Rundle

Poster Presentation

Teaching-Learning Cycles: A GenreSpecific Pedagogy

Colin F. Rundle
Soka University
Genre approaches to text analysis have contributed greatly to analysis andteaching of texts in ESP. Genre analysis places both textual and grammaticalstructures in specific contexts, highlighting the logic of those structures and theirpractical applications. While genre is a well established tool for practitionersof ESP (Bhatia, 1993; Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Swales, 1990; Swales &Feak, 1994), teaching-learning cycles are less well established. Thus, this paper
describes how the teaching-learning cycle is applied to a procedure genre in ascience and engineering university writing class.

The Teaching-Learning Cycle

The Teaching-Learning Cycle (Hyland, 2006; Paltridge, 2001) or CurriculumCycle (Gibbons, 2002) grew out of the Sydney School of genre studies as an“explicit teaching” alternative to process approaches to writing in order toempower marginalized primary school students (Gibbons, 2002). It is Vygotskian
as it mediates language through social interactions, as indicated in the outer-ringof Figure 1. The double-headed arrows indicate that mediation switches flexibly
among teacher-class, teacher-student, and student-student, contingent on needs
and abilities at each stage. The four main stages are building the field, modelling
the text, joint construction, and individual construction, shown in the secondring of Figure 1. Double-headed arrows link each stage in the cycle, indicatingthat activities may flow back and forth between the stages as needed. Arrows
pointing from the outer ring to the core indicate that as the cycle progresses and194

Teaching-Learning Cycles, OnCUE Journal, 11(2), pages 194-200is repeated, individual linguistic competence and thinking processes develop
through interactions and shared experiences among participants (Hyland, 2006;Paltridge, 2001; Rose, 2012).
In the unit discussed here, social interactions and shared experiences areafforded by applying the cycle to a practical science and engineering group project
which provides the content for a written procedure text. The main objective isa written description of how students built a simple electric motor in groupsof two to four. The cultural and social contexts of the genre are highlighted as
students recast relatively simple “situationally embedded” spoken procedure
instructions into a more elaborated, abstract, written procedure description(Gibbons, 2002, p. 42). The project described here constitutes a five- to six-weekunit of a 15-week course which meets once a week for 90 minutes, with six to 16
students typically between 350 to 600 TOEIC level.

Building the Field

To begin, the topic, context and specific vocabulary are introduced to “build thefield.” This project begins by showing a photograph of a finished motor fromFigure 1. The Teaching-Learning Cycle (Hammond et al., 1992, in Paltridge, 2001, p. 31).

195

Rundlethe Hila Science Projects (n.d.) website. The transcript of the accompanying
YouTube video was divided into stages, and the steps were jumbled. Groups ofstudents then completed several tasks. The first task raises awareness of the basic
process and content vocabulary as follows.
1. Study a list of electric motor materials and parts and a picture of thecompleted motor.
2. Check vocabulary.
3. Discuss jumbled steps of process taken from the YouTube video
instructions and begin to put the steps in order.
This is followed up at home and then checked in the next class as follows.
1. Watch YouTube video at home.
2. Put steps in correct order.
3. Note verb forms and tense.
4. Enter new vocabulary into vocabulary notebooks.
5. Check with peers and teacher in next class.
The video is a spoken procedure, not written, so the language forms andstructures are comparatively simple imperatives and a chronological list of steps.
In addition, the video greatly facilitates comprehension while establishing thecontext as a typical scientific laboratory setting. In this way, a basic process genre
is introduced along with the language and the social setting of a simple technicalproject.

Modelling the Text

Next, the structure and linguistic features of the written genre are introduced
by analyzing a model of the same genre in a similar but simpler field, making
a slingshot. For consistency, the model is introduced in a spoken mode first,
which is then compared and contrasted with a written example (Figure 2). In thisway the linguistic and stylistic similarities in the modes (sequence transitions,purpose, method, means) and differences, such as the more complex grammar(passives not imperatives, past not present tense), more elaborate description
to compensate for lack of visual support (“after securing them …,” not “after that…”), and more formal vocabulary (“was tied in order to secure them,” not “to join
196Teaching-Learning Cycles, OnCUE Journal, 11(2), pages 194-200them”) are highlighted. These tasks are also completed in groups, as follows.
1. Read through spoken instructions of how to make slingshot.
2. Discuss with group members.
3. Reconstruct a jumbled written description of how to make a slingshot.
4. Identify the genre features on a checklist.
5. Discuss how the spoken and written texts differ, and possible reasons forthe differences.

Joint Construction of the Text

The students have now examined two spoken procedures and one written
procedure, and they also have been introduced to electric motor vocabulary.
They now use the spoken description that they saw on YouTube and re-assembled
when “building the field” to build a motor. One member of the group is assigned
as note-taker and keeps detailed “lab-notes” of how the group actually builds themotor, not just copying the basic instructions. Each group experiences uniqueproblems while building the inherently unstable motor and must solve them inunique ways. Thus, no two groups will have exactly the same procedure. Groups

Figure 2. Spoken and written procedure models.

197

Rundlemake an electric motor as follows.
1. Use instructions from YouTube for language and technical reference(constructed in reordering activity and reinforced in video when building
the field).
2. Make lab notes (fill in a flow chart handout)• What they actually did• Include problems and solutions (debugging)In addition, notes are also kept on up to three tests and a comparison of
the motors to determine whether they meet the performance specification(spin unaided for one minute) and to determine which group’s motor spins
the longest. This testing also further differentiates each group’s notes, which
individual students use as an outline for producing the written procedure genre
in the next stage. In this task, groups take notes as they time how long the motor
runs and compare each group’s motor and determine the “best” motor.
Before moving on to individual construction of the text, groups complete
exercises to change the spoken instructions for building the electric motor into
written forms. These exercises focus primarily on forming passive structures,
especially in the past tense. The most challenging and interesting feature here is
the large number of irregular verbs that students must transform from imperatives
to passives. In a traditional grammar lesson, this would be a mechanical and dulltransformation. However, in this rich context, students have just performed theactions, so they are actively engaged in accurately representing their actions, as
would detail-oriented scientists.
They are fully engaged as they consider the form and pronunciation of verbs
such as “wind-wound-wound” (the coil wire), “spin-spun-spun” (the coil), or“cut-cut-cut” (the copper wire, aluminum sheet, etc.). They also have a chance toconsolidate important notions from both modes, such as method (by verb-ing),
tool (with a box-cutter), or purpose (to/in order to secure the bracket). Students
may also be given exercises for extra practice with the linguistic and stylisticfeatures, such as changing imperatives to past tense passives, completing a tableof irregular verbs, and completing a cloze exercise with appropriate forms formethod, tool, or purpose.
198

Teaching-Learning Cycles, OnCUE Journal, 11(2), pages 194-200

Independent Construction of the Text

After groups have collaboratively built their motor, compiled detailed notes on
how their motor was built and tested, and practiced important linguistic forms,
each student produces a written explanation of how the group made the motor.
This is a standard three-draft process in which individuals write a first draft fromtheir group notes. This is peer-checked, and then individuals write a second drafton which the teacher gives individual feedback. Finally, each student submits
the final draft for grading. While this is an independent stage, students stillcollaborate by describing the same process, sharing the same outline, and peer
reviewing their first drafts. The amount of collaboration and sharing may invite
copying, but I have not found this to be common.

Conclusion

The teaching-learning cycle ensures that genres are scaffolded systematicallyso that students become familiar with and gain control of genre features. It isintuitive and can readily be adapted to a wide range of levels, genres and projects.
Indeed, the example outlined here is adapted to suit various classes. For example,
sometimes the electric motor texts are used as models for a group project to build
and test the slingshot. In other classes, the same procedure genre is embedded intoa lab report “macro genre” along with other “micro-genres” (Woodward-Kron,2005) such as extended definitions. Creative teachers and students will find anumber of similar projects to fit into the cycle, thereby creating communities ofmotivated, collaborative language learners.

References

Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings.
London, England: Longman.
Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specificpurposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching
second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH:199

RundleHeinemann.
Hila Science Projects. (n.d.). Electromagnet, Basic Speaker, Electric Motor.
Retrieved from http://hilaroad.com/camp/projects.html
Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book.
London, England: Routledge.
Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the language learning classroom. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Rose, D. (2012). Genre in the Sydney school. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford(Eds.) The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 209-225). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Acourse for nonnative speakers of English. Ann Arbor, MI: The University ofMichigan Press.
Woodward-Kron, R. (2005). The role of genre and embedded genres in tertiary
students’ writing. Prospect, 20(3), 24-41.

Author bio

Colin Rundle teaches English for science and engineering in the World Language
Center at Soka University and ESP in Soka’s MATESOL program. He has taught
for 25 years in Australia, Indonesia, and Japan, promoting learner autonomy andacademic literacy through socio-cultural approaches. rundle@soka.ac.jp
Received: September 30, 2017
Accepted: November 10, 2018200