English writing instructors' use of theories, genres, and activities: A survey of teachers’ beliefs and practices

IF 3.1 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of English for Academic Purposes Pub Date : 2024-04-17 DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101384
Matt Kessler , J. Elliott Casal
{"title":"English writing instructors' use of theories, genres, and activities: A survey of teachers’ beliefs and practices","authors":"Matt Kessler ,&nbsp;J. Elliott Casal","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101384","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In second language (L2) writing, the concept of <em>genre</em> has been an important construct. To date, multiple theories (sometimes referred to as <em>schools</em> or <em>approaches</em>) have driven a considerable amount of genre-based research and pedagogy, including: English for Specific Purposes (ESP), Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), and the New Rhetoric/Rhetorical Genre Studies (RGS) approach. Despite their growing prevalence, studies are needed that investigate the extent to which writing instructors adopt these theories in practice. This study addresses this issue by exploring 1) the genre-based theories that inform writing instructors’ pedagogies; 2) the different genres instructors teach in their classrooms; and 3) the types of pedagogical activities practitioners employ. To understand these phenomena, survey data (<em>N</em> = 141) and semi-structured interviews (<em>n</em> = 7) were collected from L2 English writing instructors. Findings show that ESP was the most well-known and adopted approach, followed by SFL and RGS. For written genres, most instructors reported teaching traditional, monomodal genres (e.g., argumentative essays), while digital multimodal genres were rare. This study discusses the implications of these findings, including developing teacher training, expanding pedagogies to include multimodal genres, and forging links between genres used in the classroom and those students will encounter in their lives.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"69 ","pages":"Article 101384"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475158524000523","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In second language (L2) writing, the concept of genre has been an important construct. To date, multiple theories (sometimes referred to as schools or approaches) have driven a considerable amount of genre-based research and pedagogy, including: English for Specific Purposes (ESP), Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), and the New Rhetoric/Rhetorical Genre Studies (RGS) approach. Despite their growing prevalence, studies are needed that investigate the extent to which writing instructors adopt these theories in practice. This study addresses this issue by exploring 1) the genre-based theories that inform writing instructors’ pedagogies; 2) the different genres instructors teach in their classrooms; and 3) the types of pedagogical activities practitioners employ. To understand these phenomena, survey data (N = 141) and semi-structured interviews (n = 7) were collected from L2 English writing instructors. Findings show that ESP was the most well-known and adopted approach, followed by SFL and RGS. For written genres, most instructors reported teaching traditional, monomodal genres (e.g., argumentative essays), while digital multimodal genres were rare. This study discusses the implications of these findings, including developing teacher training, expanding pedagogies to include multimodal genres, and forging links between genres used in the classroom and those students will encounter in their lives.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英语写作教师对理论、体裁和活动的运用:教师信念与实践调查
在第二语言(L2)写作中,体裁的概念一直是一个重要的概念。迄今为止,多种理论(有时称为流派或方法)推动了大量基于体裁的研究和教学,其中包括:特定目的英语(ESP)、系统功能语言学(SFL)和新修辞学:专门用途英语(ESP)、系统功能语言学(SFL)和新修辞学/修辞体裁研究(RGS)方法。尽管这些理论日益盛行,但仍需开展研究,调查写作指导教师在实践中采用这些理论的程度。本研究通过探究以下几个方面来解决这一问题:1)为写作指导教师的教学法提供依据的体裁理论;2)指导教师在课堂上教授的不同体裁;3)实践者采用的教学活动类型。为了解这些现象,我们收集了来自中级英语写作教师的调查数据(141 人)和半结构式访谈(7 人)。调查结果显示,ESP 是最广为人知和采用最多的教学方法,其次是 SFL 和 RGS。在书面体裁方面,大多数教师表示教授的是传统的单模态体裁(如议论文),而数字多模态体裁则很少见。本研究讨论了这些发现的影响,包括发展教师培训、扩大教学法以包括多模态体裁,以及在课堂上使用的体裁与学生在生活中会遇到的体裁之间建立联系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
81
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of English for Academic Purposes provides a forum for the dissemination of information and views which enables practitioners of and researchers in EAP to keep current with developments in their field and to contribute to its continued updating. JEAP publishes articles, book reviews, conference reports, and academic exchanges in the linguistic, sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic description of English as it occurs in the contexts of academic study and scholarly exchange itself.
期刊最新文献
“Contrary to findings from previous studies …”: Paradigmatic and ethnolinguistic influences on disagreement negotiation in research article discussions A situated analysis of English-medium education in a private business university: Insights from the ROAD-MAPPING framework Examining teacher-written conference abstracts: Rhetorical functions and syntactic complexity features Noun phrase complexity in English integrated writing placement test responses Developing advanced citation skills: A mixed-methods approach to corpus technology training for novice researchers
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1