【Research Article】

A Social-Material Approach to Teaching L2 Writing:Visual Analysis to Develop Rhetorical Knowledge in L2 Writing
Masakazu Mishima
Abstract
In this paper, I will propose a teaching approach to develop EFL writers’ knowledge of rhetorical situations, which canbe applied to (potentially) facilitate writing and/or any other modes of communication. The approach capitalizes onvisual analysis as a major activity. It is tightly intertwined with L1 rhetoric and composition research, which has madean extensive influence on L1/L2 writing instruction. It is also based upon a theory of social semiotics, and genre
approach being widely adopted in various research fields (e.g., applied linguistics, art, education, and visual designs).
The paper presents the results of an action research study, which examined L2 writers’ responses to a visual analysis
activity. It discusses the potential benefits of visual analysis as a means to facilitate L2 writing instruction in thecontext of higher education in Japan.
Keywords: L2 writing instruction, visual analysis, rhetorical situations, rhetorical genre theory perspective, social
semiotic approach

Introduction
As we attempt to communicate in any form, we are undoubtedly under the influence—notnecessarily drinking, however—from an indefinite number of factors. An act of communication
is not an act of a person isolated from the rest of the world but deeply situated within with its allcomplexities. Writing, for instance, does not merely start in the mind of the writer trapped in adark chamber with no light and sound. The proficient writer strategically uses available resourcesin the environment, including linguistic resources (e.g., grammar, vocabulary, and other stylistic/mechanical ‘visual notations’), to weave their thoughts into a text. Attributes of the writer—age,
gender, and identity, and social and cultural contexts of writing—purpose, power, audience, andgenre-specific conventions exert a powerful influence on the writer’s decision making in writing(Hyland, 2007). Furthermore, a medium of written communication (e.g., handwriting or typing),
which requires non-human objects (e.g., the pencil, paper, computer, and keyboard), is inseparably
linked to a writing activity and ultimately to the final written product. Communicating in writing isthen unequivocally a social act as many have contended over the years (Bitzer, 1968; Cooper, 1986;
Lewontin, Rose, & Kamin, 1984; Myers, 1985; Vatz, 1973). However, it is more than just social as it
inevitably includes common materiality—non-human objects which make an act of writing sociallyand materially bound, and so it can be shared.

English Writing Education in Japan
In Japanese English language writing education at the secondary school level, the major contents
and skills to be taught have been geared toward developing grammar and vocabulary knowledge
since the introduction of the Grammar Translation (GT) method (Morita, 2017). The GT method usedin teaching English primarily focuses on understanding the grammatical structure of the language,
and by its extension, it is often coupled with a simple sentence writing and/or translation task63

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 1 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 1）(English to Japanese or vice versa). Accordingly, many secondary school students are rarely exposed
to essay writing, whether it is paragraph-level writing or beyond. In contrast, once students enter
universities, the types of writing which they are expected to learn presents a sudden paradigm shift
and a significant challenge—the shift from writing to learn grammar and vocabulary for various highstake exams (e.g., university entrance exams) to writing to communicate to an academic audience.
Although MEXT’s English education reforms are currently underway (see Nitta & Yamamotoin this volume, for an overview), many Japanese university students, if not all, can be seen as‘underprepared’ to take on the kinds of writing tasks often required at higher education. In orderto ease the burden on Japanese English learners as they make their way into writing in and to an
academic community, providing a concrete conceptual framework for written communication (i.e., therhetorical situation) may well be highly valuable.
In this paper, I will propose a teaching approach to ESL/EFL writing based upon the premisethat writing is a social-material practice. In particular, the approach aims to develop English language
learners’ understanding of rhetorical situations via visual analysis. In an attempt to introduce theteaching approach, the current paper first provides an overview of the importance of understanding
rhetorical situations in written communication. Then, it moves to discuss a major theoreticalframework derived from two different theories—social semiotic approach (SSA) and rhetorical genre
theory—which underpins the proposition. Finally, it presents the teaching approach and explores
its potential benefits along with an example of classroom activity and relevant data from an action
research study conducted in a writing class at a Midwestern university in the US.

An Overview: The Rhetorical Situation
The Greek word ‘rhetoric’ is as old as 2,000 years. While the meaning of the word has gone
through a radical transformation, it originally meant ‘strategies to persuade’ as Aristotle proclaimed(Kennedy, 1991). In the fields of L1 composition and rhetoric, and later in L2 writing, the concept ofrhetoric underwent a close scrutinization, and now it is a well-established framework of reference,
particularly in relation to understanding what it means to write (Johns, 1990).
In writing, rhetorical situations are often considered an essential domain of knowledge in order tolay a solid conceptual and perceptual ground for novice writers to engage in effective writing practice(Ferris & Hedgcock, 2004). The term ‘rhetorical situation’ was first introduced in the late 1960s by
Lloyd Bitzer, a philosopher, and scholar. Bitzer (1968) views that the writer (or in his word, ‘rector’)is fundamentally constrained by a variety of situational factors, and he developed a framework to
overview the nature of such constraints. In contemporary rhetoric and writing studies, the frameworkhas been influenced by Aristotle’s original proposition of rhetoric, and it is widely understood as
containing five major elements1—the purpose, audience, stance, genre, and medium (see Bullock,
Goggin, & Weinberg, 20192 for more details on the elements). However, we (the writer) are notnecessarily aware of these elements if not formally taught. We may assume that there is freedom ofspeech or of writing (at least in some parts of the world), but whenever we write to communicate,
we become inescapably social (hence, constrained) especially if we wish to convey the message
1 These elements have been variously defined and introduced in the process of ongoing debate/discussion, and additional
elements may be included or some elements may be removed depending on how one defines the rhetorical situation (see,Johns, 2011).
2 In order to avoid overly scholastic discussions on the notion of the rhetorical situation, I intentionally refer here to a widely
circulated composition textbook which incorporates the rhetorical situation as a central pedagogical framework.

64

A SOCIAL-MATERIAL APPROACH TO TEACHING L2 WRITING

as effectively as possible to the assumed audience. The concept of the rhetorical situation denotes
writing as a social act, and it helps us effectively participate in the act by guiding us with essential
landmarks throughout our composing processes.

Social Semiotic Approach
The SSA is a theory of social meaning-making in communication wherein sings (i.e., images) andtexts are inseparably linked to one another. The theory stemmed from Halliday’s highly influential
theories of language as social semiotic and Systemic Functional Linguistics (Halliday, 1978; Halliday& Matthiessen, 2004). Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) argued that meaning-making in society
contains three essential metafunctions—the ideational, interpersonal, and textual. The theories
were later extended to visual mode of communication by Kress and van Leeuwen (2001, 2006) byhighlighting that visuals or images can communicate ideologies and discourses as much as a verbal
or written mode of communication.
A formal theorization of meaning-making potentials ascribed to images was further developed towhat Jewitt (2009) referred to as a ‘multiplicity of communication modes,’ which includes a numberof socially and bodily shaped modes of communication such as gesture, movement, and even music(i.e., social semiotic resources). Suffice it to say that one major contribution of the SSA is its broader
conceptualization of meaning-making in communication, which is not limited to texts or speech.
The second important tenet of the SSA is ‘social context.’ In the SSA, a social context is viewed asa box of tools wherein communicators use available semiotic resources for meaning-making. What is
to be noted is that a social context does not necessarily confine the ways in which people use semiotic
resources, and the shape of the box itself and tools within maintain potentiality for transformation, asa society and its practice may change over a period of time. Accordingly, Jewitt (2009), for instance,
argued that social semiotic practices are dynamic open systems rather than static and closed.
The third and fourth tenets of the SSA—‘the motivated sign’ and ‘interest’—focus on thesignifier/communicator who, with their own interests, beliefs, and values, decides how to use
semiotic resources for a specific communicative purpose within the perceived conventions of a social
context (Kress, 1993). A similar concept to these tenets is the notion of ‘agency,’ which has been
receiving significant attention in applied linguistics and other related fields. According to Emirbayer
and Mische (1998), agency is defined as:a temporally embedded process of social engagement, informed by the past (in its habitual
aspect), but also oriented toward the future (as a capacity to imagine alternative possibilities)
and toward the present (as a capacity to contextualize past habits and future projects within thecontingencies of the moment). (p. 963)
In summation, the most notable contribution of the SSA is its extensive conceptualization of what
communication is and how it is conducted. It includes not only conventional written (i.e., textual) andspoken (i.e., verbal) modes of communication, but also additional modes of communication via visual
images and/or other non-human objects, which provide an important theoretical ground for researchand teaching practice in increasingly multimodal society.

65外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 1 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 1）

Rhetorical Genre Theory
Another important theoretical ground for the to-be proposed approach to teaching L2 writing is
the rhetorical genre theory, which has been widely adopted for research and education (e.g., Johns,
2002; Macbeth, 2010; Tardy, 2009). Hyland (2007) succinctly defined the genre as “abstract, sociallyrecognized ways of using language” (p. 149). Genre theories are not a uniform theory, as there are atleast three different schools of genre theory: English for Specific Purposes (ESP), Sydney School, andRhetorical Genre Studies (RGS) (see Hyon, 1996, for discussions of the three different schools andtheir orientations). While the notion of genre holds multitudes of perspectives, one common groundfor most genre theorists is that they view the genre as a social practice. This view is comparable to
the SSA. In relation to writing practice, the genre theories can illuminate our understanding of what
it means to be skilled at writing. And in relation to teaching writing, it demystifies our (often) overly
simplified understanding of what it means to teach writing—it is certainly not only about teaching
linguistic norms and/or conventions.
In relation to the point above, one of the most pervasive and perhaps neglected issues in teaching
L2 writing at higher education in Japan is the questionable assumption that there is a uniform
agreement to and practice of academic writing regardless of disciplinary differences. The notion ofgenre, however, challenges the reductionist approach to teaching writing, as one of its essential tenets
postulates writing as a form of socially specific communication practice; it is situated in the context
where writing happens (Tardy, 2012).
Genre theory also has an important implication for L2 writing development or, more precisely,
what constitutes writing ability. Tardy (2012), for example, offers one of the most explicit discussions
on the essential components of writing ability from a perspective of genre theory. According to her,writing ability consists of four major domains of genre knowledge: (a) rhetorical knowledge, (b)subject-matter knowledge, (c) formal knowledge, and (d) process knowledge (see Figure 1). She
further describes what each of the domains represents as follows:
A multidimensional model of genre knowledge must include at least a knowledge of theprocesses of carrying out the genre (process knowledge), the content or subject-matter of thegenre (subject-matter knowledge), the rhetorical dynamics at play (rhetorical knowledge), andthe conventional discursive and linguistic forms (formal knowledge). (Tardy, 2009 as cited in
Tardy, 2012, p. 168)
Rhetorical
Knowledge

FormalKnowledge

Writing
Expertise

SubjectMatter
Knowledge

Process
Knowledge

Figure 1. Writing expertise from a genre perspective. Adapted from Tardy (2012, p. 169).

66

A SOCIAL-MATERIAL APPROACH TO TEACHING L2 WRITING

In relation to the overview of the rhetorical situation presented earlier, what I would like to highlighthere again is that the writing expertise encapsulates the rhetorical knowledge as an important domainof knowledge for effective written communication.

Teaching the Rhetorical Situation via Visual Analysis
In this section, I will propose an approach to teaching rhetorical situations to novice L2 writers inan accessible and potentially engaging manner. The approach uses visual analysis as a major activity
through which students are expected to learn five different elements of the rhetorical situation to laya solid foundation to engage in effective L2 writing practice. The section also discusses how the twotheories—the SSA and genre—are relevant to the approach as its pedagogical rationale.

Visual Analysis Activity to Develop Rhetorical Knowledge
Visual analysis is widely practiced in multimodal discourse studies, which attempt to analyze
and interpret how text and image are integratively used to communicate an intended message (e.g.,
Dreyfus, Hood, & Stenglin, 2011; Ventola & Guijarro, 2009). Studies conducted from a perspective of
the SSA examines, for instance, a product advertisement, by describing both the visual and textual
elements present in the advertisement while paying attention to the specific cultural and social context
in which the subject of the research is situated (Wong, 2018).
The SSA’s basic theoretical tenet functions as a bridge between text and image relationships.
However, the analytical approach used in the SSA does not necessarily contain explicit rhetoricalanalysis. This is where the rhetorical genre theory becomes important, as the goal of the visual
analysis in L2 writing classrooms aims to develop L2 writers’ rhetorical knowledge; the SSA provides atheoretical backdrop to highlight visual-text connectivity, and the rhetorical genre theory provides ananalytical framework to interpret visual and/or textual materials. These two independent yet related
theories of communication together provide the theoretical rationale for the use of visual analysis toenhance L2 writers’ rhetorical knowledge, which feeds into their L2 writing activity.

Visual Analysis Activity in L2 Writing Classrooms
In rhetorical genre analysis, researchers often use predetermined elements of the rhetoricalsituation as an analytical framework to interpret a text and/or image. As a potential classroom activity,
students can examine different types/genres of visual images from the perspectives of five rhetoricalsituations—the purpose, audience, stance, genre, and medium. As a practical example, Table 1 below
provides concise definitions of each of the five rhetorical elements and guiding questions to conduct
a rhetorical analysis of any visual/textual material. After students are introduced to the basic conceptof the rhetorical situation and its elements, they can start searching for an image, whether it is digitalor printed. Then, they can proceed to analyze the image by using the guiding questions.
In order to further describe the activity, see below for an advertisement for a popular fast-foodfranchise (Figure 2), and let us consider how each of the guiding questions above can help analyze therhetorical situations of the advertisement.
The first rhetorical situation is the purpose. In this advertisement, the primary purpose is topromote the McDonald’s new delivery service (i.e., McDelivery). Since it is about food delivery
service, the expected audience—the second rhetorical situation—is most likely hungry customers.
67

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 1 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 1）

Table 1
List of Rhetorical Situations and Guiding Questions for Rhetorical Analysis
RhetoricalSituations

Definition

Guiding Questions

PurposeWhat authors aim to achieve with the visual/textual materia

What is the intended communicative purpose of
the visual/textual material?

Audience

The intended audience of the visual/textual
material

Who is the intended audience of the visual/textual material?

StancePosition of authors in relation to audience,
topic, and situational context

How do authors position themselves in relation
to audience, topic, and situational context?
How do these three elements affect the way inwhich authors communicate?

Genre

Generally accepted form and category ofcommunication to a specific audience/
community

What is the genre of the visual/textual material?

MediumPlatforms in which visual/textual materials
are delivered to the audience (e.g., email)How is the visual/textual material delivered tothe audience?

All of the above

The collective impact of the five rhetoricalsituations upon how authors attempt tocommunicate their intended message

How do all five components of the rhetoricalsituation collectively affect the way in which theintended message is communicated?

The third rhetorical situation is the stance. A stance is determined by the interrelations
between the author, topic, situational context, and audience. In the center of the image, you can see
McDonald’s signature nuggets stacked up with a small plastic cup of ketchup—notice one of thenuggets in the front is sliced in half to show that your familiar nugget is ready for your mouth. To
slightly left in the image is another signature product—McFries, and behind the nuggets is a large
paper bag with three logos—McDelivery and its two associated delivery companies: Uber Eats andDoorDash. Finally, the right to the center is a cup of soda.
This fairly straightforward description of the image above can tell us that the topic is about
McDonald’s products, which can be delivered to you. In addition, since rhetorical stance is about
taking a position to develop an argument to persuade an assumed audience to agree with the position,
the stance, in this case, is to persuade the audience (i.e., customers) to use McDelivery service andorder food.
As for the situational context, it can be analyzed from both the audience’s and rector’s situations.
Although the image itself does not provide any meaningful indicator of the situation, on the same

Figure 2. A popular fast-food restaurant delivery service advertisement. Reprinted from
McDonald’s, 2020, https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us.html. Copyright [2017–2020]
by McDonald’s. Reprinted with permission.

68

A SOCIAL-MATERIAL APPROACH TO TEACHING L2 WRITING

website from which the image was retrieved, there was a statement in regard to the ravaging
COVID-19 situation. From the statement, it is possible to infer that the new delivery service isadvertised in response to the lockdown order being implemented across the nation to contain the
wildly spreading epidemic, which serves as a shared social pretext for both the rector and audiences.
Onto the fourth rhetorical situation, the genre of the image is a commercial product andservice advertisement. One major convention of the genre is to promote a product or service so that
customers purchase it. To signify the aspect of the genre, communicators in this genre often highlightthe potential benefits of their product for the audience. In the example presented above, notice thestatement on the right-hand side of the image, which states, “Get all your McDonalds’ favorites
delivered right to your doorstep …” This is one potential benefit of the service—you can receive your“favorites” without ever leaving your home.
The last rhetorical situation is medium. The advertisement above is delivered through a digital
medium—the internet. Every single element of the website—the layout, images, and texts, has
to be integratively used to communicate to an intended audience. The choice of medium places
certain restrictions/constraints on communicators and audiences. For instance, web designing isfundamentally different from designing a physical commercial advertisement (e.g., flyer and poster)
without any digital tools. From color scheme to use of images, choice of font types to layout, it is
far less (physically) restricted; as far as the platform allows, you can use an indefinite number ofcolors, text styles, images, and layouts. However, from the audience’s standpoint, platforms they
use to access the website may differ significantly—they may access the website via smartphones,
iPhones, PCs, laptops and/or tablets with a variety of specifications (e.g., screen size and resolution).
Under such conditions, communicating to audiences on different platforms may become a cause ofconcern—the communicator needs to ensure the original website’s integrity when it reaches the eyesof different audiences so that the intended message is faithfully communicated to them.
As briefly demonstrated above, a visual analysis from a perspective of rhetorical situations
provides us with a systematic means to explore the roles of images and texts in communication,and their intended message (i.e., co-constructed meaning). However, it is important to note thata rhetorical analysis does not always yield the same result—there is a possibility for alternate
explanations and interpretations. The visual analysis exercise then is not about finding definitive
answers but seeking potential ones with the available information. Such analytical activity can help
students to engage deeply with the communicator in the process of critically analyzing an object tounderstand how an image and/or text co-constructs potential meaning. This particular analytical lens
can then be adopted to understand various genres of written texts (e.g., academic essays) with which
we, as instructors, often need to help students become familiar. Furthermore, students can use thesame analytical lens to better manage their writing with clear directions in regard to what to consider
when writing to communicate.
As a summative task of the visual analysis activity, students can share the results in various
formats. For example, you may direct your students to give an individual presentation or conduct agroup discussion to share their findings.
Table 2 below summarizes a possible step-by-step flow of the visual analysis activity and its
associated tasks.

69

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 1 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 1）

Table 2The Visual Analysis Activity: Possible Activity Flow
Activity Step

Task Descriptions

Step 1Introduction to the rhetorical situation: it can be done as a reading task, discussion, brief lecture,or all of the above. Explain/Demonstrate how to conduct a rhetorical analysis of visual materials.

Step 2Visual analysis preparation: Assign students to find any visual materials on the web or in the field(e.g., stations, restaurants, and stores). Print out if the material is from the web or take a photo if thematerial is from the field.

Step 3Visual analysis: Direct students to analyze the material in terms of five rhetorical situations:purpose, audience, stance, genre, and medium.

Step 4

Post visual analysis: Give a short presentation, write a brief report/reflection, and/or hold adiscussion to share the results of visual analysis.

Voices From Students: Visual Analysis in Action
I conducted an action research study in a freshman ESL composition classroom at a Midwestern
university in the US. The purpose of the research was two-fold: one was to examine my own
feedback practice, and another was to understand students’ perceptions of a visual analysis activity
in developing their rhetorical knowledge and writing skills. As for the former, the results havealready been reported in the form of a research brief (see Mishima, 2013). The following presents
the previously unpublished results from the latter portion of the study, which examined students’
responses to a visual analysis activity in relation to their rhetorical knowledge and writing skill
development.

MethodParticipants
Data were collected from a total of 15 students—14 Chinese and one Indian—in a freshman
ESL composition class. In one class session, the researcher explained the purpose of the study to allstudents and asked for voluntary participation. All 15 students signed a consent form and participatedin the study.

Study Context
The freshman ESL composition class required students to attend two 90-min lessons every weekduring the entire course of the semester. One lesson period was reserved for regular classroom
sessions, and the other was for individual writing conference sessions at which each student
discussed their writing with the instructor.
In the 1st week, all of my students were introduced to the concept of the rhetorical situation. In
addition, as an ice-breaking activity, they were assigned to create and present a slideshow with theirpersonal photos to introduce themselves to the class. In the following week, students presented theirslideshows and conducted a rhetorical analysis of their visual products. After the analysis, they weredirected to write a short report using the guiding questions presented earlier in Table 1.

Data Collection
In the 3rd week of the individual writing conference session, the researcher conducted a semi-70

A SOCIAL-MATERIAL APPROACH TO TEACHING L2 WRITING

structured interview with each of the 15 study participants. The primary purpose of the session was
to discuss their first writing assignment—personal narrative essay writing. For research purposes,
however, the researcher asked the following two questions at the beginning of each writing
conference session:a.	What do you think about the concept of the rhetorical situation? Do you think it helps you
write better?
b.	Is the rhetorical analysis you did of your slideshow helpful in writing your personal narrative
essay in any way?
With the permission and consent from all 15 students, the entire conversations during the conference
sessions were voice-recorded. Each interview lasted for 5–7 min—a total recording time of 89 min.

Data Analysis
The researcher first screened the entire recorded conversations to identify any portion of thedata relevant to the concept of the rhetorical situation and visual analysis activity. After the initial
screening, a total of 63 min of recorded data were excluded from analysis, as they did not containany relevant information to the purpose of the study; the remaining 26 min of interview data weretranscribed and analyzed. In order to conduct a systematic analysis of the interview data, theresearcher used a form of qualitative thematic analysis proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006). The
thematic analysis contained six major analytical processes: 1. pattern identification, 2. initial coding, 3.
theme extraction, 4. theme refinement, 5. theme establishment, and 6. research narrative generation(see Braun & Clarke, 2006 for more information on the thematic analysis). In addition, throughout theanalytical processes, the researcher kept a reflexivity journal to keep a record of the analysis. Table 3
below provides a summary of the six phases of analysis and their descriptions.
Table 3
The Thematic Analysis Procedures
Phase

Procedures

1.	Pattern
Identification

The researcher repeatedly read the transcript to familiarize himself with the data and to findany notable patterns across participants’ responses.

2. Initial Coding

The researcher coded the transcript without any top-down categories.

3.	Theme
Extraction

The researcher repeatedly examined the coded transcript to extract overarching themes ofparticipants’ responses.

4.	Theme
Refinement

The researcher compared and contrasted the themes extracted against the participants’
responses. Any themes which show a weak linkage to participants’ responses were discardedor subsumed under comparatively more representative themes.

5.	Theme
Establishment

The researcher examined the refined themes in relation to the purpose of the study and thenformalized the descriptions of the themes.

6.	Research
Narrative
Generation

The researcher used the results of the thematic analysis and interview data to generate a
research narrative in relation to the purpose of the study.

As the results of the thematic analysis, two overarching themes and four sub-themes wereidentified as follows:71外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 1 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 1）

a. The rhetorical situation and L2 writing
I. A strategic approach to writing
II. Viewing writing beyond linguistic norms
III. Conflict with a prior learning experience and social pressureb. Visual analysis and L2 writing
VI. Blurred boundary: visual materials and written texts
Based on the identified themes above, the following section reports and discusses the results of thestudy with select excerpts from interview data.

Results and Discussion
The Rhetorical Situation and L2 Writing
One of the most recurrent themes emerged out of the interviews with my students centeredaround the relationship between the notion of the rhetorical situation and L2 writing.
A Strategic Approach to L2 Writing. One immediate pattern that I noticed in their response
was that since the introduction of the rhetorical situation, my students seemed to have developed astrategic approach to writing in English:
Excerpt 1
Researcher: What do you think about the concept of the rhetorical situation? Do you think it helps
you write better?
Student: Hmm…I think it does.
Researcher: How so?
Student: I didn’t know about the rhetorical situation before. When I write [in] English, I now
think about different things.
Researcher: What different things?
Student: I mean…there are different things like stance or purpose. I never thought about that
before.
Researcher: Ah, you mean the five elements of the rhetorical situation that I talked about lastweek?
Student: Yes, yes. Before I learned that, I was writing without thinking much. But now I think
about it before I begin to write.
Researcher: Does it help you write easier?
Student: Not really (chuckle). But it helps me to think more before I write and choose words
carefully. So I think it helps.
As many studies have previously reported (e.g., Lei, 2008), L2 writers use various strategies at thedifferent stages of their writing process. An interesting point to note in reference to the excerpt aboveis that the newly learned concept—the rhetorical situation—seemed to have led to the developmentof a new cognitive strategy—“think more before I begin to write.” This strategic approach to writing
was not aimlessly practiced but was tied to the rhetorical situation, as the student explicitly mentioned
the two of them—“stance” and “purpose.” Hence, it seems that the concept of the rhetorical situation
served as a cognitive framework for the student to premeditate before writing.

72

A SOCIAL-MATERIAL APPROACH TO TEACHING L2 WRITING

Viewing Writing Beyond Linguistic Norms. The learning of the rhetorical situation alternatedthe way that students view writing. As the vast majority of students in my class were from mainland
China, they mentioned how their view on writing changed from what they were taught back in China.
Consider the excerpt below—one Chinese student’s response during the interview:
Excerpt 2
Researcher: What do you think about the concept of the rhetorical situation? Do you think it helps
you write better?
Student: I don’t know if it helps, but I see writing in English differently now.
Researcher: Can you tell me more about it?
Student: Before coming to the US, English writing was all about grammar. I had to be always
accurate because I needed to write in good English. My teachers were telling me not to make any[grammatical] mistakes.
Researcher: Why did you have to be accurate?
Student: I was learning to write for exams.
Researcher: That’s not fun, was it?
Student: No. It was like Math, so I didn’t think it was something to enjoy.
Researcher: How do you see writing in English now?
Student: I see it now that it’s not just about grammar. I think about my purpose and audience.
Researcher: Does that change the way you write?
Student: I think so. I still care about grammar, but now I think more about what I want to say[write] and how I can best express myself to my audience.
Researcher: Who is your audience?
Student: You and my classmates, but I also think about others.
In Excerpt 2, the Chinese student explicitly mentioned about two elements of the rhetoricalsituation—purpose and audience. It appears that their view of what it means to write had radicallyshifted from “all about grammar” to what is more social with the consideration for the audience andpurpose of writing. That is, writing was no longer about being accurate for “exams,” and their focus
was on how to better express themselves in writing to the assumed audience. The student’s viewis a representative of writing as a social act—an important tenet of the rhetorical genre theory, as
presented earlier.
Conflict With a Prior Learning Experience and Current Social Pressure. Whilst
learning the rhetorical situation seemed to have influenced the students’ perspectives of writing
as demonstrated in Excerpt 1 and 2, a few students mentioned a tight grip on their belief thatgrammatical accuracy proceeds any other aspects of writing.
Excerpt 3
Researcher: What do you think about the concept of the rhetorical situation? Do you think it helps
you write better?
Student: I understand the concept, but I feel it’s hard to apply it to my writing. I’m used tofocusing on grammar, so that’s what I do.
Researcher: But don’t you think it’s important to consider, for example, your audience or purposeof writing?

73

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 1 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 1）

Student: I think they are important, but grammar is more important. So, in the end, I just can’t
help worrying about my grammar.
Researcher: Why do you feel that way?
Student: Because that’s how I learned English writing back in China. My teacher told me thatwriting in incorrect English would be embarrassing, and I think so, too. Now that I’m in the US,
I feel more strongly to be accurate in my writing.
Researcher: What makes you feel that way?
Student: Well, I heard from my friends [in other classes] some professors don’t even look at
poorly written papers.
Researcher: What do you mean by “poorly written papers”?
Student: I guess it’s just bad papers with many grammar problems.
Writing activity is socio-historically situated; prior writing experience affects the writer considerably(see Prior, 1998 for more discussion on writing history and its impact upon writing). Furthermore,
there is no escape from social pressure when writing (Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2009). In the case of
the student in Excerpt 3, learning of the rhetorical situation did not seem to affect the way they view
writing, which is contrastive to the examples in Excerpt 1 and 2. While the student claimed that they
understood the concept, their focus was still fixated on grammar—“grammar is more important.”
Also, they attributed the particular belief to the past learning experience in China, which was further
reinforced due to the social pressure that “some professors don’t even look at poorly written papers.”
The student also mentioned that the concept was “hard to apply.” If the student were to accept the
new notion and incorporate it into their writing, it would make their writing activity more complicatedsince consideration for various rhetorical situations demands an explicit awareness of the writer’s
choice in every aspect of their writing. Perhaps, the student may have perceived the elements of therhetorical situation as too abstract to guide their writing in a concrete manner. I suspect that thestudent may have decided to hold onto a comparatively more simplified view of writing—a good pieceof writing is free from grammatical errors, which provides a much more concrete pathway to writing,as your attention is dictated solely by grammatical accuracy.

Visual Analysis and L2 Writing
To help students develop their rhetorical knowledge, I assigned students to create a slideshow
with their personal photos. After they presented their slideshows, they conducted a rhetorical analysisof their visual product. During the interviews with my students, I attempted to explore if the visual
analysis affected their writing in any way. One pervasive theme of their response was an increasingly
blurred boundary between visual materials and written texts.
Blurred Boundary: Visual Materials and Written Texts. One of the most interestingoutcomes of the visual analysis, which my students reported, was that they began to see textual
materials as partly visual in relation to the formatting requirements of the writing assignment.
Excerpt 4
Researcher: Is the rhetorical analysis you did of your slideshow helpful in writing your personal
narrative essay in any way?
Student: Yeah, it is.
Researcher: Can you explain how it helps you?

74

A SOCIAL-MATERIAL APPROACH TO TEACHING L2 WRITING

Student: Well, when you told us about the narrative essay [assignment requirements], I waswondering why I had to follow so many rules.
Researcher: What rules?
Student: It’s like you have to set your paper in this way that way.
Researcher: You mean like font type and font size?
Student: Yes. I mean, we are writing anyway, so I just wondered why it’s so important to make it
all generic.
Researcher: Ha Ha (genuine laughter). Now that you mention it, it’s true following the rules
makes it look all generic.
Student: But I think the visual analysis helped me to see writing is also visual. Like how you
format your paper. Like margins and line spacing and…um, font type, and stuff. It is about visuals.
Researcher: That’s a very interesting observation.
Student: So, after I realized that, I kind of understand why following those rules are important. I
mean…after I formatted my paper, it looked more professional.
The student candidly shared that they felt somewhat troubled with the rather tedious aspects of theassignment. In particular, there were very clear formatting requirements for the assignment following
the APA conventions—Times New Roman, 12-point font size, and double-spaced. However, thestudent’s qualm was solved (at least partially) through the visual analysis, which helped them see theimportance of the visual aspects of writing—“after I formatted my paper, it looked more professional.”
In a similar vein, one of my students’ responses indicated the connectivity between three of therhetorical situations—audience, medium, and format. Consider the excerpt below:
Excerpt 5
Student: I really liked the visual analysis activity. It was fun.
Researcher: Did you learn anything from it to help you write better?
Student: I think I learned that to think about your audience is really important. When I made myslideshow, I carefully picked my photos and organized them.
Researcher: Can you explain a little more about how you made your slideshow and how that’s
connected to your audience?
Student: Well, my audience was mostly my classmates, and because I was going to present
myself, I didn’t want to choose embarrassing photos.
Researcher: You said you carefully organized your photos. What do you mean by that?
Student: It’s about the layout like where to put my photos in each slide. I also paid attention to
how many photos to put in one slide. I wasn’t sure about the screen size and resolution [in theclassroom], I decided not to put too many photos in one slide, or they may get too small to see.
Ah, I thought about the order, too.
Researcher: I see. You mentioned that to think about your audience is important. Does thatawareness help you write better?
Student: Yes, totally. It’s not just about this class [ESL composition], but in my other classes,
professors give us very specific format requirements. I just needed to do what my professors tellme to do. So I wasn’t really thinking about why they all tell me to set up my paper to a specificformat. But now I see the point.
Researcher: What point?
Student: I think it’s about your audience, and the format requirements are there to make sure that75

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 1 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 1）

your paper is set up properly for your audience.
Researcher: Can you explain a bit more?
Student: I mean, like who decides the format? Um...I don’t know how to explain it. My English is
not good.
Researcher: No, your English is fine. Do you mean your audience decides the format?
Student: No, but I mean. It’s like localization.
Researcher: Localization?
Student: I noticed there are a lot of Chinese restaurants in the US. But many of them are notauthentic Chinese food. They made it so the locals would like it.
Researcher: You mean adapting it to the local taste? So you adapt your writing to your audience?
Student: Yes, you need to use the format normal to them [the audience]. So, it’s acceptable.
Researcher: Ah, I think I understand.
This particular student was highly conscious of their audience. When they did the visual analysis
activity, they carefully attended to the selection of photos to the layout for the audience’s sake.
Through which, they also saw the relevancy of the audience to various format requirements theyneeded to follow in writing papers in my and other classes. In addition, the audience awarenesswas not only tied to how to present their photos but also on what medium the slideshow was to bepresented. The student mentioned that they deliberately chose not to use too many photos in one
slide, as they did not know the screen size and resolution of the screen in the classroom. They were
fully aware of potential physical constraints brought by the media, which are, in this case, PowerPointand the projector screen in the classroom. The student’s response is demonstrative of their attention
to the connection between two different elements of the rhetorical situation—audience and medium.
What I thought particularly interesting was that they mentioned, “you need to use the format
normal to them.” This view is highly insightful, as it points to formatting conventions, whether it is
MLA, APA, or otherwise, are, in fact, a form of cultural practice (see Hyland, 2004). Although I am notcertain that they actually saw it as a cultural practice, they were clearly aware that they need to use theformat, which is considered “normal” or standard by a specific academic community (i.e., audience).
The activity seemed to have functioned as an outlet for them to realize the importance of audienceawareness and of the need to follow conventionalized format to communicate to a specific academic
audience in an “acceptable” manner.

Conclusion
This paper has proposed a visual analysis activity as an approach to facilitating L2 writers’rhetorical knowledge and thereby improving their L2 writing. From the perspectives of two
communication theories: the SSA and rhetorical genre theory, it has discussed the obscure boundary
between visual and written materials. It also argued that conducting a rhetorical analysis of visualmaterials potentially leads to the development of L2 writers’ rhetorical knowledge, which can betransferred over to their writing activity.
To explore the potential benefits of the visual analysis activity in L2 writing, the paper presented
the results of an action research study conducted in a university-level ESL composition classroom in
the US. The findings suggest that the visual analysis can be of an asset to L2 writers in developing
their rhetorical knowledge and subsequently helping their L2 writing. Through the visual analysis,
participants’ views of writing transformed substantially. For instance, participants began to view76

A SOCIAL-MATERIAL APPROACH TO TEACHING L2 WRITING

writing as more of a social activity rather than a means to demonstrate their grammatical accuracy.
Some also mentioned the visual analysis of their slideshows helped them see why conforming toacademic writing conventions (i.e., format requirements) are necessary.
The visual analysis activity presented in this paper is certainly not a novel approach since asimilar analytical framework is often adopted in visual studies, as introduced earlier. In addition,although the number is scarce, some proposed the use of visual rhetoric to facilitate L1 composition
instruction (George, 2002; Hill, 2003; see also Hocks, 2003 for more information on Visual Rhetoric).
Also, related to the notion of genre, Yasuda (2011) examined the impact of genre-based tasks on
Japanese undergraduate writers’ genre awareness, linguistic knowledge and writing competence.
However, to the best of my knowledge, there is no existing research that has actively sought toexplore the potential application of visual analysis to facilitate L2 writing.
On the last note, the participants of the study were highly proficient in English compared to mostJapanese English learners at the university level. Hence, the applicability and effectiveness of the
proposed approach to the Japanese higher education context require further investigation. Future
research should explore if the proposed approach can be of any value to Japanese English learners indeveloping their L2 writing skills in a higher education context.

References
Bitzer, L. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1(1), 1–14.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Bullock, R., Goggin, M. D., & Weinberg, F. (2019). The Norton Field guide to writing: With readings
and handbook. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Cooper, M. M. (1986). The ecology of writing. College English, 48(4), 364–375.
Dreyfus, S., Hood, S., & Stenglin, M. (Eds.). (2011). Semiotic margins: Meaning in multimodalities.
London: Continuum.
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103, 962–1023.
Ferris, R. D., & Hedgcock, J. (2004). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. New
York: Routledge.
George, D. (2002). From analysis to design: Visual communication in the teaching of writing. College
Composition and Communication, 54(1), 11–39.
Halliday, M. (1978). Language as social semiotics. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London:
Arnold.
Hill, C. (2003). Reading the visual in college writing classes. In M. Helmers (Ed.), Intertexts:
Reading pedagogy in college writing classrooms (pp. 118–143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Hocks, E. M. (2003). Understanding visual rhetoric in digital writing environments. College
Composition and Communication, 54(4), 629–656.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. IN: University ofMichigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 16(3), 148–164.
Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 693–722.

77

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 1 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 1）

Jewitt, C. (2009). Different approaches to multimodality. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook ofmultimodal analysis (pp. 14–27). New York: Routledge.
Johns, M. A. (1990). L1 composition theories: implications for developing theories of L2 composition.
In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 24–36).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johns, A. M. (Ed.). (2002). Genre in the classroom. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johns, M. A. (2011). The future of genre in L2 writing: Fundamental, but contested, instructional
decisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 56–68.
Kennedy, G. A. (1991). Aristotle, on rhetoric. A theory of civic discourse, newly translated withintroduction, notes and appendices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kress, G. (1993). Against arbitrariness: The social production of the sign as a foundational issue incritical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 169–191.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse. The modes and media of contemporarycommunication. London: Arnold.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). New
York: Routledge.
Lei, X. (2008). Exploring a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research: Mediated actions inwriting activities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 217–236.
Lewontin, R. C., Rose, S., & Kamin, L. J. (1984). Not in our genes: Biology, ideology, and human nature.
New York: Pantheon Books.
Macbeth, K. P. (2010). Deliberate false provisions: The use and usefulness of models in learning
academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 33–48.
McDonald’s. (2017–2020). Order McDelivery now [Advertisement]. Retrieved July 10, 2020, fromhttps://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us.html
Mishima, M. (2013). Instructor feedback and students’ perceptions about their improvement in a
freshman composition class: A recipe for reflective teaching. SLW News, March, 2013 Issue.
International Associations of TESOL.
Morita, L. (2017). Why Japan needs English. Cogent Social Sciences, 3, 1–11.
Myers, G. (1985). The social construction of two biologists’ proposals. Written Communication, 2,
219–245.
Nitta, R., & Yamamoto, Y. (2020). Reconceptualizing CLIL from transformative pedagogy perspective:
Pilot debate study in English language curriculum. Journal of Foreign Language Education andResearch, 1, 47–62.
Prior, P. (1998). Writing/Disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (2009). Situated writing practices in foreign language settings: The roleof previous experience and instruction. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language
contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 23–48). Multilingual Matters.
Tardy, C. M. (2009). Building genre knowledge. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Tardy, C. M. (2012). A rhetorical genre theory perspective on L2 writing development. In R. M.
Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp.165–190). Berlin: De Gruyter
Mouton.
Vatz, R. (1973). The myth of the rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 6(3), 154–161.
Ventola, E., & Guijarro, A. J. M. (Eds.). (2009). The world told and the world shown. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.

78

A SOCIAL-MATERIAL APPROACH TO TEACHING L2 WRITING

Wong, M. (2018). Multimodal communication: A social semiotic approach to text and image in printand digital media. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Yasuda, S. (2011). Genre-based tasks in foreign language writing: Developing writers’ genre
awareness, linguistic knowledge, and writing competence. Journal of Second Language Writing,20, 111–133.

79