Discussion Questions

FEATURE ARTICLE

Journal of Adolescen t & Adul t L i teracy 5 7 ( 3 ) November 2 013 doi :10 .10 0 2 /JA A L . 2 21 © 2 013 In ternat ional Reading A ssociat ion ( pp. 215 – 2 2 2 )

215

How Rhetorical Theories of Genre Address Common Core Writing Standards

Ross Collin

How can content area teachers address Common Core writing standards? This article advises teachers to apply rhetorical approaches to the study of genre.

In public schools throughout the United States, teachers are being called to redouble their ef-forts to help students learn to read and write texts in different content areas. This project is central to the Common Core State Standards, which seek, among other goals, to “specify the literacy skills and understandings required for college and career readi- ness in multiple disciplines” (English Language Arts Standards/Home). Thus, in the 45 states where the Core Standards have been adopted, literacy educa- tion is expanding to include the study of discipline- based forms of communication. These reforms align with recent proposals for focusing teachers’ atten- tion more squarely on the literacies of specific disci- plines (see Moje, 2008; Pytash, 2012; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008).

Consistent with the Common Core’s emphasis on literacy learning in multiple domains, the initia- tive’s writing standards prompt students to compose texts for di- verse audiences and

purposes. Common Core thereby promotes a rhetori- cal view of writing. By rhetoric, I mean the study of the effectiveness of different forms of communication in different domains. A rhetorician, for example, might focus on the domain of politics and study how various politicians advance their agendas by using and adapt- ing the conventions of campaign flyers. Given the Common Core’s emphasis on rhetoric, all teachers of writing—not only English language arts (ELA) teach- ers—require a pedagogical framework that shows how different forms of composition help writers build the world and act in the world in different ways. Teachers require a framework, for instance, that enables them to highlight the forms, functions, and possibilities of letters to the editor and to distinguish these features from the forms, functions, and possibilities of lab reports.

Such a framework is provided by rhetorical under- standings of genre. This claim invites four questions:

1. How has genre typically been defined in schools?

2. What is a rhetorical understanding of genre and why is it preferable to other genre theories?

3. How does the rhetorical approach re- spond to the Common Core’s promotion of

Ross Collin is an assistant professor of English education at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA; e-mail rcollin@ vcu.edu.

216

J O

U R

N A

L O

F A

D O

LE S

C E

N T

& A

D U

LT L

IT E

R A

C Y

57 (3

) N

O V

E M

B E

R 2

01 3

FEATURE ARTICLE

writing for multiple purposes in multiple domains?

4. What does the rhetorical approach look like in the classroom?

To answer these questions, I review the Common Core’s overall mission and its standards for writing. I show how the Common Core promotes a rhetori- cal view of composition and calls upon teachers and students to explore writing in a range of contexts. I then argue that popular genre pedagogies underex- plain how people use genres to build and act in the world in disparate ways. These pedagogies, therefore, are unsuitable for writing lessons organized around the Core Standards. Next, in my discussion of rhe- torical theories of genre, I explain how genres may be understood as flexible resources people use to build and act in different contexts. The rhetorical approach, therefore, shares the Common Core’s interest in mat- ters of audience, purpose, and discipline. Finally, I draw upon studies of young adult writers to present snapshots of what a rhetorical approach to the teach- ing of genre looks like in classrooms.

Before I begin, a few caveats are in order. Along with many other educators and researchers, I have real concerns about the Common Core. I am concerned, for instance, that the Common Core emerged out of policy circles instead of classrooms, relies on unveri- fied assumptions about standards and learning, and endorses simplistic views of the connections between education and job growth (for these and other cri- tiques, see Brady, 2012; Karp, 2012; Ravitch, 2012). Although these concerns must be addressed, I brack- et them in the present study and work to direct this unfolding initiative in a positive direction.

Common Core Writing Standards Half of the Common Core’s standards are grouped into the category “Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects.” The overview of this cat- egory states:

Just as students must learn to read, write, speak, listen, and use language effectively in a variety

Questions of rhetoric are central

to Core Standards for EL A and

content area literacy.

of content areas, so too must the Standards specify the literacy skills and understandings required for college and career readiness in multiple disciplines. Literacy standards for grade 6 and above are predicated on teachers of ELA, history/social studies, science, and technical sub- jects using their content area expertise to help students meet the particular challenges of read- ing, writing, speaking, listening, and language in their respective fields. (English Language Arts Standards/Home)

Central to the standards for ELA and content area literacy, then, are questions of rhetoric. Students are to learn multiple forms of communication necessary for effective participation in multiple domains.

The Common Core’s overall emphasis on rheto- ric is elaborated in several of the 10 writing standards for ELA and for history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Consider the following standards for both groupings:

• W.2e Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline in which they are writing.

• W.4 Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.

• W.5 Develop and strengthen writing as need- ed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach, focusing on address- ing what is most significant for a specific pur- pose and audience. (English Language Arts Standards/Writing)

Consider also the following standards written specifi- cally for history/social studies, science, and technical subjects:

• WHST.1 Write arguments focused on disci- pline-specific content. (emphasis in original)

• WHST.2d Use precise language and domain- specific vocabulary to manage the complex- ity of the topic and convey a style appropriate to the discipline and context as well as to the expertise of likely readers. (History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects Standards/Writing)

To meet these writing standards, teachers must focus students’ attention on the ways differ- ent contexts—including different disciplines, tasks,

217

H o

w R

h e

to ri

c al

T h

e o

ri e

s o

f G

e n

re A

d d

re s s

C o

m m

o n

C o

re W

ri ti

n g

S ta

n d

ar d

s

audiences, and purposes—call for different types of communication. Specifically, teachers must work with students to explore how the form and content of a type of communication shape and are shaped by context. Such questions about text types and form- content-context relations call to mind notions of genre. In the next section, I review familiar under- standings of genre and explain how they conflict with the vision of writing advanced by the Common Core.

Alternate Ways of Understanding and Teaching Genres Schools circulate many and varied genres, from hall passes to IEP forms to geometric proofs to five- paragraph essays. But the term genre is usually heard only in English classes. In such classes, genre study is most often an exercise in description and classifi- cation (for more of this critique, see Bawarshi, 2003; Devitt, 2004). For instance, when studying the genre of the sonnet, students often learn different types of sonnet rhyme schemes (e.g., the Occitan sonnet’s pattern of a-b-a-b, a-b-a-b, c-d-c-d-c-d versus the Shakespearean sonnet’s pattern of a-b-a-b, c-d-c-d, e-f-e-f, g-g). Also, students often learn how different subgenres of the sonnet develop themes in differ- ent ways across their 14 lines. When faced with an unfamiliar sonnet, students may then draw on their knowledge and place the poem in its proper category. In this typical way of teaching literary form, genres are imagined as templates or delivery systems used to present the author’s unique thoughts and feelings. Consistent with standard Western views of creativity, what is most important is the author’s personal senti- ment, which originates deep in the soul. Of second- ary importance is the form in which that sentiment is packaged and sent out into the world. Style counts, but mostly as an aid to personal expression.

This view of creativity was central to early, expres- sivist approaches to teaching the writing process (e.g., Elbow, 1975; Graves, 1983; Murray, 1968). Expressivist approaches to composition often begin with rounds of free writing, during which students put aside questions of form and pour out all their ideas on a given theme. Only after students write freely and reflect on their thoughts do they fit their writing into specific genres. Thus, as described, genre is imagined as a delivery sys- tem for preformed ideas. Although expressivist peda- gogies can foster powerful writing, they seldom focus on the rhetorical concerns of domain, task, audience, and purpose central to the Common Core.

Building out from expressivist pedagogies, Hillocks (1986) and his associates (e.g., Smagorinksy, Johannessen, Kahn, & McCann, 2010) present a structured process approach to teaching composition. This approach requires students to work together (a) to engage in different writing tasks such as descrip- tion, argumentation, and narration and (b) to produce texts of different genres suited for different audiences. For instance, a science teacher might prompt students to review data about global warming and draft amicus briefs to file in support of a fictional environmental group’s lawsuit against a mining company. Crucially, however, the structured process approach separates form and function and emphasizes the latter over the former—that is, generic conventions are of secondary importance to completing writing tasks. The science class mentioned above, for example, would not spend too much time studying the form of the amicus brief. Instead, they would focus their efforts on writing out their own ideas in their own language.

While the structured process approach back- grounds questions of form, Calkins, Ehrenworth, and Lehman (2012) argue that generic conventions might be studied throughout the writing process (for a com- patible approach, see Gallagher, 2011). Describing how teachers might teach students to write the kinds of informational texts endorsed in the Core Standards, they explain:

The teacher settles upon an image of informa- tional writing that he or she believes is within reach for the class, and the class as a whole talks about and annotates and analyzes the [model] text, coming to understand how it is made. We furthermore suggest teachers prioritize [model] texts in which there is a logical and visible infrastructure, perhaps shown through a table of contents that supports logically structured chapters, perhaps shown through headings and subheadings and topic sentences. (p.156)

Thus, from the very beginning of the writing process, classes identify generic conventions and con- sider how they might use those conventions to create generic texts. Students learn to view generic conven- tions as integral to composition. This approach veri- fies the importance of form, but it does not clarify form’s function. That is, this approach does not show how writers use generic conventions to build and act in specific contexts. It does not, for example, help students discover how scientists use the conventions of the lab report (e.g., passive constructions) to build and act in the situation “scientists conducting and

218

J O

U R

N A

L O

F A

D O

LE S

C E

N T

& A

D U

LT L

IT E

R A

C Y

57 (3

) N

O V

E M

B E

R 2

01 3

FEATURE ARTICLE

reporting on experiments.” This approach shows only that writers use generic conventions, not why.

Working outside the writing process movement, researchers in the orbit of the University of Sydney have developed a writing pedagogy focused on genre (see Christie, 1985; Cope & Kalantzis, 1993; Martin & Rose, 2008; Martin & Rothery, 1986; Reid, 1987). A key goal of this pedagogy is to help students from marginalized groups learn important genres such as petitions, letters to the editor, and job application forms. To meet this goal, the Sydney School advances a three-step process called the teaching-learning cycle. In the first step, a teacher and her students review sev- eral examples of a selected genre and discuss how the form and content of the genre fit the context in which the genre is typically used. For example, a social stud- ies teacher and her students might examine several pe- titions and note how their overviews are usually brief and made up of simple sentences. These conventions make sense for the contexts in which petitions are usu- ally presented, read, and signed: quick exchanges on the street and brief stops online. In the second step of the teaching-learning cycle, the teacher and her stu- dents work together to create a sample text by studying more closely the genre’s contexts of use, developing content area knowledge, and coauthoring and revising drafts. Finally, individual students work on their own to compose texts in the given genre. To compose their own pieces, students use the generic conventions the class identified in model texts. For instance, in a social studies class, students writing petition overviews would mobilize their knowledge of the genre and compose brief overviews made up of simple sentences.

Relative to process pedagogies, the Sydney School approach brings educators closer to the kinds of writing practices endorsed by the Common Core. The Sydney School’s attention to the relationships between form, content, and context fits with the Common Core’s emphasis on writing in different ways in different domains. Several critics, however,

take issue with the Sydney School’s formulation of genre and its relation to context (see Freedman & Medway, 1994; Luke, 1996). These critics argue that the approach reifies model texts as “correct” iterations of genres. Thus, features of a context that conflict with the features of model texts too easily fall from view. For example, if a student begins her study of petitions by examining model texts with brief, sim- ply worded overviews, she may not consider writing a longer, more complex overview even when doing so makes sense for a specific context (e.g., when target- ing insiders with a petition about a highly technical matter). The Sydney School approach, therefore, can promote rigid ways of understanding genres and limit exploration and critique of the contexts in which writ- ing takes place. Given these limits, the Sydney School approach is not a good match for the Common Core.

Rhetorical Views of Genre: Theory and Pedagogy

Theory Over the past thirty years, rhetoricians have recon- ceived genres as “typified rhetorical actions based in recurrent situations” (Miller, 1984; see also Bawarshi, 2003; Collin, 2012, 2013; Devitt, 2004; Devitt, Reiff, & Bawarshi, 2004; Russell, 1997). Following Burke (1969), rhetoricians often define situation as a com- plex of five interconnected dimensions: scene, acts, agents, agency, and purposes (see Fig. 1). Crucially, rhetoricians often identify a reciprocal relationship between genre and situation: One activates and shapes the other. That is, a genre provides the conven- tions, or typified rhetorical moves, that enable people to bring to life a situation’s scene, acts, agents, agency, and purposes. At the same time, a situation creates the context in which a genre and its conventions be- come meaningful.

FIGURE 1 Burke’s Definition of a Situation

Five dimensions of a situation Example situation: Sociologist observing events

1. Scene: Domain or thematic background 1. Scene: Sociology

2. Acts: What is happening 2. Act: Observation

3. Agents: Types of people involved 3. Agents: Sociologist and research subjects

4. Agency: What agents can and cannot do 4. Agency: Sociologists can understand social structures and processes

5. Purposes: Reasons for activities 5. Purpose: Understand observed events

219

H o

w R

h e

to ri

c al

T h

e o

ri e

s o

f G

e n

re A

d d

re s s

C o

m m

o n

C o

re W

ri ti

n g

S ta

n d

ar d

s

Consider the genre of the sociologist’s field jour- nal. This genre is based in the recurrent situation “sociologist observing events” and features a range of conventions (e.g., incomplete sentences such as “man rose and left table” and split pages with just-the-facts notes in one column and questions/notes to self in an- other column). To create the situation in a particular time and place, a person with knowledge of the genre and its conventions can pick up her field journal and begin to write observation notes (act). In so doing, the writer construes herself as a sociologist (agent) work- ing in the larger domain of sociology (scene); imagines others as research subjects (agents); sees her surround- ings as a puzzle to be solved (purpose); and views her- self as being capable of solving that puzzle (agency). Importantly, the writer makes notes in accordance with sociology’s ways of seeing and thinking: She pays atten- tion to certain phenomena (e.g., patterns of interaction between men and women) and ignores others (e.g., small fluctuations in the weather). Thus, as part of her efforts to build and act in the situation “sociologist observing events,” the writer takes up the genre of the field journal and uses its conventions to make notes. To teach this genre to her class, a social studies teacher might demonstrate how the genre’s conventions (e.g., split-page notes) enable her to bring to life the scene, acts, agents, agency, and purposes characteristic of the situation “sociologist conducting observations.” Longer, more developed examples of this genre pedagogy are presented in the “Examples” section of this article.

Although the Sydney school approach also iden- tifies connections between genre and situation, the rhetorical approach goes a step further to emphasize the dynamic character of the interactions of genre and situation. That is, the rhetorical approach views genre and situation as coevolving constructions. When one changes, it pressures—but does not force—the other to change. For instance, when a sociologist engages in participant observation, she performs as a different kind of agent than she does when engaging in more traditional observation. Thus, in her field journal, she might adapt the genre’s conventions and make more notes about her own moods and opinions. Relative to a traditional observer’s field journal, then, a par- ticipant observer’s journal would feature more first- person constructions in the just-the-facts side of the notebook page (e.g., “I traded jokes with hall moni- tor”). In this way, a shift in situation elicits a shift in genre. A social studies teacher might help her class understand the dynamic relations between genre and situation by having her class use field journals to

document interactions in the school’s cafeteria. Half the class could engage in traditional observation, and the other half could engage in participant obser- vation. When writing in their journals, all students would use conventions such as incomplete sentences and split-page notes. Students conducting participant observations, however, would use more first-person constructions in the just-the-facts columns of their notes than would their peers conducting traditional observations. After returning to class, students could compare and contrast the types of notes they wrote in their field journals. They could discuss how dif- ferences in their situations—traditional versus partici- pant observation—explain differences in their generic texts.

Finally, the rhetorical approach views genres and situations as objects of struggle. It recognizes that interested parties struggle over the ways genres and situations are changed. For instance, sociologists who reject participant observation as unscientific and overly subjective often critique field journals that fea- ture entries on the observer’s moods and opinions. In contrast, proponents of participant observation often critique traditional field journals for eliding the ways observers affect the actions they witness. Struggles over genre and situation, then, are often flashpoints in larger conflicts over identity (who is and who is not a real sociologist?) and the construction of a domain (what is and what is not real sociology?). A social stud- ies teacher might stage this debate by assigning stu- dents to different sides of the argument and having them use their own field journals as evidence in the debate. Students would be compelled to (a) reflect on the shifting character of sociology and sociologists and (b) consider how the beliefs of the domain are realized and struggled over in its genres.

Given its attention to the complex relations be- tween text and context, the rhetorical approach to genre studies provides a framework for the kinds of writing promoted by the Common Core. The latter calls writers to learn to use “formal style…while attend- ing to the norms and conventions of the discipline in which they are writing” (W.2e); match “development, organization, and style” to “task, purpose, and audi- ence” (W.4); “write arguments focused on discipline- specific content” (WHST.1; emphasis in original); and use “domain-specific vocabulary to manage the com- plexity of the topic and convey a style appropriate to the discipline and context” (WHST.2d). Each of these concerns is brought to the fore in the rhetorical ap- proach to genre studies.

220

J O

U R

N A

L O

F A

D O

LE S

C E

N T

& A

D U

LT L

IT E

R A

C Y

57 (3

) N

O V

E M

B E

R 2

01 3

FEATURE ARTICLE

Pedagogy Rhetorical theories of genre have been translated into a powerful writing pedagogy by Devitt, Reiff, and Bawarshi (2004; for a compatible approach to teach- ing disciplinary genres, see Pytash, 2012). Drawing upon their years of experience teaching writing class- es, the authors present a four-step process for studying genre. Building out from this model, I add a critical turn and an extra move to create a five-step approach to rhetorical genre studies.

Unlike the Sydney School’s teaching-learning cy- cle, which can begin with teachers presenting model texts out of context, the rhetorical approach begins with students finding sample texts in their natural environ- ments (step 1). Next, students collect data on how the genre is used to bring to life a situation’s scene, acts, agents, agency, and purposes. Using techniques such as observation, interviewing, and document collection, students consider (a) who uses the genre and (b) how ac- tors employ the genre to assume disciplinary identities, think in domain-specific ways, and work toward specific goals (step 2). In step 3, students analyze multiple gener- ic texts to identify patterns of form and content. They pay attention to word choice, sentence structure, topic, layout, and rhetorical appeals (i.e., appeals to reason, emotion, and identity). Next, in step 4, students con- sider how a genre’s patterns of form and content help people realize a situation’s scene, acts, agents, agency, and purposes. That is, they study how patterns of form and content enable people to set a thematic background (scene); take on social roles (agents); recognize certain possibilities (agency); perform specific actions (acts) for specific reasons (purposes); and think in domain- specific ways. In a critical turn, they consider how genres make it easier or more difficult to perform cer- tain actions and identities in a discipline. (Adapted from Devitt, Reiff, and Bawarshi, 2004, pp. 93–94). Finally, in step 5, students compose generic texts of their own. Using their knowledge of the genre and its contexts, stu- dents compose texts that enable them to build and act in situations appropriate to the genre.

Examples In a high school English class, students might inves- tigate the genre of the feature article in an online journal. Students could examine articles published on popular sites such as Salon.com, Slate.com, and NationalReview.com. Each student could collect a number of feature articles for analysis (step 1). To learn about the situation “publishing a feature ar- ticle in an online journal,” students could conduct

e-mail interviews with journalists and editors (step 2). Through their interviews, students might learn that journalists and editors often evaluate the effectiveness of an article by counting the number of unique clicks it draws. While completing steps 3 and 4, students may find article titles are often more dramatic than article content—all the better to draw the maximum numbers of readers to the piece. Students may also find that journalists, convinced of readers’ fickle na- tures, front-load and condense information in their articles to make their points before readers move on.

Thus, students might learn, the writer of a fea- ture article in an online journal can use and adapt the genre’s conventions to place herself in the do- main of online journalism (scene); report/analyze news (act); present herself as a journalist (agent) who understands the world (agency) and who clarifies the world’s events (purpose) for fickle readers (agents). Taking a critical turn, students can discuss the dif- ficulty of presenting nuanced arguments in a genre characterized by dramatic titles and brief formula- tions of ideas. Finally, students might draw upon the conventions of the genre and write their own pieces for a class-produced online journal. Some students could be prompted to draw as many readers as pos- sible to their articles and to deliver content quickly to fickle readers. When writing their articles, these stu- dents might use the genre’s conventions of dramatic titles and front-loaded structure. Other students could be instructed to present nuanced analyses and to re- flect the complexities of their analyses in the titles of their articles. After all students publish their articles, students in another class could be assigned to visit the online journal and read three articles of their choos- ing. Students in the first class could count the number of clicks received by each article and then interview students in the other class about why they read or passed on specific articles. The class could discuss how the genre’s conventions helped or hindered them in attracting readers and writing nuanced arguments.

In a high school chemistry class, students might study the genre of the lab report and consider how its conventions help scientists work in the situation “sci- entists conducting and reporting on experiments.” Students could gather reports from other science labs in their school or from labs in local colleges and universities. Also, students could visit working labs and gather reports from professional chemists (step 1). During their visits, students might observe scien- tists and interview them about how they compose reports to realize the situation “scientists conducting

221

H o

w R

h e

to ri

c al

T h

e o

ri e

s o

f G

e n

re A

d d

re s s

C o

m m

o n

C o

re W

ri ti

n g

S ta

n d

ar d

s

and reporting on experiments” (step 2). Through their investigations, students might find that scientists use passive voice to background the role of individu- als in experiments (steps 3 and 4). The passivation of individuals is consistent with the discipline’s interest in replication of results. For results to be valid, they should be achievable by any scientist who follows the steps outlined in the lab report. Continuing, students might find that by using the genre’s conventions, writ- ers perform as scientists (agents) conducting experi- ments (act) in the domain of chemistry (scene). As scientists, they feel capable of understanding chemi- cal processes (agency), and they seek to devise experi- ments that yield significant, replicable findings about said processes (purpose). By talking with scientists, stu- dents might learn that the lab report genre is adapted at times to account for the unique features of specific situations. For instance, if a chemist believes that the particular brand of instrument she used affected the experiment’s results, she may break convention and list the instrument’s brand name in the materials section of the report. Other scientists, however, may reject her adaptation as unsuited to the discipline of chemistry.

Upon returning to their classroom, students might discuss what they discovered about the lab report and the ways scientists adapt the genre. Taking a critical turn, they might consider how passive voice makes it difficult to see and address power imbalances between scientists in a lab. The class might then adapt the lab report genre to make human relationships more vis- ible. For instance, the class could designate certain places in the lab report where writers should use active voice. Crucially, however, students could debate the benefits and drawbacks of adapting the genre in ways that may not be accepted by other scientists. Then, students could draw upon their new understandings of the lab report genre to perform as scientists con- ducting and reporting on experiments (step 5). Half the class could compose their reports using standard conventions, while the other half could use adapted conventions that allow for more active voice. Finally, a panel of scientists and science teachers could assess these reports in front of the class and discuss with stu- dents why they think some reports work better than others. Students, scientists, and science teachers could debate different notions of how lab reports should be composed by real scientists doing real science. By en- gaging in this debate, students could come to see how struggles over generic form are often bound up with struggles over the nature of a discipline and the identi- ties of those who participate in a discipline.

Conclusion As described in this article, a rhetorical approach to the study of genre can help teachers and students ad- dress the rhetorical concerns central to the Common Core’s standards for writing. Specifically, genre stud- ies can attune teachers and students to Core concerns of audience, purpose, task, and disciplinary thought.

As literacy educators, however, we are not concerned with meeting standards for the standards’ own sake. Rather, we are concerned with helping students learn to use different forms of communication to participate ef- fectively in different situations. At present, we can work with the Core standards that support good writing and good pedagogy. However, if Core standards are changed to pull writing out of its shifting contexts—for instance, by relying on high-stakes standardized tests that call for decontextualized writing—we might reconsider our commitment to making the standards work. Academic disciplines and rhetorical situations are not standardized

✓ Collect samples of a genre. Students gather multiple versions of a genre used in a particular setting.

✓ Identify the context and describe the situation in which the genre is used. Students collect data on how the genre is used to bring to life a situa- tion’s scene, acts, agents, agency, and purposes.

✓ Identify and describe patterns in the genre’s features. Analyzing multiple texts, students identify patterns of form and content. They pay attention to word choice, sentence structure, topic, layout, and rhetorical appeals.

✓ Analyze what these patterns reveal about the situation and context. Students consider how a genre’s patterns (see Step 3) help people create a situation’s scene, acts, agents, agency, and pur- poses. In a critical turn, they consider how genres make it easier or more difficult to perform certain actions and identities in a discipline. (Adapted from Devitt, Reiff, and Bawarshi, 2004, pp. 93–94).

✓ Compose a generic text suitable for a specific situation. Drawing on what they have learned about a genre and its contexts, students com- pose generic texts that might help them achieve socially recognizable goals in a particular situation.

Take Action S T E P S F O R I M M E D I A T E I M P L E M E N T A T I O N

222

J O

U R

N A

L O

F A

D O

LE S

C E

N T

& A

D U

LT L

IT E

R A

C Y

57 (3

) N

O V

E M

B E

R 2

01 3

FEATURE ARTICLE

forms, so writing, writing instruction, and writing assess- ment should not be standardized too much, either.

References Bawarshi, A. (2003). Genre and the invention of the writer:

Reconsidering the place of invention in composition. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

Brady, M. (2012, August 21). Eight problems with Common Core Standards. Washington Post. Retrieved from http:// www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/eight-prob- lems-with-common-core-standards/2012/08/21/821b300a- e4e7-11e1-8f62-58260e3940a0_blog.html

Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Calkins, L., Ehrenworth, M., & Lehman, C. (2012). Pathways to the Common Core: Accelerating achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Christie, F. (1985). Language education. Victoria, NSW, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Collin, R. (2012). Genre in Discourse, Discourse in genre: A new approach to the study of literate practice. The Journal of Literacy Research, 44(1), 76–96.

Collin, R. (2013). Revisiting Jack Goody to rethink determinisms in literacy studies. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1), 27–38.

Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (1993). The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.

Devitt, A. (2004). Writing genres. Carbondale, IL : Southern Illinois University Press.

Devitt, A., Reiff, M.J., & Bawarshi, A. (2004). Scenes of writing: Strategies for composing with genres. London, England: Longman.

Elbow, P. (1975). Writing without teachers. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

English Language Arts Standards/Home. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy

English Language Arts Standards/ Writing. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/W/11-12

Freedman, A., & Medway, P. (1994). Locating genre studies: Antecedents and prospects. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.). Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 1–20). London, England: Taylor & Francis.

Gallagher, K. (2011). Write like this: Teaching real-world writing through modeling and mentor text. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Graves, D.H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: National Conference on Research in English and Educational Resources Information Center.

Histor y/ Social St udies, Science, and Technical Subject s Standards/ Writing. (2012). Retrieved March 7, 2013, from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/WHST/11-12

Karp, S. (2012). Challenging corporate ed reform. Rethinking Schools. Retrieved from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/ archive/26_03/26_03_karp.shtml

Luke, A. (1996). Genres of power? Literacy education and the production of capital. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 308–338). London: Longman.

Martin, J.R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping cul- ture. London, England: Equinox.

Martin, J.R. & 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 perspectives (pp. 241–265). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Miller, C.R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151–162.

Moje, E.B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96–107.

Murray, D. (1968). A writer teaches writing: A practical method of teaching composition. Boston, MA: Houghton Miff lin.

Pytash. (2012). Engaging preservice teachers in disciplinary lit- eracy learning through writing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(6), 527–538.

Ravitch, D. (2012). My view of the Common Core stan- dards. Retrieved from http://dianeravitch.net/2012/ 07/ 09/ my-view-of-the-common-core-standards

Reid, I. (Ed.). (1987). The place of genre in learning. Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin.

Russell, D.R. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An ac- tivity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14(4), 504–554.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.

Smagorinsky, P., Johannessen, L., Kahn, E., & McCann, T. (2010). The dynamics of writing instruction: A structured pro- cess approach for middle and high school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

BOOKS: • Do I Really Have to Teach Reading? by Cris Tovani • Genre: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and

Pedagogy by Anis Bawarshi and Mary Jo Reiff • Genre Theory: Teaching, Writing, and Being by Deborah Dean • The Rhetoric and Ideology of Genre: Strategies for Stability

and Change, edited by Richard Coe, Lorelei Lingard, and Tatiana Teslenko

IRA ARTICLES: • “A Social Semiotics Framework for Conceptualizing

Content Area Literacies” by Amy Alexandra Wilson, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, March 2011

• “Disciplinary Literacies Across Content Areas: Supporting Secondary Reading Through Functional Language Analysis” by Zhihui Fang and Mary Schleppegrell, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, April 2010

• “Past and Future Directions in Content Area Literacies” by Tom Bean, David O’Brien, and Zhihui Fang, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, December 2012

• “Place-Based Essay Writing and Content Area Literacy Instruction for Preservice Secondary Teachers” by Mellinee Lesley and Marian Matthews, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, March 2009

More to Explore C O N N E C T E D C O N T E N T - B A S E D R E S O U R C E S

Copyright of Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.