lhs (print) issn 17422906

lhs (online) issn 17431662

lhs vol 7 2013 527
2013, equinox publishing
doi : 10.1558/lhs.v7i1-3.5
Article
Genre-based literacy programmes:
contextualizing the SLATE project
J. R. Martin
Abstract
Tis paper positions the work of the SLATE project within the general theoretical
framework of the genre-based literacy programmes ofen referred to as the Sydney
School. Te Schools general approach to genre is outlined, including the way it
positions genre theory as part of a systemic functional model of language and
semiosis. Te paper reviews the ways in which this genre theory has been used to
analyse texts, renovate curriculum and design pedagogy with a view to providing
all students with access to academic literacy. Te importance and challenges of
embedding literacy programmes of this kind within subject areas and disciplines
is canvassed in relation to functional linguistic perspectives on feld and social
realist sociological work on knowledge structure. Finally the challenges faced by
the SLATE project in adapting Sydney school initiatives to an on-line environment
are introduced.
Keywords: genre; field; functional linguistics; Sydney School
1. Background
In educational linguistics, reference to the Sydney School draws attention
to the emergence of genre-based literacy programmes in Australia, as cata-
lysed by a language in education workshop organized by Michael Halliday
Afliation
University of Sydney, Australia.
email: james.martin@sydney.edu.au
6 Genre-based literacy programmes
at the University of Sydney in 1979. Tis meeting spawned the Writing Pro-
ject, directed by myself and Joan Rothery, with a focus on describing types
of writing in infants and primary school. By 1984 Rothery had begun to
address the pedagogical implications of this work, developing new class-
room strategies for getting students to write in a range of genres across the
curriculum.
In 1986 Mike Callaghan of the Metropolitan East Regions Disadvan-
taged Schools Program (hereafer DSP) approached Rothery and myself
with a view to developing this seminal work in infants and primary schools
which had high concentrations of indigenous, migrant and working class
students. Tis invitation grew into the Language and Social Power Project,
which developed materials for introducing teachers and studies to a range
of genres, and refned the pedagogy used for teaching them. By 1990, Sue
Doran (from the same DSP centre) had secured funding to push this action
research initiative into secondary school and the workplace. Tis funding
supported the Write it Right project (Veel, 2006), with its focus on genre
writing across a range of secondary school subjects and selected workplace
sites (science industry, media and administration); in addition the pedagogy
was further refned.
In late 2000, David Rose returned to Sydney from Adelaide, where he had
been working with Brian Gray on reading programmes for indigenous stu-
dents. Tis work developed into his Reading to Learn initiatives, expand-
ing on the writing focus of the earlier phases of Sydney School research.
Rose and Martin (2012) develops this history in more detail, underscoring
the ways in which the designation of the work as Sydney School becomes
an every increasing misnomer as genre-based literacy programmes spread
across Australia and around the world (as refected for example very early
on in the proceedings of the Writing to Mean conference held in Sydney in
1985; Painter and Martin (1986)). For complementary accounts of the devel-
opment of this educational linguistics, informed as it was by systemic func-
tional linguistic (hereafer SFL) theory, see Rothery (1996), Martin (2000),
Feez (2002), Macken-Horarik (2002), Christie and Unsworth (2005), Veel
(2006); for a comprehensive introduction and references to key publications
see Rose and Martin (2012).
It was in late 2007 that the Sydney School frst engaged with the Language
Companion Course (hereafer LCC) then underway at City University Hong
Kong. LCC, as it was operating at the time, provided on-line support for
undergraduate students in the form of tutor feedback on drafs of their writ-
ten assignments before submission. Tis support involved either the insertion
of numerical indices linked to a comment bank from which students could
recover feedback, or written advice inserted directly into students texts. A
J. R. Martin 7
screen shot of the interface students and on-line tutors were viewing is pre-
sented as Figure 1.
Figure 1: Screen interface for LCC feedback, including comment bank.
Although a small percentage of comments in the LCC comment bank
were oriented to coherence (e.g. unclear introduction, logical sequence,
mismatch between topic sentences and illustration), the vast majority of
comments indexed on student writing dealt with low level spelling, punc-
tuation and grammar issues. High frequency comments from LCC tutors
during this initial phase of its development are displayed in Table 1 and
represent a very traditional editing orientation to student writing. An
example of indexed and written feedback is presented as text [1] (with
written feedback enclosed in square brackets). A second draf, with more
feedback, is presented as text [1'], and the fnal submitted assignment as
[1'']. As illustrated, the basic instructional strategy at play here is repair
students are expected to learn from the mistakes they make how to write a
better text.
8 Genre-based literacy programmes
Table 1: High frequency comment bank selections by LCC tutors
[1] Introduction Tis is an [15]email from the Barack Obama campaign that [15]is
about donation request. By using systemic functional analysis, and rhetorical struc-
ture theory analysis, we can fnd that how its [29] [its not very clear what you are
referring to here when you use its] grammatical realization fts the writers purpose
and the situation. Besides[14], we also discuss similarities and diferences in style
to compare [use either compared with or in comparison to] with the two previous
emails from the campaign.
[1'] Introduction Tis email [what email are you talking about?] from the Barack
Obama is to ask [is asking for] for [01]donation. By using systemic functional analy-
sis, and rhetorical structure theory analysis, these analyses can fnd [58] [demon-
strate] how grammatical realization fts the writers purpose and the situation. In
addition, the similarities and diferences in style compared with the two previous
emails from the campaign will be discussed. Te intention of Obama writing this text
is to ask for donation from Americans and reject to accept money from the Wash-
ington lobbyists and special interest groups. [this fnal sentence should be the second
sentence of the introduction] [you also need to summarise what you are going to talk
about in your essay in this section].
[1''] Introduction Tis is the third Barack Obamas letter about asking for a dona-
tion. Te intention of Obama writing this text and the previous two emails is to ask
for donation from Americans and reject money from the Washington lobbyists and
special interest groups. By using systemic functional analysis and rhetorical struc-
ture theory analysis, these analyses can demonstrate how grammatical realization fts
the writers purpose and the situation. In addition, the similarities and diferences in
grammar and style compared with the two previous emails from the campaign will
be discussed.
J. R. Martin 9
From the perspective of the Sydney School this kind of writing instruction
seemed the wrong way round. Rather than letting students make mistakes and
involving instructors in time-consuming and painstaking processes of repair, its
genre-based literacy programmes invest heavily in a front-loaded pedagogy. Tis
involves presenting students with models of the kind of writing they are assigned,
and writing additional models with students before asking them to write on their
own all the while developing shared understandings of text structure, from
global patterns right through to local design (feed forward if you will).
Sections 25 of this paper develop the basic understandings informing a
literacy pedagogy of this kind. Section 6 then addresses the challenges this lit-
eracy programme faced in the context of moving on-line and renovating LCC
pedagogy and curriculum.
2. Genre
Sydney School action research is generally characterized as genre-based because
of the role played by SFL genre theory (Feez, 1998; Martin and Rose, 2008; de Silva
Joyce and Feez, 2012). Tis functional linguistic approach to genre was inspired
in part by Rotherys work, alongside key contributions by Plum on spoken story
genres (e.g. Martin and Plum, 1997) and Ventola (e.g. 1987) on service encoun-
ters. It characterizes genre as a recurrent confguration of meaning, phased in
discourse as a staged, goal-oriented social process. Text 2 below exemplifes this
approach; it is a factorial explanation from an Australian junior secondary geog-
raphy textbook, explaining how mulga trees survive in their desert environment.
Its stages have been labelled (as the relational categories Outcome, Factors), each
of which is a recurrent sub-confguration of meaning within this genre.
[2] Outcome
Surviving the long drought
Te mulga tree likes long droughts if it is too wet mulga trees will not grow.
Factor
Te shape of the mulga tree is a key to it surviving dry times. Te branches of the
mulga fan out from the bottom like a huge half moon. Te branching leaves and
stems catch the rain and it trickles down to the soil. Tis traps more rainfall than if
the tree grew straight up. Te mulga catches more water than a gum tree. Tis water
is stored in the soil to be used by the tree during the next drought.
Factor
Even the mulgas leaves help it survive the drought. Tey are a silver grey colour. Te
suns rays bounce of the leaves helping the plant to stay cool.
Factor
Also the mulga tree makes its own food by dropping thousands of leaves. (Scott and
Robinson 1993: 22)
10 Genre-based literacy programmes
Te distinguishing feature of our approach to genre was that it was based on
confgurations of meaning, informed by SFL accounts of language as a social
semiotic system for phonology (Halliday and Greaves, 2008), lexicogram-
mar (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004), discourse semantics (Martin, 1992;
Martin and Rose, 2003/2007), register (Christie and Martin, 1997; Martin,
1992), genre (Martin and Rose, 2008) and attendant images (Kress and van
Leeuwen, 1996/2006).
Tis kind of orientation to what students have to learn to read and write
has challenged SFL researchers to map curricula as systems of genres. Exem-
plary explorations include history (Veel and Cofn, 1996; Cofn, 1997, 2006),
science (Halliday and Martin, 1993; Unsworth, 1997; Veel, 1997; Martin and
Veel, 1998), English (Rothery and Stenglin, 1997), academic discourse (Hood,
2010) and mathematics (OHalloran, 2005). It has also challenged researchers
to explore classroom discourse from the perspective of what Christie (2002)
calls curriculum genres. Tis perspective on teacher/student interaction has
proven invaluable as far as the design of innovative literacy pedagogy is con-
cerned (see section 4 below).
3. Genre and curriculum
With respect to curriculum, the Sydney School challenges educators to make
decisions about which genres are introduced to students and when. Our own
research showed that students can be introduced to a range of factual and story
genres, beginning in infants and primary school and that each genre can be
developed through infants, primary, junior secondary, senior secondary and
tertiary sectors. Unfortunately, since not every genre can be covered in a single
school year, curriculum designers have tended to make under-informed deci-
sions about which genres are most appropriate for students of diferent ages. In
spite of having no basis in research, the childist idea that story genres need to be
introduced before factual ones has ofen taken hold. Schleppegrell (2004) and
Christie and Derewianka (2008) exemplify the kind of research which gives the
lie to suppositions of this kind.
What really matters as far as genre curricula are concerned is disciplinarity.
Whatever the genre, students need something to write about; and whether one
is engaging students by tuning in to their life outside of school or apprentic-
ing them into a particular school subject, there are genres which will and wont
facilitate the task. What really matters in other words is embedded literacy
the idea that genres enact their social purpose in relation to spheres of domes-
tic, recreational, occupational, spiritual and academic life. If for example we
take the discipline of history, as it is recontextualized in Australian second-
ary schools, we can design a spiral curriculum based on linguistic principles
which moves students systematically from genres they are likely to be familiar
J. R. Martin 11
within the spoken culture they have been part of and continue to participate
in outside of school through those required for high stakes reading and writ-
ing in ancient and modern history. A genre pathway of this kind is outlined
for secondary school history in Figure 2, based on research outlined in Cofn
(1997, 2006), Martin (2002, 2003) and Veel and Cofn (1996) (cf. de Oliveira,
2011). For an introduction to the genres construing this pathway and the con-
fgurations of meaning constituting them, see Chapter 3 of Martin and Rose
(2008). For comparable work on science see Veel (1997), and for English see
Rothery and Stenglin (1997).

sequence
in time
setting
in time
story to history
recount to account
account to explanation
explanation to argument
exposition through discussion
time
cause
chronology
rhetoric
external
cause
internal
cause
one sided
multi-sided
Figure 2: A spiral curriculum for secondary school history genres.
4. Genre and pedagogy
As far as pedagogy is concerned, the Sydney School challenges educators
to change the ways in which students are introduced to genres. Traditional
writing pedagogy (with a sage on a stage) typically involves a short lecture,
sometimes accompanied by a model text, on the basis of which students are
expected to write on their own and make progress in relation to feedback
from teachers typically with a prescriptive focus on spelling, punctuation
and low level grammar features (e.g. subject-verb agreement). Progressivist/
constructivist writing pedagogy (with a guide on the side) typically involves
an invitation for students to write, seldom accompanied by a model text,
with progress facilitated by teachers encouraging students to engage with rel-
evant and supposedly motivating subject matter. Te basic opposition here is
between what Bernstein (1975) calls visible and invisible pedagogy. Bernstein
12 Genre-based literacy programmes
sources these to factions of the middle class (old and new respectively), and
suggests that neither pedagogy is likely to work in the interests of students
from other social backgrounds, a point strongly confrmed in our research
(Martin, 1999; cf. Alexander, 2000; Hattie, 2009).
Accordingly, our educational linguists worked closely with teachers to
renovate literacy pedagogy in the direction of a curriculum genre with the
potential to successfully apprentice all students into high stakes genre writ-
ing, regardless of their background. Te best-known model of the curricu-
lum genres deriving from this action research is presented as Figure 3 below
(for discussion see Rothery, 1989, 1996; Martin, 1999). As the building feld
bricks and mortar motif indicates, we are dealing here with an embedded lit-
eracy programme in which relevant content is assembled and shared as part of
learning to write a genre. In addition, as the setting context prosody afrms,
the role played in the culture by the genre being taught is continually fore-
grounded so that the purpose for writing remains clear. And as the nucleus of
the diagram attests, the ultimate goal of the pedagogy is to give students both
control of and a critical orientation to the genre.
Figure 3: Sydney School teaching/learning cycle for teaching genre writing
As a curriculum genre, the teaching/learning cycle (hereafer TLC) moves
through three main steps Deconstruction, Joint Construction and Independ-
ent Construction. Deconstruction involves feld building activities leading to
teachers explaining a model text to students. Te focus is on its social function,
its name (e.g. factorial explanation), its canonical staging (e.g. Outcome and
Factors) and where shared knowledge about language is available, discussion
J. R. Martin 13
of sub-staging including the key linguistic features composing the text. Joint
construction involves building up a related feld followed by teachers acting as a
kind of scribe composing (on a black or white board or smart board, or using
an OHP or butchers paper), in front of the class, another model of the genre
based on oral suggestions by students during the scribing process. Tis step
is designed to make learning to write more like learning to talk, based on the
principle of guidance through interaction in the context of shared experience,
derived from Painters studies of spoken language development by pre-school
children and their carers in the home (1984, 1986, 1998; cf. Gibbons, 2002, 2006,
2009 and Hammond, 2001 on scafolding). Te power of the pedagogy depends
crucially on this step (for further discussion see Hunt, 1994). Ten, providing
teachers judge students to be ready, another related feld is built up and students
try writing on their own. Te basic principle is for teachers never to ask students
to write anything until they have discussed a model of the genre at stake with
them, jointly constructed another model of that genre with them and decided
they are ready for the independent writing task. Where students are not ready,
further cycles of deconstruction and joint construction can be undertaken, with
smaller groups of students.
For students at all levels, one of the major challenges posed by the Figure
3 TLC just outlined is the problem of having to read relevant materials for
building feld as well as read the model texts that are being deconstructed and
jointly constructed. Te Reading to Learn programmes developed by Rose
and his colleagues (Rose, 2007, 2008, 2011a, 2011b; Rose and Martin, 2012)
have addressed these challenges by designing curriculum genres that provide
space for reading instruction. Tis has involved both global and local design.
Globally, the Reading to Learn programme takes learning a curriculum feld
through reading as its starting point, and writing for evaluation as its goal, via a
fexible sequence of nine activities. Preparing for Reading supports all students
in a class to follow a text with general understanding as it is read aloud, identify
its key information, and make notes if it is a factual text. Tese notes may later
be used for a Joint Construction, as described above. Where time permits, Joint
Construction is followed by Individual Construction, in which students may use
the same notes to write texts of their own in the same genre. Conversely, if the
genre under focus is a story, Individual Construction follows the same generic
patterns as the Joint Construction, but with the students own ideas for charac-
ters, events and settings. One or two Joint and Individual Constructions are pro-
grammed for each genre, before students are expected to write independently.
To ensure that all students can independently read curriculum texts with full
comprehension, and use their language resources in their own writing, passages
are selected from the reading and model texts for Detailed Reading and Rewrit-
ing. Detailed Reading involves carefully designed sentence-by-sentence guid-
ance. Each sentence in the selected passage is frst paraphrased for students, in
14 Genre-based literacy programmes
terms that all can understand, and read aloud. Students are then guided to read
each salient element of the sentence through interaction cycles of the kind out-
lined in Figure 4 (cf. Martin and Rose 2005, 2007; Martin, 2007).
Figure 4: The local design of Reading to Learn detailed reading interactions
Te Prepare move gives the meaning of the element to the class as a whole, in
terms that all can understand. A Focus question is then addressed to a particu-
lar student, whose task is to Identify the element and read it aloud. As a result of
the preparation, the evaluation can always Afrm the chosen student, ensuring
that all are successfully engaged in the interaction around the text. Te teacher
then directs the class to highlight the exact wording in the sentence. Teir suc-
cess in turn ensures that all students beneft from the Elaborate move, in which
the meaning is further defned, explained or discussed (e.g. unpacking unfamil-
iar terms, abstract nominalizations and lexical metaphors) and related to stu-
dents experience. A micro-interaction of this kind might unfold as follows:
Teacher Prepare sentence This sentence tells us the frst factor that helps mulga
survive droughts. The shape of the mulga tree is a key to
it surviving dry times.
Prepare Its starts by telling us what that factor is.
Focus Jane, can you see what the frst factor is?
Student Identify The shape of the mulga tree.
Teacher Afrm Thats exactly right, its shape.
Direct Lets highlight the word shape.
Elaborate So its shape is one factor that helps mulga survive
droughts.
Note that just one or more paragraphs may be selected for Detailed Reading
ones that are particularly dense or technical for example. Te preparation
above assumes that the term factor has already been introduced, as the texts
feld and genre have been discussed. Trough such guidance, key information
in the passage is highlighted. Students then take turns scribing this informa-
tion as notes on the class board, and the teacher guides them to rewrite these
notes as a new text, in Joint Rewriting. Students can then use the same notes
J. R. Martin 15
for Individual Rewriting of a text as diferent as possible from the joint text,
with the teacher circulating and providing as much guidance as needed. Te
focus here is on developing the grammatical resources for writing technical
discourse, embedded in learning the curiculum. With stories and persuasive
genres, Detailed Reading focuses on literary or evaluative language patterns
of a selected passage, and Joint and Individual Rewriting follow the same lan-
guage patterns with diferent content.
Particularly in primary school, support may proceed to Sentence Making,
Spelling and Sentence Writing activities. One or more sentences from the
Detailed Reading passage are written on cardboard strips, which students are
guided to cut up and re-arrange, strengthening their control over the grammat-
ical patterns. Individual words are then cut up into their letter patterns, which
students practise spelling on individual whiteboards. Tey then use this spelling
knowledge to practise writing the whole sentences on their boards. Te focus
at this level is thus on foundation literacy skills, embedded in reading and writ-
ing curriculum texts. Tis level of intensive language activities can be especially
helpful for students who are just beginning to read and write, who have been
struggling with literacy, or are learning English as an additional language (these
activities can be usefully supplemented in ESL/EFL contexts by drawing the
text-based grammar building suggestions in Jones and Lock (2010)).
Tese nine sets of strategies are schematized in Figure 5, as three cycles
providing diferent levels of scafolding support for reading and writing the
curriculum.
Figure 5: Reading to Learn teaching/learning cycles
16 Genre-based literacy programmes
As with all Sydney School curriculum genres, movement around or between
cycles is at the discretion of the teacher, depending on students literacy levels
in relation to the challenge of the genres in focus. Educators concerned about
the relevance of the various cycles considered here for able students need to
keep in mind that literacy learning is a lifelong process, and that in these TLCs
texts are generally chosen which challenge the whole class.
In various publications (e.g. Martin, 1999; Rose and Martin, 2012), Sydney
School pedagogy has been positioned in relation to an adaptation of Bernsteins
(1990) topology of pedagogies (extending the visible/invisible pedagogy oppo-
sition noted above). In Figure 6, his vertical axis positions pedagogies accord-
ing to the degree to which they emphasize changing individuals or changing
society; his horizontal axis positions pedagogies according to whether they
emphasize acquisition or transmission. Tis places the Sydney School in the
lower right-hand quadrant, as a visible pedagogy focusing on apprenticeship
into high stakes genres that students can use to make a diference not only for
success in their own education but in the world outside. Martin (1999) accord-
ingly tags this apparently conservative pedagogic practice as subversive (com-
plemented in Figure 6 by liberal, conservative and radical alternatives).
Progressivist/construc.vist
pedagogies (Rousseau, Piaget,
Chomsky, Goodman)
Tradi.onal pedagogies
Behaviourist theories
Cri.cal pedagogic theories
(Freire, Giroux, Illich,
Bourdieu)
Social-psychological pedagogic
theories (Vygotsky, Bruner,
Gray, Rothery, Mar.n, Rose)
intra-individual
inter-group
acquisi3on
transmission focus of
pedagogy
invisible pedagogy visible pedagogy
liberal conserva.ve
subversive radical
focus of
change
Figure 6: Types of pedagogy (after Bernstein 1990: 213214)
5. Beyond genre register and language
As an embedded literacy programme the Sydney School challenges educators
to always think about genre in relation to the register variable feld, which,
following Martin (1992), focuses on the sequences of activity pursued in one
J. R. Martin 17
or another walk of life and the relevant taxonomies of the people, places and
things participating in these activities. Bernstein 1996/2000 suggests a map-
ping of felds in which common sense (horizontal discourse) is distinguished
from uncommon sense (vertical discourse); and within vertical discourse, the
hierarchical knowledge structures of the sciences are opposed to the horizon-
tal knowledge structures of the humanities.
Based on discussions documented in Christie and Martin (2007) and
Christie and Maton (2011), Martin (2011) develops this cartography of felds
as Figure 7, positioning social science on a cline between science and humani-
ties. In this image, the triangles represent the tendency of science (and specifc
theories within social science) to progress by developing more abstract prin-
ciples subsuming additional data. In contrast the humanities tend to develop
by proposing new ways of interpreting relevant texts, with privileging gazes
(the Ls, representing Bernsteins languages of description, in Figure 7) pass-
ing in and out of fashion over time. Te multiple triangles proposed for social
science in Figure 7 indicate the general inability of these disciplines to achieve
consensus about the subsumption of additional data into deeper theory; they
also refect the tendency for social sciences to develop new theories of the
same or expanded data or even an adjusted object of enquiry. Te bigger tri-
angle (like the bigger Ls) symbolizes the way in which one or another theory
gains institutional ascendency for a period of time. Te SLATE project has
concentrated on undergraduate tertiary apprenticeship into one hierarchical
knowledge structure (biology) and one horizontal one (linguistics). For foun-
dational SFL work on science see Halliday and Martin (1993) and Halliday
(2004); for social science see Wignell (2007a, b).
Figure 7: Martins (2011) adaptation of Bernsteins proposals for mapping academic felds.
As a rule of thumb, the more hierarchical a knowledge structure, the more
technicality it deploys to accumulate knowledge its technical terms in other
18 Genre-based literacy programmes
words construe the feld (along with abstract diagrams and mathematical
symbolism as required; OHalloran (2005)).
From the perspective of functional linguistics, however, it is also important to
focus on the register variable mode since vertical discourses, however techni-
cal, are far more abstract than horizontal ones. Crucial here is consideration of
the role of grammatical metaphor in the texture of vertical discourse, enabling as
it does the construal of uncommon sense knowledge across disciplines. Suppose
for example with reference to text 1s mulga tree we write that Adaptations have
enabled drought survival. In doing so we are relating two nominalized abstrac-
tions (adaptations and drought survival) to one another through a process of ena-
blement (have enabled) one thing leads to another, not between clauses (like
when we talk) but within a single clause (as Agent Process Medium; Halliday and
Matthiessen, 2004). Te spoken version of this sentence might be something like
Te mulga tree has adapted in several ways and so it survives droughts.
In linguistic terms what is going on here is that a semantic sequence with
one event causing another is being realized grammatically as a single clause.
For this to happen the two semantic fgures involved in this sequence have to
be realized as nominal groups (several adaptations and drought survival). Tis
semantic fgure to grammatical group relation is outlined in Figure 8. Tis
kind of realization between semantics and grammar is referred to as grammat-
ical metaphor (Halliday and Matthiseen, 2004) because there are two mean-
ings involved, in a fgure-to-ground relationship, with the grammar symbol-
izing the semantics by way of making it recoverable. What is semantically an
event in other words is construed grammatically as a thing, with the stratal
tension explicitly signalled in this case by the nominalization (adaptation).
Figure 8: Semantic fgure realized as grammatical group.
J. R. Martin 19
When both fgures in a sequence are realized metaphorically in this way,
then some alternative means of expression needs to be found for the logi-
cal relationship between them. In the example in Figure 9 below the causal
link is realized by the Process have enabled; alternatively the link between
nominalized events could have been realized through a preposition (drought
survival is due to several adaptations) or another nominal group (several
adaptations are the reason for drought survival). Te verbal realization of
the causal link has the advantage of allowing for the nature of the causal-
ity to be adjusted through the selection of an appropriately nuanced verb
or phrasal verb (e.g. facilitated, encouraged, aided, ensured, contributed to,
allowed for, etc.). Exploiting variation of this kind is more common in the
humanities and social sciences than in science, since in science a strongly
classifed notion of causality is favoured (digitally graded, where necessary,
through statistical analysis).
Figure 9: Semantic sequence realized as grammatical clause.
Tis explanation of grammatical metaphor in terms of stratal tension
(i.e. some degree of mismatch between semantics and grammar) assumes
a tri-stratal model of language such as that outlined in Figure 10. Te co-
tangential circles in this diagram encode the concept of realization, with dis-
course semantics realised through patterns of lexicogrammatical patterns,
and lexicogrammar realized through patterns of phonology (for speaking)
or graphology (for writing). Te SLATE project has focused on lexiogram-
matical and discourse semantic patterns in particular by way of interpreting
biology and linguistics genres as recurrent confgurations of meaning.
20 Genre-based literacy programmes
Figure 10: Language strata.
In SFL these three language strata are cross-classifed through the concept
of metafunction the ideational, the interpersonal and the textual. Ideational
meaning construes reality as sequences of events and entities, constructed
grammatically as confgurations of processes, participants and circumstances.
Interpersonal meaning enacts social reality, negotiating relations of power and
solidarity among interlocutors. Textual meaning composes ideational and inter-
personal meaning as spoken and written discourse, texturing the information
fow in relation to the medium of communication. Tis intrinsic functionality is
the basis for SFLs trinocular perspective on social context (extrinsic functional-
ity), with ideational meaning construing feld, interpersonal meaning enacting
tenor and textual meaning composing mode. In the stratifed model of context
assumed here, these modes of meaning are phased together in relation to the
higher order concept of genre. Tis stratifed model of language and social con-
text and its metafunctional organization are outlined in Figure 11.
To this point we have considered technicality and abstraction as central
concerns for SLATE research, focusing as it has on feld and mode in ter-
tiary biology and linguistics programmes. It is sometimes assumed that tenor
is less relevant in academic discourse, where a formal faceless style is pre-
ferred. Hood (2010) however documents many of the respects in which aca-
demic discourses negotiate tenor, and well touch briefy on the meanings at
risk here. Text 1 above opens with the suggestion that the mulga likes long
droughts, explicitly inscribing an emotion felt by the tree (Martin and White,
2005). Childist discourse of this kind is less likely in university contexts, but
other forms of attitude can be appropriately inscribed. Instead of baldly writ-
ing for example that Adaptations have enabled drought survival, we might
J. R. Martin 21
open a comparable factorial explanation with the statement that Successful
adaptations have enabled the mulga trees survival in severe droughts, explic-
itly appreciating both the success of the adaptations and the severity of certain
droughts. Where explicit evaluation of this kind is less appropriate, grading
resources can be deployed to fag the subjectivity of a statement and posi-
tion readers to evaluate it. Gradings of amount and duration are brought in to
invite readers to appreciate the success of the mulga tree below:
A number of adaptations are largely responsible for the mulga trees survival in very
long droughts.
Academic discourse is also very sensitive to the play of voices opened up or
close down in discussion. Below, projection (research suggests) and modality
(may, likely) open up the discourse to opinions alongside that of the writer.
Efectively positioning research along these lines is a developmental challenge
for undergraduate students as SLATE research has shown (Hao and Hum-
phrey, 2009).
Research suggests that adaptation may contribute to the genetically modifed species
likely survival in droughts.
6. Challenges for SLATE
In relation to the dialectic of theory and practice outlined above for Sydney
School educational linguistics, the SLATE project faced a number of signif-
cant challenges. As far as curriculum is concerned, it was a large-scale project
Figure 11: Language, register and genre in relation to metafunction.
22 Genre-based literacy programmes
addressing literacy in under-explored disciplines in tertiary contexts, and so
had come to terms with undergraduate biology and linguistics as systems of
genres. Tis naturally involved dealing with long texts featuring combinations
of genres (textbooks and student research projects in particular), referred to
by Martin (1995, 1996) as macro-genres. Te segmental nature of a good deal
of undergraduate teaching raised important questions about the possibility
of proposing a spiral genre-based writing curriculum based on this research.
Turning to pedagogy, SLATE faced the challenge of re-contextualizing its
curriculum genres for an on-line literacy environment. Tis meant not only
preparing materials supporting deconstruction activities (including support
for reading), but experimenting with joint construction in not quite synchro-
nous on-line interactions. In addition the role of feedback in response to indi-
vidual construction was explored.
Alongside these pedagogic renovations, the project faced the familiar prob-
lem of a lack of shared knowledge about language, register and genre. Con-
straints of time and distance meant that only a little relevant meta-language
could be introduced to students, and there was little opportunity to keep their
biology and linguistics lecturers in the loop. Constraints of time and distance
also compromised the coordination of writing tasks and their support with the
reading and assessment demands of courses.
As far as phases of Sydney School literacy programmes are concerned,
many of the innovations developed in Roses Reading to Learn programmes
were not addressed. Reading to Learn features innovative carefully designed
mentor/student interactions, especially in its Preparing for Reading, Joint
Construction, Detailed Reading and Joint Rewriting steps (Figure 5 above).
To date the SLATE project has only explored the possibilities of on-line Joint
Construction (Dreyfus and Macnaught, this issue). In addition, although
NESB students in the project by and large needed to develop grammatical
resources for academic discourse, the possibility of providing on-line support
in terms of adaptations of Sentence Making and Sentence Writing for senior
students were not explored. As with metalanguage, the lack of shared under-
standings of Sydney School pedagogy proved a severe challenge as far as coop-
eration between tutors and biology/linguistics lecturers was concerned.
In conclusion we can perhaps observe that something comparable to the
more than three decades of action research in face-to-face teaching/learning
contexts which have underpinned the development of Sydney School genre-
based literacy pedagogy needs to be comparably resourced for on-line dis-
tance education environments. Tis is not just an issue of technology. For such
a project to succeed, the full support of tertiary academic and administra-
tive staf, cooperating with educational linguists over a number of years, is
required. SLATE has built the foundations for this research and we all look
J. R. Martin 23
forward to the next phase of genre-based web-based literacy programming in
tertiary environments.
About the author
J. R. Martin is Professor of Linguistics in the Department of Linguistics, Univer-
sity of Sydney NSW, Australia.
References
Alexander, R. (2000) Culture & Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Educa-
tion. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bernstein, B. (1975) Class, Codes and Control 3: Towards a Teory of Educational Transmis-
sions. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203011430
Bernstein, B. (1990) Class, Codes and Control 4: Te Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse.
London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203011263
Bernstein, B. (1996) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Teory, Research, Critique.
London: Taylor & Francis (revised edition 2000).
Christie, F. (ed.) (1999) Pedagogy and the Shaping of Consciousness: Linguistic and Social
Processes. London: Cassell (Open Linguistics Series).
Christie, F. (2002) Classroom Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
Christie, F. and Derewianka, B. (2008) School Discourse: Learning to Write Across the Years
of Schooling. London: Continuum.
Christie, F. and Martin, J. R. (eds) (1997) Genre and Institutions: Social Processes in the
Workplace and School. London: Cassell.
Christie, F. and Martin, J. R. (eds) (2007) Knowledge Structure: Functional Linguistic and
Sociological Perspectives. London: Continuum.
Christie, F. and Maton, K. (eds) (2011) Disciplinarity: Functional Linguistic and Sociological
Perspectives. London: Continuum.
Christie, F. and Unsworth, L. (2005) Developing dimensions of an educational linguistics.
In R. Hasan, C. M. I. M. Matthiessen and J. J. Webster Continuing Discourse on Language:
A Functional Perspective, Vol. 1, 217250. London: Continuum.
Cofn, C. (1997) Constructing and giving value to the past: an investigation into secondary
school history. In: F. Christie and J. R. Martin (eds). Genres and Institutions: Social Pro-
cesses in the Workplace and School (Open Linguistics Series), 196230. London: Cassell.
Cofn, C. (2006) Historical Discourse: Te Language of Time, Cause and Evaluation. Lon-
don: Continuum.
de Oliveira, L. C. (2011) Knowing and Writing School History: Te Language of Students
Expository Writing and Teachers Expectations. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
24 Genre-based literacy programmes
de Silva Joyce, H. and Feez, S. (2012) Text-based Language & Literacy Education; Program-
ming and Methodology. Sydney: Phoenix Education.
Feez, S. (1998) Text-based Syllabus Design. Sydney: National Centre for English Language
Teaching and Research (NELTR), Macquarie University.
Feez, S. 2002 Heritage and innovation in second language education. In A. M. Johns (ed.)
Genre in the Classroom: Applying Teory and Research to Practice, 43-69. Mahwah, NJ :
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gibbons, P. (2002) Scafolding Language, Scafolding Learning: Teaching Second Language
Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gibbons, P. (2006) Bridging Discourse in the ESL Classroom: Students, Teachers and Research-
ers. London: Continuum.
Gibbons, P. (2009) English Learners Academic Literacy and Tinking: Learning in the Chal-
lenge Zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2003) Te Language of Early Childhood. London: Continuum (Collected
Works of M. A. K. Halliday, Vol. 4).
Halliday, M. A. K. (2004) Te Language of Science. London: Continuum (Collected Works
of M. A. K. Halliday, Vol. 5).
Halliday, M. A. K. and Greaves, W. S. (2008) Intonation in the Grammar of English. London:
Equinox.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Martin, J. R. (1993) Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power.
London: Falmer (Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education).
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004) An Introduction to Functional Gram-
mar (3rd edn). London: Arnold.
Hammond, J. (ed.) (2001) Scafolding: Teaching and Learning in Language and Literacy
Education. Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association (PETA).
Hao, J. and Humphrey, S. (2009) Te role of coupling in biological experimental reports.
Linguistics & the Human Sciences 5 (2): 169194.
Hasan, R. and Martin, J. R. (eds) (1989) Language Development: Learning Language, Learn-
ing Culture. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hasan, R. and Williams, G. (eds) (1996) Literacy in Society. London: Longman.
Hasan, R., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. and Webster, J. J. (eds) (2005) Continuing Discourse on
Language: A Functional Perspective (Vol. 1). London: Continuum.
Hattie, J. (2009) Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-analyses Relating to Achieve-
ment. London: Routledge.
Hood, S. (2010) Appraising Research: Evaluation in Academic Writing. London: Palgrave.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230274662
Hunt, I. (1994) Successful Joint Construction. PETA PEN. Sydney: Primary English Teach-
ing Association.
J. R. Martin 25
Johns, A. M. (ed.) (2002) Genre in the Classroom: Applying Teory and Research to Practice.
Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jones, R. and Lock, G. (2010) Functional Grammar in the ESL Classroom: Noticing, Exploring
and Practising. London: Palgrave Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230297524
Kress, G and van Leeuwen, T. (1996) Reading Images: Te Grammar of Visual Design.
London: Routledge. (Revised second edition 2006.)
Macken-Horarik, M. (2002) Something to shoot for: A systemic functional approach to
teaching genre in secondary school science. In A. M. Johns (ed.) Genre in the Classroom:
Applying Teory and Research to Practice, 1742. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
Martin, J. R. (1992) English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Martin, J. R. (1995) Text and clause: Fractal resonance. Text 15 (1): 542. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1515/text.1.1995.15.1.5
Martin, J. R. (1996) Types of structure: Deconstructing notions of constituency in clause
and text. In E. H. Hovy and D. R. Scott (eds) Computational and Conversational Dis-
course: Burning Issues An Interdisciplinary Account, 3966. Heidelberg: Springer
(NATO Advanced Science Institute Series F Computer and Systems Sciences, Vol. 151).
Martin, J. R. (1999) Mentoring semogenesis: Genre-based literacy pedagogy. In F. Christie
(ed.) Pedagogy and the Shaping of Consciousness: Linguistic and Social Processes, 123155.
London: Cassell (Open Linguistics Series).
Martin, J. R. (2000) Design and practice: Enacting functional linguistics in Australia. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics 20 (20th Anniversary Volume Applied Linguistics as an
Emerging Discipline): 116126.
Martin, J. R. (2002) Writing history: construing time and value in discourses of the past. In
C. Colombi and M. Schleppegrell (eds) Developing Advanced Literacy in First and Second
Languages, 87118. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Martin, J R 2003 Making history: grammar for explanation. J R Martin & R Wodak [Eds.]
Re/reading the past: critical and functional perspectives on time and value. Amsterdam:
Benjamins. 19-57.
Martin, J. R. (2007) Metadiscourse: Designing interaction in genre-based literacy pro-
grams. In R. Whittaker, M. ODonnell and A. McCabe (eds) Language and Literacy:
Functional Approaches, 95122. London: Continuum.
Martin, J. R. (2011) Bridging troubled waters: Interdisciplinarity and what makes it stick.
In F. Christie and K. Maton (eds) Disciplinarity: Functional Linguistic and Sociological
Perspectives, 3561. London: Continuum.
Martin, J. R. and Plum, G. (1997) Construing experience: some story genres Journal of
Narrative and Life History 7 (14): 299308. (Special Issue: Oral Versions of Personal
Experience: three decades of narrative analysis; M. Bamberg Guest Editor.)
Martin, J. R. and Rose, D. (2003) Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause.
London: Continuum (2nd revised Edn 2007).
26 Genre-based literacy programmes
Martin, J. R. and Rose, D. (2005) Designing literacy pedagogy: Scafolding asymmetries.
In R. Hasan, C. M. I. M. Matthiessen and J. J. Webster, Continuing Discourse on Lan-
guage: A Functional Perspective (Vol. 1), 251280. London: Continuum.
Martin, J. R. and Rose, D. (2007) Interacting with text: Te role of dialogue in learning to
read and write. Foreign Languages in China 4 (5): 6680.
Martin, J. R. and Rose, D. (2008) Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. London: Equinox.
Martin, J. R. and Veel, R. (eds) (1998) Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives
on Discourses of Science. London: Routledge.
Martin, J. R. and White, P. R. R. (2005) Te Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English.
London: Palgrave.
OHalloran, K. (ed.) (2005) Mathematical Discourse: Language, Symbolism and Visual
Images. London: Continuum.
Painter, C. (1984) Into the Mother Tongue: A Case Study of Early Language Development.
London: Pinter.
Painter, C. (1986) Te role of interaction in learning to speak and learning to write. In
C.Painter and J. R. Martin (eds) Writing to Mean: Teaching Genres Across the Curriculum,
6297. Applied Linguistics Association of Australia (Occasional Papers 9).
Painter, C. (1998) Learning through Language in Early Childhood. London: Cassell.
Painter, C. and Martin, J. R. (eds) (1986) Writing to Mean: Teaching Genres Across the
Curriculum. Applied Linguistics Association of Australia (Occasional Papers 9).
Rose, D. (2007) Towards a reading based theory of teaching. In L. Barbara and T. Berber
Sardinha (eds). Proceedings of the 33rd International Systemic Functional Congress, So
Paulo: PUCSP, 36-77. ISBN 85-283-0342-X http://www.pucsp.br/isfc/proceedings/
Rose, D. (2008) Writing as linguistic mastery: the development of genre-based literacy
pedagogy. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley and M. Nystrand (eds) Handbook of Writing
Development, 151166. London: Sage.
Rose, D. (2011a) Meaning beyond the margins: Learning to interact with books. In J.
Martin, S. Hood and S. Dreyfus (eds) Semiotic Margins: Reclaiming Meaning, 177208.
London: Continuum
Rose, D. (2011b) Beyond literacy: Building an integrated pedagogic genre. Australian Jour-
nal of Language and Literacy, 34 (1): 8197. (Also in Proceedings of ASFLA Conference,
Brisbane, Oct 2009 www.asfa.org.au).
Rose, D. and Martin, J. R. (2012) Learning to Write, Reading to Learn: Genre, Knowledge and
Pedagogy in the Sydney School. London: Equinox.
Rothery, J. (1989) Learning about language. In R. Hasan and J. R. Martin (eds) Language
Development: Learning Language, Learning Culture, 199256. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Rothery, J. (1996) Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics. In R. Hasan and
G. Williams (eds) Literacy in Society, 86123. London: Longman.
J. R. Martin 27
Rothery, J. and Senglin, M. (1997) Entertaining and instructing: exploring experience
through story. In F. Christie and J. R. Martin (eds) Genre and Institutions: Social Processes
in the Workplace and School, 231263. London: Cassell.
Scott, L. and Robinson,S. (1993) Australian Journey: Environments and Communities.
Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004) Te Language of Schooling: A Functional Linguistic Perspective.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Unsworth, L. (1997) Sound explanations in school science: A functional linguistics per-
spective on efective apprenticing texts. Linguistics and Education 9 (2): 199226. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(97)90013-9
Veel, R. (1997) Learning how to mean scientifcally speaking: Apprenticeship into scien-
tifc discourse in secondary school. In F. Christie and J. R. Martin (eds) Genre and Insti-
tutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School, 161195. London: Cassell.
Veel, R. (2006) Te Write it Right project linguistic modelling of secondary school and the
workplace. In R. Whittaker, M. ODonnell and A. McCabe (eds) Language and Literacy:
Functional Approaches, 6692. London: Continuum.
Veel, R. and Cofn, C. (1996) Learning to think like an historian: Te language of sec-
ondary school history. In R. Hasan and G. Williams (eds) Literacy in Society, 191231.
London: Longman.
Ventola, E. (1987) Te Structure of Social Interaction. London: Pinter.
Wignell, P. (2007a) Vertical and horizontal discourse and the social sciences. In F. Christie
and J. R. Martin (eds) (2007) Knowledge Structure: Functional Linguistic and Sociological
Perspectives, 184204. London: Continuum.
Wignell, P. (2007b) On the Discourse of Social Science. Darwin: Charles Darwin Univer-
sity Press.