The writing achievement of English learners (ELs) is often lower than that of other subgroups (Fry, 2007, 2008). To address this gap, a partnership was formed between university faculty and doctoral students and educators at an urban PK–8 school with a majority EL population. Using Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) as a guide, the team endeavored to enhance writing instruction and, as a result, student writing. This study focused on a sixth-grade language arts teacher and her EL students during a personal recount writing unit. Qualitative data were analyzed to explore how SFL-informed writing instruction and student apprenticeship influenced teaching and learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alliance for Excellent Education, (2007). Making writing instruction a priority in American middle and high schools.Washington, DC: Authors.
2.
BriskM. E. (2011). Learning to write in the second language: K–5. In HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 40–56). New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
BriskM. E. (2012). Young bilingual writers’ control of grammatical person in different genres.The Elementary School Journal112(3), 445–48.
4.
BriskM. E. (2015). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogy in K–5 classrooms.New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
BriskM. E., Hodgson-DrysdaleT., & O'ConnorC. (2011). A study of a collaborative instructional project informed by systemic functional linguistic theory: Report writing in elementary grades.Journal of Education, 191(1), 1–12.
6.
BriskM. E., HoranD. A., & MacDonaldE. (2008). A scaffolded approach to learning to write. In VerplaetseL. S., & MigliacciN. (Eds.), Inclusive pedagogy for English language learners: A handbook of research-informed practices (pp. 15–32). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
7.
BriskM. E., & ZisselsbergerM. (2010). “We've let them in on the secret”: Using SFL theory to improve the teaching of writing to bilingual learners. In LucasT. (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 160–177). New York, NY: Routledge.
8.
CharmazK. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In DenzinN. K., & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–536). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
CharmazK. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century. In DenzinN. K., & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 507–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
ChristieF., & DerewiankaB. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling.New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.
11.
CopeB., & KalantzisM. (2014). How a genre approach to literacy can transform the way writing is taught. In CopeB., & KalantzisM. (Eds.), The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing (pp. 1–21). New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
CumminsJ. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society.Straffordshire, UK: Trentham Books Ltd.
13.
DanielloF., TurgutG., & BriskM. E. (2014). Applying systemic functional linguistics to build educators’ knowledge of academic English for the teaching of writing. In MahboobA., & BarrattL. (Eds.), Englishes in multilingual contexts (pp. 183–203). Rotterdam, NL: Springer.
14.
DerewiankaB. (1990). Exploring how texts work.Rozelle, NSW: Primary English Teacher.
15.
DerewiankaB. (1998). A grammar companion: For primary teachers.Newtown, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association
16.
EchevarriaJ., VogtM. E., & ShortD. (2013). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP Model (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
17.
FryR. (2007). How far behind in math and reading are English language learners? Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, Hispanic Trends.
18.
FryR. (2008). The role of schools in the English language learner achievement gap.Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, Hispanic Trends.
19.
GebhardM., & HarmanR. (2011). Reconsidering genre theory in K–12 schools: A response to school reforms in the United States.Journal of Second Language Writing,20(1), 45–55.
20.
GebhardM., HarmanR., & SegerW. (2007). Reclaiming recess: Learning the language of persuasion.Language Arts,84(5), 419–430.
21.
GebhardM., ShinD. S., & SegerW. (2011). Blogging and emergent L2 literacy development in an urban elementary school: A perspective.CALICO Journal,28(2), 1–29.
22.
GibbonsP. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher with ESL students in a content-based classroom.TESOL Quarterly,37(2), 247–273.
23.
GibbonsP. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the challenge zone.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
24.
GilbertJ., & GrahamS. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4–6: A national survey.The Elementary School Journal,110(4), 494–518.
25.
GlaserB. G., & StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory.Chicago, IL: Aldine.
26.
GuthrieJ. T., HoaA. L. W., WigfeldA., TonksS. M., HumenickN. M., & LittlesE. (2007). Reading motivation and reading comprehension growth in the later elementary years.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 282–313.
27.
HallidayM. A. K.1985Introduction to functional grammarLondon, UK: Edward Arnold.
28.
Hodgson-DrysdaleT. (2016). Teaching writing through genres and language. In de OliveiraL. C., & SilvaT. (Eds.), Second language writing in elementary classrooms (pp. 69–87). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
29.
Lessow-HurleyJ. (1999). Foundations of dual language instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF). (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's future, New York, NY: Authors.
33.
National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges. (2003). The neglected “r.” The need for a writing revolution: Report of The College Board, The National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges, New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
PavlakC. M. (2013). “It is hard fun” Scaffolded biography writing with English learners.The Reading Teacher,66(5), 405–414.
36.
Richard-AmatoP. A. (1996). Making it happen: Interaction in the second language classroom, theory to practice.New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.
37.
RiefL. (2006). What's right with writing.Voices from the Middle,13(4), 32–39.
38.
RotheryJ. (1996) Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics. In HasanR., & WilliamsG. (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 86–123). New York, NY: Longman.
39.
SchleppegrellM. J., & GoA. L. (2007). Analyzing the writing of English learners: A functional approach.Language Arts,84(6), 529–538.
40.
VerplaetseL. S. (2008). Developing academic language through an abundance of interaction. In VerplaetseL. S., & MigliacciN. (Eds.), Inclusive pedagogy for English language learners: A handbook of research-informed practices.New York, NY: Erlbaum.
41.
WigfieldA., GladstoneJ. R., & TurciL. (2016). Beyond cognition: Reading motivation and reading comprehension.Child Development Perspectives, 10(3), 190–195.
42.
WigfieldA., & GuthrieJ. T. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In KamilM. L., MosenthalP. B., PearsonP. D., & BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 403–422). New York, NY: Routledge.
