional linguis-
tics. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
National Commission on Writing. (2003). The neglected R: The need for a writing revolution.
www.collegeboard.com. Accessed 12 March 2011.
National Commission on Writing. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work…or a ticket out. A survey of
business leaders. www.collegeboard.com. Accessed 12 March 2011.
National Commission on Writing. (2006). Writing and school reform. www.collegeboard.com.
Accessed 12 March 2011.
Patel Stevens, L. (2008). Educational policy and linguistic diversity: A critical analysis of teacher
certification requirements. In M. E. Brisk (Ed.), Language, culture, and community in teacher
education (pp. 315–330). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate (for the American Associa-
tion of Colleges for Teacher Education).
Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and peda-
gogy in the Sydney school. Bristol: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
Rothery, J. (1996). Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics. In R. Hasan & G. Wil-
liams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 86–123). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mah-
wah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schleppegrell, M., & Achugar, M. (2003). Learning language and learning history: A functional
linguistics approach. TESOL Journal, 12(2), 21–27.