Professional Writing Servicehttp://StudyHub.vip/A-Genre-Based-Approach-To-The-Teaching-

1. Englrsh for Specijic
Purposes, Vol. 10, pp. 3-13. 1991 0889.4%6/91$3.00 + .cMl
Pergamon Press plc. Pnnted m the USA Copynght Q 1991 The Amencan University zyxwvutsrqp
A Genre-Based Approach to the Teaching
of Report-Writing
Stewart Marshall zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWV
Abstract - Part of the EST/ESP teacher’s task is to help students acquire the
formal schemata required to produce scientific texts. But the teaching of
explicitly structured writing (e.g., report-writing) is important not only as a
means of teaching students how to express and present information effectively.
It is also a means of facilitating the development of scientific thinking. When
marking a technical report, the teacher must examine the extent to which the
student is able to utilize schematic structures to communicate his or her
scientific/engineering thinking. This article investigates the application of the
genre-based approach in the teaching of scientific and technical writing to L2
students, and also demonstrates how a genre for feedback on written reports
can be “created” and implemented with the aid of a “smak expert system.” zyxwvutsrqponmlk
Introduction
Science learning is a process of initiation into a new culture-making the
transition from the culture of “everyday thinking” to that of formal science
(Hawkins & Pea, 1987). This initiation is not just a matter of learning new
concepts and facts. The aspiring scientist has to acquire the linguistic and
communicative competence which will enable him or her to read, write, talk,
and think as a scientist. Clearly, EST/ESP teachers have an important role to
play in facilitating the development of this competence in science and technol-
ogy students.
A significant part of the scientist’s linguistic competence is the ability to
utilize his or her knowledge of the structure of scientific text so as to be able
to comprehend it effectively. Selinker et al. (1976) saw this as a major problem
for L2 students and many other researchers have commented on the need for
the explicit teaching of rhetorical structure so as to aid reading comprehension
(Carrell, 1983; Crookes, 1986; Swales, 1981; Widdowson, 1983).
There have been similar calls from those involved in the teaching of writing.
Explicit knowledge of genres (including knowledge of their rhetorical struc-
tures) enables teachers and students to be clear about the learning required
(Hammond, 1987). In Australia, a “genre-based” approach to the teaching of
writing to children has emerged to challenge the influential “process” and
“growth” approaches (Hammond, 1986; Moore, 1987).
In this article I investigate the application of the genre-based approach in the
teaching of scientific and technical writing to L2 students, and also demonstrate
how a “curriculum genre” (Christie, 1984) for feedback on written reports can
be “created” and implemented with the aid of a “small expert system.”
Address correspondence to: Stewart Marshall, Department of Language and Communication Studies, University
of Technology, Private Mail Bag, LAJZ,Papua New Guinea.
3

2. 4 S. Marshall zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVU
Schemata and the Comprehension of Scientific Texts
In the processing of a text the skilled reader actively organises his or her
experience of the text, using his or her knowledge of the world and of
previously encountered structurally similar texts to facilitate comprehension.
This organization of the text is achieved by means of memory structures called
“schemata.” Dosher and Corbett (1982, p. 84) describe a schema as:
a memory structure that represents abstract knowledge of an activity or
situation, components of the activity, and relations between the components.
Carrel1 (1983) distinguishes between content schemata, which deal with
general background knowledge, and formal schemata, which deal with the
rhetorical structure of language. The formal schemata are the:
genre-specific problem solving strategies which identify, locate and organize the
incoming information in accordance with our general knowledge about the
structure of the particular genre. (Hidi, Baird, and Hildyard, 1982. p. 71)
The work of Kintsch and van Dijk (1978, p. 375) suggests that if the reader
of a text does not have an appropriate formal schema then “the outcome of the
processing of the text will be haphazard” and comprehension and recall will be
impaired. With regard to EST/ESP students, Selinker et al. (1976) point out
that often it is not the lack of the vocabulary but the lack of knowledge of the
appropriate formal schemata which leads to poor comprehension. Part of the
EST/ESP teacher’s task is to help students acquire the appropriate formal
schemata.
To determine the formal schemata we need to analyse the particular genre
under consideration. Such studies of genre:
differ from traditional register or sub-register analysis in the importance they
attach to communicative purposes within a communicative setting. (Swales,
1981, p. 10).
For example, in his analysis of article introductions Swales (1981, 1984)
identifies four “moves”: establishing the field, summarising previous research,
preparing for the present research, and introducing the present research.
Crookes (1986) argues that if we are to use such analyses as a basis for
teaching, we must ensure that they reflect the actual discourse structure of the
target texts.
If we inculcate an inaccurate schema into our ESL/EST students concerning the
expectations they should have of a text, we are making their task harder, not
easier. (Crookes, 1986. p. 67)
He goes on to outline how we might validate the genre analysis on which we
base our teaching.
Crookes (1986) is, of course, referring to the teaching of reading, that is, of
providing strategies to aid comprehension. But what of the production of texts
in the particular gem-e? For example, will the teaching of the schemata

3. The Teaching of Report Writing zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYX
5
determined by a “validated analysis” of article introductions actually assist
students in the writing of article introductions? And will such teaching produce
“good” articles and introductions?
Genre Analysis and the Teaching of Scientific Writing
Genre analysis of actual texts presents us with a synchronic representation
of the genre as if it were homogeneous. This representation (whether validated
or not) does not reveal the variety of examples one finds in the genre-ones
which exemplify the representation, others which are totally dissimilar,
examples which are clear, others confused. It does not capture the fact that
participants in the genre have varying degrees of linguistic and communicative
competence. The representation also fails to capture the dynamic nature of a
genre. As teachers of the next generation of professionals, what and how we
teach will affect the way in which a particular genre changes. In a sense ESL
teachers and communication skills teachers of Ll learners have a role to play
in the creation of genres which are communicatively efictive.
Swales (1984) has applied the results of his analysis of article introductions
in his teaching of academic writing. His students reported that the work made
them “more critical and more perceptive readers of both their own work and
of articles in journals” @wales, 1984, p. 84). And this is what we want our
students to be-more critical and perceptive as readers and writers.
In recent years there has been considerable interest in the genre-based
approach to the teaching of English. As Hammond (1987, p. 164) explains:
One of the main concerns of this approach is to make explicit, to teachers and
students, knowledge about how the type of text (or genre) will vary according
to purpose, topic, audience and channel of communication.
This knowledge is not of formulaic structures but of the underlying mechanisms
which enable effective communication to take place. Genre-based teaching is
not a descriptive or prescriptive enterprise-it is a critical and evaluative
exercise in the creation of more effective structures. It necessarily involves
the teacher and students in making value judgements but then surely all
teaching involves this?
A Genre-based Approach to the Teaching of Structured Writing
The “four move pattern” of Swales (1981,1984) is used by Hall et al. (1987,
p. 153) as a means of “getting students to consider the fact that information can
be consciously structured.” Their course on writing research reports makes
explicit links between the formal schemata and the patterns of thought in
scientific writing. A similar approach has been adopted at the Papua New
Guinea University of Technology. On the Foundation Year in Engineering
(FYE), the teaching of explicitly structured writing is important not only as a
means of teaching students how to present information effectively but also as
a means of facilitating the development of scientific thinking.

4. 6 S. Marshall
In order to make the written assignments relevant to the rest of the FYE
students’ course, they are based on the “engineering practice” project work.
Each student spends approximately seven weeks on a project in each of the
three engineering areas, namely, Mechanical (making a kitchen-tools hanger),
Electrical (making a radio receiver), and Civil (making a model bridge)
(Marshall, 1988). The three assignments are written so as to exemplify three
important genres of engineering writing, namely, a work experience report, an
instruction manual, and a design, testing, and evaluation report.
The English course is designed and taught in a way which encourages
students to use basic principles of communication to decide how to write their
reports. Although there is some essential teacher input about language,
effective communication and the nature of the genre, wherever possible the
students discuss examples and arrive at a consensus on the principles to be
used in their writing. When the time arrives for work to commence on the
report, the students work cooperatively in small groups in the planning and
drafting stages. Although the final reports are presented individually, the
emphasis on cooperative work and peer group learning continues throughout
the writing process. Thus, before the final draft is produced students exchange
and comment on their reports.
The Genre of Feedback on Written Reports
A very important requirement of the report-writing programme is that the
students should receive extensive feedback from both language and engineer-
ing staff. Given the large number of reports (120+) to be assessed and the
necessity for many teachers to be involved in the marking, it is difficult to
ensure that feedback is extensive and consistent across the group. To
overcome this difficulty the four English teachers formulated a set of guidelines
regarding the content and structure of the feedback. In effect they created a
teaching genre or “curriculum genre” (Christie, 1984) of feedback.
The formal schema identified for the genre of feedback was as follows:
1.
2.
3. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
4.
5.
giving a qualitative evaluation;
stating what the student did well;
suggesting what needs improvement;
explaining the improvements required;
reminding the student of why it is important for the report to be written in
this way;
6. giving a quantitative evaluation.
Also agreed was a set of criteria and associated comments for the “Bridge-
building Report.” This set formed the content schema of the genre, namely,
the background knowledge of effective report-writing.
It was then relatively simple for the author to use these explicitly agreed
schemata to create a computer program to assist the English teachers in their
production of feedback on the students’ reports (Marshall, 1986). The program
was, in effect, a “small expert system” a computer program which contains

5. The Teaching of Report Writing
TABLE 1
Assessing the Procedure of a Report
Requirements present?
Not
present?
Improvement
Required?
The bridge design J J
Reasons for the design J
The construction
The testing method J
expert knowledge, which it can convey to a user in the form of advice or
information. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
An Expert in the Genre of Feedback
“BRIDGE” is a computer program designed to assist the FYE English
teachers in their marking of the reports about the design and testing of model
bridges. The program contains:
l a marking scheme comprising a list of the main features (title page, contents
page, summary, introduction, etc.) that should be present in the “Bridge-
building Report,” together with the possible marks to be allocated for those
features;
l a list of the items or qualities required for each main feature, together with
comments about each item or quality;
l a set of grade equivalences for deriving qualitative comments from quanti-
tative evaluations, e.g., 60% to 70% = “good”;
l a textual script for producing and formatting the lexical realizations of the
feedback.
The content of the feedback is created by the computer asking the teacher
if items (or qualities) are present in the particular report being marked. If an
item is present, the teacher is asked if it requires improvement. From this
information, lists are created and totals derived (see Table 1). Using this
information, the computer makes a quantitative evaluation for the section
under consideration. In the example given in Table 1, 50% of the marks would
be allocated, and thus using the grading equivalence this particular “procedure”
would receive the qualitative evaluation “average.”
During the “interrogation” the teacher is asked if he or she would like to
substitute his or her own comments for the ones already included in the
program, or to add any extra ones. These are then stored ready for inclusion
in the feedback. The program uses a “textual script” (see Figure 1) in order to
produce the actual printed feedback. Into this script are inserted the appro-
priate phrases as determined by the program after interrogating the teacher.
Thus, for the “Procedure” example given in Table 1, the actual comment

6. 8
( QUALITATIVE ) -
{ EVALUATION
S. Marshall
you included zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUT
r 7 1 4 PRESENT J
It would be better to zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTS
1 include also
:-
should also be zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXW
NOT } - { COMMENT 1 }
: COM%NT n ;
you could further improve this by looking
you could also look
I
again at
*
l
*
the following
the extent to which it is
[ jl:-
they are
IMPROVEMENT } - 4,COMMENT 1 t
LIST j COM%NT n f zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcba
Figure 1. Textual script for the feedback.
inserted into the “QUALITATIVE EVALUATION” slot in the script would be
randomly selected from six possible ways of saying “average.” The sentence
would then continue with “you included” followed by a list of the items present
in the “procedure” of this report, namely, “the bridge design, the construction
and the testing method.” Thus, the first paragraph might read:
“Proce6fwe
Could be better-you included the bridge design, the construction and the
testing method.”
The second paragraph of the feedback concerns those items not present in
the report. It starts with either “However” or “But” and continues with “it
would be better to” or “you should” followed by “include also: - .“ This is then
followed by a list of missing items together with a comment for each one. Thus,
our example might read:
“But it would be better to include also: -
l reasons for the design-you should give the specifications and say why you
chose your design.”
The third paragraph deals with those items which are present but which
require improvement. A phrase meaning “Look again at: -” is followed by the

7. The Teaching of Report Writing zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZ
9
list of items together with their associated comments. Thus, for our “pro-
cedure” example this paragraph might read:
“I think you could also look again at the following:-
l the bridge design-you need good digrams to explain the design;
l the testing method-a complete description of the test.”
If the student obtains a particularly low mark on a section of the report, the
feedback for that section concludes with a “remedial paragraph,” that is, for the
“procedure”:
Please remember that this section describes the steps you took to build your
bridge and test it in other words, how you attempted to achieve the aims of the
project.
After all the sections have been dealt with in this way, the computer
suggests a mark for the report. The total amount of feedback provided is two
to three sides of A4 paper (see the example in the Appendix).
Conclusion
Henzell-Thomas (1986, p. 506) warns that an over-emphasis on “packaging
skills” might produce:
students who value form over content, who are able to reproduce models of
canonical discourse structure in writing analytical reports but who have little
grasp of the topic they are writing about.
This danger willbe increased if the genre-based teaching programme is overly
prescriptive with regard to the formal schemata dealt with in the course. The
schematic structure must not be regarded as:
an arbitrary formula to be imposed on students in their writing. Knowledge of
schematic structures simply provides students with information on how language
works. (Hammond, 1987, p. 176).
By using this information, the English teacher can develop the students’
competence in “the procedural aspect of language use and learning” (Widdow-
son, 1983, p. 102).
In teaching the schematic structures appropriate to technical report-writing,
the English teacher needs to emphasize the relationship between these
structures and the basic principles of thought and communication (Hall et al.,
1987). When marking a technical report, the teacher must examine the extent
to which the student is able to utilize these structures to communicate his or
her scientific/engineering thinking. The “small expert system” “BRIDGE” can
assist the teacher in this genre-specific task.
Using “BRIDGE” does not reduce the amount of time the teacher spends on
each report-this remains about the same-but it does increase the quality and
quantity of feedback produced. By using the same script to interrogate the
teacher, “BRIDGE” ensures that the same criteria are applied in the marking

8. 10 S. Marshall
and writing of feedback for each report. This is particularly useful for courses
which are taught by several teachers. Also, the computer provides two to
three pages of typed and well-presented feedback which the student can
actually read. This amount of feedback is much more than would normally be
provided by teachers marking “by hand.” zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQ
(Received J
une 1990) zyxwvutsrqp
REFERENCES
Carrell, P.L. (1983). Some issues in studying the role of schemata, or
background knowledge, in second language comprehension. Reading in a
Foreign Language, 1, 2, 81-92.
Christie, F. (1984). Young children’s writing development: The relationship of
written genres to curriculum genres. In B. Bartlett and J. Carr (Eds.),
Language in education conference: A report of proceedings. Brisbane, Bris-
bane C.A.E.
Crookes, G. (1986). Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure.
Applied Linguistics, 7, 1, 57-70.
Dosher, B.A., & Corbett, A.T. (1982). Instrument inferences and verb
schemata. Memory and Cognition, 10, 6, 531-539.
Hall, D., Hawkey, R., Kenny, B., & Storer, G. (1987). Patterns of thought in
scientific writing: A course in information structuring for engineering
students. English for Specific Purposes, 5, 2, 147-160.
Hammond, J. (1987). An overview of the genre-based approach to the teaching
of writing in Australia. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 2,
163-181.
Hammond, J. (1986). Writing for different purposes with young ESL students.
In R. D. Walshe, P. March, and D. Jenson (Eds.). Writing and learning in
Australia. Melbourne, Dellasta Books.
Hawkins, J., & Pea, R.D. (1987). Tools for bridging the cultures of everyday
and scientific thinking. J
ournal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 4,
291-307.
Henzell-Thomas, J. (1985). Learningfrom informative text: Prediction Protocols
As A Means Of Accessing The Interaction between top-down and bottom-up
processes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Lancaster.
Hidi, S., Baird, W., & Hildyard, A. (1982). That’s important but is it
interesting? Two factors in text processing. In: A. Flammer and W. Kintsch
(Eds.). Discourse processing. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Towards a model of discourse
comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 5, 363-394.
Marshall, S. (1986). An intelligent marking assistant: An application of artificial
intelligence in teaching. Higher Education Research and Development, 5, 2,
201-211.
Marshall, S. (1988). A bridge between cultures: Solving problems in engineer-
ing education in Papua New Guinea. International J
ournal of Applied
Engineering Education, 4, 2.

9. The Teaching of Report Writing zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXW
11
Moore, H. (1987). Process, outcome and language education: A discussion. zyxwvutsrqp
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 2, 128-162.
Selinker, L., Todd, R.M., & Trimble, L. (1976). Presuppositional rhetorical
information in EST discourse. TESOL Quarterb, 10, 3.
Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Aston ESP Research
Reports No 1. Language Studies Unit, The University of Aston in Birming-
ham.
Swales, J. (1984). Research into the structure of introductions to journal
articles and its application to the teaching of academic writing. Common
Ground: Shared Interests in ESP and Communication Studies. ELT Docu-
ments 117. Pergamon Press, 77-86.
Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learning Purpose and Language Use. OUP.
Appendix
John Smith
Below are typed some comments about the communicative effectiveness of
your BRIDGE REPORT. On your report, you will find red circles where
mistakes in English occur. Please correct these in order to obtain extra marks.
1. Title Page:
This is good-you included the title, who wrote it and when it was
completed.
But it would be better to also include:
l who it is for-this is a sort of distribution list.
2. Contents Page:
I think this is very good-you included the list of sections and page
numbers.
3. Summary:
Could be much improved-you included the important points and the
conclusions and recommendation.
But you should include also:
l the purpose(s)- what exactly are you seeking to do?
Maybe you could also look again at the following:
l the important points-should contain a brief description of what was
done and what was found;
l the conclusions and recommendation-what are the main ones that the
decision-maker needs to know quickly? They should be specific, i.e.,
mention loads, etc.
Don’t forget-the Summary allows readers to decide whether or not to
read the whole report, focuses their attention on the important points, and
enables decision-makers to obtain essential information quickly.
4. Introduction:
I think this is quite good-you included the background to the project and
the aims.

10. 12 S. Marshall
But you should include also:
l the plan of the report-create a “map” for the reader.
5. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
Aims:
I think this is not bad-they are satisfactorily expressed.
But they should also be:
l listed and numbered-include the most important aims and number
them for ease of reference.
Don’t forget-it is important to show that you understand the purpose of
the tests, so express the aims in your own clear words.
6. Equipment and Materials:
Very pleased to see you included the equipment used and the materials
used.
7. Procedure:
This is good-you included the bridge, design, reasons for the design, the
construction and the testing method.
Possibly you could further improve this by looking again at:
l reasons for the design-you should give the specifications and say why
you chose your design.
8. Test Results:
Not bad, you included observations and comparisons.
However, it would be better to include also:
l calculations -e.g., show your calculation of the bridge rating;
l interpretations and comments-how do you account for the difference in
performance of the bridges?
Please remember that this section describes what you observed and what
your interpretations are, i.e., the evidence for your conclusions and
recommendations. It should give credibility to your report.
9. Visual Aids:
I think this is quite good-they are well drawn, labelled, numbered and
captioned.
But they should also be:
l suitably placed in text -should be at a suitable point in the text and be
referred to.
Possibly you could also look again at the extent to which they are:
l labelled-your reader needs to see at a glance what each item in the
diagram is.
Note-diagrams placed in the relevant sections would help explain the
design, construction, testing, etc.
10. Conclusions:
Could be much improved-they are relative to the aims. However, they
should also be:
l expressed as a checklist-numbered sentences are best here;
l comprehensive-you should cover all the aims stated.
I think you could also look again at the extent to which they are:
l relative to the aims- what about the specific conclusions about this
bridge?

11. The Teaching of ReportWriting 13
Remember-this section should summarise the results obtained and so
focus the mind of the reader.
Il. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
Recommendations:
I like this-you included consideration of strength and consideration of
cost.
I think you could further improve this by looking again at:
0 consideration of cost -you should try to make sure that the redesigned
bridge is not “over-designed” as this could mean spending extra money
needlessly.
Overall mark out of 20 = 12
Stewart Marshall is Professor and Head of the Department of Language
and Communication Studies at the Papua New Guinea University of Technol-
ogy. Originally he was qualified as an electrical engineer and worked for the
Central Electricity Generating Board in the United Kingdom. He left engineer-
ing to study and then teach philosophy and communication studies. Coauthor of
the book Exercises in Teaching Communication, London: Kogan Page, (1986),
his main research interest is in communication skills teaching.