【Research Article】

Towards Rhetorical Genre Studies Some Conceptual
Implications and Practical Considerations in Teaching
Writing
Jeffrey Mok
Abstract
Rhetorical genre studies have been seen as a critical shift in the theory of understanding writing — a contextualized
and situated nature of genre. Educators have been seeking to realize this socio-rhetorical theory in the classrooms
and have found it daunting. This study seeks to briefly discuss the key concept of social action and implications topedagogy: cultivation of mindset, metacognition, and inquiry-based approach. This is followed by a description of an
attempt to implement a rhetorical genre studies classroom in Rikkyo University, reflecting on its implications theimplications. The study reveals some challenges faced in a rhetorical genre studies classroom: situatedness of writing
scene and assessment of metacognition.
Keywords: rhetorical genre studies, reading and writing, theory, course design, classroom practiceIntroduction
Pedagogical considerations have always been a challenge for situated approaches to writing
such as rhetorical genre studies (RGS). Writing acts are increasingly seen as “complex social
participatory performance, in which the writer asserts meaning, goals, actions, affiliations, andidentities within a constantly changing, contingently organized social world, relying on shared texts
and knowledge” (Bazerman, 2013, p. 11). This understanding of writing as a highly contextualized
and situated act within an activity system is shifting the teaching of reading and writing away from anarrow understanding about writing. As we approximate closer in our understanding of writing and
its writing process, the challenge is to design a curriculum that best reflects these complexities.
Traditional teaching of writing has become increasingly unsatisfactory today where genres are
merging and transforming in our postmodern world (Miller & Kelly, 2017). Students are readingvisual essays and interactive e-textbooks while writing a vlog, infographics, or twitterature (Aciman& Rensin, 2009). The conventional way of teaching writing does not seem to take into account these
new genres, including emerging ones. The progression from product and process writing to genre
analysis is a testament of this dissatisfaction. In recent decades, the introduction of genre analysis
and emphasis on rhetoric have in many ways attempted to address this dissatisfaction. Today, RGS
has emerged as one having the brightest prospect, having “a profound impact on the study andteaching of writing” (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010, p 3).
The department responsible for the teaching of reading and writing courses at Rikkyo University
was revisiting the writing curriculum and saw the need to revise the curriculum to respond to thechanging landscape of the writing scene. As part of the committee, I decided to trial RGS in one
semester and this paper is a description of that attempt. RGS may be a relatively new concept in theteaching writing at Rikkyo University and its choice is deliberate because of its apt representation of
the natural thinking processes of a reader reading and a writer writing, under authentic settings. A
critical and matured reader would immediately feel the effect of a text, its purpose, and the context

61外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）

in which it is set. Similarly, a seasoned writer, about to pen her thoughts, would immediately think
about the audience, her relationship with the reader, the conventions that befits the context of thewriting genre, and the format to set the text in. RGS, as a writing approach, seeks to engender thesethinking processes into the minds of students. In order to appreciate RGS, the paper begins with a
discussion on its key concepts, followed by three pedagogical implications emerging from its key
thrust of social action of writing acts. I will also attempt to show how these implications are playedout in classroom teaching. The paper will end with challenges that the author feels that teachers facewhen using the RGS approach to teach writing.

RGS as a concept in writing
The notion of RGS began with the landmark reworking of the concept of genre by Miller (1984)
into the central thrust that texts are forms of social actions — they deliver an effect on the reader witha social purpose. A genre is “not just a pattern of forms or even a method of achieving our own ends.
We learn, more importantly, what ends we may have…” (Miller, 1984, p. 165). Indeed, building on
Campbell and Jamieson’s (1979) understanding of genre as language actions “driven by an internal
dynamic” (p. 21), this “dynamic” merges the message and linguistic features in response to specificsocial situations. This “internal dynamic” is the intended social action of the writer seeking to affectthe “ends.” The writer interrogates the scene (context and specific situation) and bring forth thesocial communicative act of writing (or utterance) in a form (genre) that delivers the social effect. It
is not dissimilar to Bakhtin’s “utterances” (1986, p. 60), which positioned the understanding of text
and speech acts in a highly situated context of human activity that is individualized with none
rendered the same or similar in any way. Although Bakhtin’s (1986) work on genre focusedcommunicative acts as meaningful only when understood in their specific context, it was Miller(1984) who highlighted “that a rhetorical sound definition of genre must be centered not on thesubstance or the form of discourse but on the action it is used to accomplish” (p. 151). The rhetoricis thus accentuated in the genre to deliver the intended social effect adequately and appropriately.
Learning to write is no longer just putting grammatically correct sentences in paragraphs andmimicking the genre form, but effecting a social action through the text.

Social action
Social actions are the “ends we may have…” (Miller, 1984, p. 165) in the communicative act. In
other words, it is the outcome or effect felt by the reader. When this effect is felt by the reader, then
the writer would have successfully achieved the writing act. The writer seeks this effect from his actof writing — the writer’s desired effect on the reader. But this social action is the result of “the social
motives, relations, values, and assumptions embodied within a genre that frame how, why, and whento act” (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010, p. 77). It is a result of a much-considered act on the writing scene inits context and specific situation. These considerations are its purpose, context, topic, authorship,audience, structure, and format of the writing act. Arising from these many considerations, this social
action becomes one of the “typified ways of acting within recurrent situations and as cultural artifacts
that can tell us things about how a particular culture configures situations and ways of acting”(Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010, p. 76). The social action is both a conception from and an end of amultifaceted consideration. It is more than just achieving the purpose of writing a text.
To illustrate this, let us consider the writing scene of a student realizing that he is late for class62

Towards Rhetorical Genre Studies Some Conceptual Implications and Practical Considerations in Teaching Writing

owing to a train delay — a common occurrence in Rikkyo. All acts of writing begin with a writing
scene, a specific situation where the writer has a social action to achieve. In this case, the student
wants to convey a message of excuse for being for late for class. This intended social action of thestudent sets in motion the consideration of the context of the writing scene. The student considers
the purpose of the social action: — requesting for an excuse. Next, presumably, the student considers
power distance of the audience, his teacher. Then, he may think about the context, the institutional
requirements he needs to comply with in writing his request. The student may next think about the
topic, what kind of content should be included in the message, what structure should be used in themessage, and in what format. From the above illustration, we can see that a social action is derived
from first interrogating the writing scene.
The student’s primary social action, a request for an excuse, may carry alongside it other effects
that he would like to achieve from his act of writing. In considering his audience, a professor, a personof a higher status and position, perhaps respect and goodwill should also be felt in the request. He
also realizes when thinking about the topic, he should not only state the reason but also show proof
to strengthen his rhetoric for the excuse. We can see that a social action that may have begun
primarily as a request (purpose) for an excuse (topic), secondary social effects emerge alongside thepersuasion (purpose) with proofs, and register (audience) of formal and polite language. There could
be more, but the temporality of quickly putting this request together constrains the amount of timespent in the consideration. It is clear that a social action is not a single clean action but is accompanied
by other equally desirable social effects shaped by the writing scene. This coalesced social effect is
unique to the student and his writing scene. On a different day with a different writing scene, themessage will be different. The interrogation particularizes the social effects as demanded of thewriting scene.

RGS as a concept in teaching writing
RGS researchers have used this approach in teaching writing composition (Bawarshi, 2003;
Devitt, 2004). It is contended that in order to learn how to perform a communicative act rhetoricallyin a situated manner, it is important to first understand how the rhetoric is conceived of in specificsituation it is located in. Interrogating the genre texts prior to writing raises the awareness of not only
how the genre is written but also the why, who, what and when. These questions when discussed, lift
the learners from “an interior cognitive process located within individuals” to a “situated cognitive
process” (Bawarshi, 2003, p. 10). The practice of writing is not a detached single enterprise, but amulti-dimensional and contextualized endeavor.
Learning through interrogating the social action (genre), including its context and situation, therhetoric in the writing is understood in genre’s situated message and linguistic features. Theinterrogation looks for regularities and irregularities of the social action that typifies the genre. It isnot, however, the typified textual forms, but typified actions. As illustrated in the section on social
action above, students are not learning the typified forms in order to replicate the forms in theirwriting. RGS is contrasted with genre analysis in that genre analysis expects the replication of thesetextual forms as expected of the genre. A classic example is Swales’ Five Paragraph Essay as an
academic essay structure, used for academic writing in most parts of North America (Johns, 2015).
Genre analysis is akin to modeling the writing after analyzing the genre. This approach is to mirror
what is out there (genre) and produce a similar textual form consistent to the genre type (Swales,
1990). To which, RGS is not.

63

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）

RGS draws from these typified textual forms to see how they deliver the intended social action.
While there are similarities in the genre analysis, the analysis takes it further toward the situatednessof the genre. The goal is to be aware that “genres predict…but do not determine…the nature of a textthat will be produced in a situation” (Russell, 1997, p. 522). The focus is then on the awareness of how
these typified forms perform the social action. This awareness informs and sensitizes the student to
the textual forms that delivers the social action including its nuances. The interrogation of thegenre’s writing scene becomes the center piece of the RGS approach. The interrogation yields thetypified actions and how they are derived and situated in its purpose, context, topic, authorship,audience, structure, and format. Thereafter, the writer having been sensitized, approaches his future
writing scenes with the same interrogation before writing. He interrogates the writing scene that heis in, shapes his social action through this interrogation with the awareness of the learned typifiedsocial actions. The final coalesced social action will be realized in the writing act of the genre. The
writer may end up with a different genre form or even transform the genre type, as dictated by theintended social action.

Implications to pedagogy
A pedagogical RGS will have a vastly different look from the traditional approach of product orprocess writing styles that most writing teachers are trained for or used to. I will discuss three
implications to a RGS classroom. First, RGS is engendering a mindset of interrogation, the centerpieceof RGS: an interrogation of both writing scenes of genre types and that of the student’s writing scene.
The interrogation of the genre type looks for typified social actions embedded in the context andspecific situation of the writing scene. This interrogation acquires the genre (social actions)— genre
acquisition (Johns, 2015). Miller summarized this well in the following quote.
“What we learn when we learn a genre is not just a pattern of forms or even a method ofachieving our own ends. We learn, more importantly, what ends (social action) we may have…”[Italics mine] (Miller, 1984, p. 165).
This genre acquisition builds the knowledge of familiarity with different but typified social
actions of different genre types. This genre familiarity building does not cease once the student has
acquired this practice; the student by default uses interrogation each time they read to write. The
goal is to engender the interrogation mindset in reading every single piece of text. In fact, this should
become the default reading strategy to cultivate an informed sense of reading and not reading solely
for comprehension. This is the first stage of interrogation to acquire the genre.
The second stage of interrogation is genre awareness. This interrogates the writing scene thatthe student is in before the act of writing. This foregrounds an awareness of the student’s social action
within the writing scene. As mentioned earlier, the student formulates their intended social action
upon encountering their writing scene. But before they put ink to paper, they interrogate theirwriting scene to shape their intended social action.
For the student, “genres serve as keys to understanding how to participate in the actions of acommunity” [Italics mine] (Miller, 1984, p. 165).
From the student’s acquisition of typified social actions, they now use this knowledge and apply the64

Towards Rhetorical Genre Studies Some Conceptual Implications and Practical Considerations in Teaching Writing

questioning of their intended social action and their writing scene to successfully participate in thecommunity that they are in.
Therefore, this first implication of RGS in teaching writing is the cultivation of a mindset in theclassroom. To cultivate habits of mind, students need to engage in cycles of cognition (Taczak &Robertson, 2016). The cycle of cognition in RGS is the repeated interrogation of the genre and thewriting scenes. Through questions, students identify the purpose, context, topic, authorship,audience, structure, and format. Through these cycles of interrogation, students not only develop arobust understanding of genre but also and more importantly the habit of questioning the text.
The second implication is metacognition. It is established that metacognition (or reflective
thought on connections between contexts) plays an important part in the transfer of skills andknowledge (Perkins & Salomon, 1988). Regular reflection can cultivate a “systematic activity keyed
to transfer” (Yancey et al., 2014, p. 33). Transferability of writing skills has been of concern in theteaching of writing instruction for some time (Anson & Moore, 2016; Smit, 2004). Students have long
been taught de-contextually. As a result, they encounter problems of transfer when they experience
contextualized writing situations. RGS scholars have long argued that metacognition is cultivatedwhen students engage in genre analysis (Bazerman, 2009; Beaufort, 2007; Taczak, 2015; Tinberg,2015).
To engender a situated approach of interrogation, students should be provided with recurring
opportunities for metacognition (Taczak & Robertson, 2016). When given the opportunity to question
their own thinking as regards planning, monitoring, and evaluation, students engage in a situatedmindset. “How will I do this differently? How will I alter my questioning to arrive at a more appropriate
information? How does will I change my thinking when confronted with a different scenario?” These
are metacognitive questions on an individual’s way of thinking. By their very nature, metacognitive
questions interrogate the individual’s way of thinking in a situated manner. The implication of this in
RGS is that students should be afforded the time and space to engage in metacognition to engender
the mindset of interrogation. With these cycles of cognition and metacognition designed into thecurriculum, not only will students develop the habit of mind (Meyer et al., 2010), but they will also
encourage their own transfer to other writing contexts.
When should such metacognition of their thinking processes take place in the classroom? It canoccur after they have completed their interrogation of the genre and their writing scene. Students’
thinking about their thinking processes can be made visible through their written or verbalizedreflections on these processes. Reflections can be done during the class after the genre interrogation
or as a homework assignment. There can also be teacher and peer feedback on these reflections tolearn from each other.
The third implication is the inductive and inquiry-based approach to learning that RGS affords
and, in fact, is based on. RGS begins with asking questions of the genre and the writing scene. This
characteristic of an inquiry-based learning approach contrasts teacher-led style of classroom. To
begin learning with students asking questions is not only highly student-centered, but it also
encourages a “bottom up” approach to discover the knowledge that needs to be acquired. Students,
in asking questions, derive answers, make connections on their own, and set their own learning.
Social actions are not fixed domains of knowledge but are interpreted and negotiated. Students
interpret and negotiate their understanding of the social actions from the genres and similarly,
interpret and negotiate their own writing scene to perform the act of writing to achieve their social
action. After all, each individual act of writing is highly particularized in a contextualized and situatedmanner. What is the role of the teacher in a RGS class? The teacher facilitates the process of65

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）

interrogation, as well as probes and add more questions to deepen and broaden the students’ journeyof interrogation. In addition, an RGS class is highly amenable to the dialogic teaching process.
Having outlined three broad implications to teaching writing using the RGS approach, I will now
describe how they were attempted in an RGS class in Rikkyo.

An RGS classroom
Rikkyo’s reading and writing program is offered to first-year students as a mandatory course
involving teaching reading and writing in an integrated fashion over two semesters. The RGS
intervention was trialed in the second semester in two stages: genre acquisition and genre awareness.
The first half of the semester began with genre acquisition as the starting ground for students to be
familiar with the cycle of interrogating the genre. The goal of genre acquisition was for students tofamiliarize themselves with typified social acts. After the grounding of genre acquisition in the firsthalf of the semester, the second half sought to build this mindset toward genre awareness ofinterrogating the writing assignment. It was hoped that the students would automatically firstinterrogate their writing assignment before embarking on the writing process. In other words, forgenre awareness, students are expected to draw from their genre acquisition in the first half of thesemester to write their first assignment. Selected genre texts were used to for genre acquisition.
These were source-based academic writing of exploratory and argumentative nature. Appendix A
shows the planned interrogation of the categories of the genre and corresponding tasks in a weekly
schedule.
In the “genre acquisition” semester of the first six weeks of classes, students were put througha cycle of pre-reading and quizzes every week together with group discussion on the texts. Diagram
1 shows the learning activities that the students went through on a weekly basis. The target genres,
where students were expected to familiarize themselves with the textual features, were read before
class for comprehension. During class, students first underwent an individual quiz with questions on
their comprehension of the texts. The texts/ topics revolved around description, explanation, andrationale of RGS. The intent was to make students understand the rationale for using RGS in the

1. Reading
genre (Prereading)

5. Discussion
andReflection on
practice

4. Interrogating
Writing Scene
and Writing
Process(practicing
genre)

2. Questioning(interrogating
genre)

3. Discussion
andReflection oninterrogation

Diagram 1: Cycle of learning activities for genre acquisition and awarenessDiagram 1: Cycle of learning activities for genre acquisition and awarenessWith each progressive week, the students were introduced to all the categories in Table 1,interrogating the genre’s purpose, context, topic, authorship, audience, structure, and format.
Two additional categories were added to cater for language learning and social effectpurposes. The category of ‘sentences’ was included to have the students analyze the sentence66

Towards Rhetorical Genre Studies Some Conceptual Implications and Practical Considerations in Teaching Writingclass. They also explained the different categories of questioning in the interrogation of the genre.
This was the practice of reading skills as part of the required goal of this course. The second roundof questions, however, were questions that interrogated the genre texts.
With each progressive week, the students were introduced to all the categories as shown in
Table 1, interrogating the genre’s purpose, context, topic, authorship, audience, structure, andformat. Two additional categories were added to cater for language learning and social effectpurposes. The category of “sentences” was included to have the students analyze the sentence
structure and grammar while “rhetoric” was to draw the students’ attention to the social effect of thewriting at an earlier stage. This “rhetoric” category was revisited in the final set of questions in thelater part of the semester to emphasize and focus on the rhetoric of writing.
Appendix B has examples of the quiz questions analyzing the genre that follows the different
categories.
Table 1: Categories of genre analysis
PhasesCategories of questions
Context: Where does the genre appear? What are the circumstances under which the text iswritten?

Topic: What is the topic? What issues and ideas does the genre address?
Scene andsituation of genre Author: Who writes this type of text (genre)? What role do they perform as writers?
Audience: Which type of text (genre) is this? What role do they perform when they read?
Purposes: Why do authors write this genre and why does the audience read it?
Content: What content is usually included? What is excluded?
Rhetoric: What rhetorical appeals are used? What appeals to logos, pathos, and ethos?
Patterns of thegenre’s features(What recurrent
features do thesamples share?)

Structure: How are texts in the genre structured? What are their parts, and how are they
organized? What do you notice is different in the patterns of the texts in the genre? Does thedifference affect the purpose of the texts?
Format: What is format of the texts of this genre? What is the layout or appearance? How longis the text in this genre?
Sentences: What are the types of sentences? How long are they? What tenses are they in? Arethey simple or complex, passive or active?

Rhetoricalpatterns

How does the rhetoric patterns affect the reader and the purpose for the writer? Howappropriate is it to the situation of the writing context, the audience, and community of practice?
How does this writing achieve the effect for the author and the reader?

The individual quiz allows the student to analyze the genre on their own with no feedback
provided. The lack of feedback feedback allows later discussion on the same set of questions forcontestation and social construction. Here at the discussion stage, students are expected to convinceothers of and defend their choice, affording a robust discussion and analysis of the question and indoing so, continue the interrogation of the genre. The discussion stage reveals the “correct” answer
to the questions. Through this cycle of choice, discussion, and reflection, students interrogate thegenre at length.
After all the questions are resolved, the students were given an opportunity to note down their
doubts on the issues raised and request for further clarity. This stage allows students to reflect andthink beyond what was the “right” answer as prescribed in the feedback. These challenges andquestions were later discussed in the class. Here was a deliberate attempt to demonstrate to thestudents that their voice, with reason, were equally acceptable as “correct” answers other than what
was prescribed by the teacher. The deliberation at this stage affords a deeper discussion on and67

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）

understanding of the genre.
After the discussion of the questions and answers and supplementary instructions, the groups
moved on to the application stage where they collaborated on the interrogation on their writing
assignment in groups. Students went through one round of asking the questions shown in Table 1.
After the discussion, the students embarked on their individual writing assignments. The writing
went through one draft with feedback provided by peers, guided with a criterion-based checklist , andthe second draft was submitted as the final draft.
After the submission of the final draft, the groups of students were given a discussion activity toreflect on their writing process. Semi-structured questions were provided to guide students toevaluate and suggest improvements on their thinking processes. This activity was to engender aculture of metacognition. This cycle of writing was repeated for the second writing assignment in thelatter half of the semester.

Classroom pedagogy for RGS
As discussed in the pedagogical implications of RGS, the learning philosophy of a RGS class ishighly student-centered with students beginning the class by asking questions. In answering the quiz
questions in groups, students began interrogating the genre initially as an individual and later as agroup. The teacher’s input came in the form of the automated answers in the quiz. Even then,students had opportunities to question the prescribed “correct” answers in the quiz as well as thequestions. This inquiry style approach together with collaborative learning is reflective of the RGS’s
interrogative style as well as the constructivist notion of learning.
The repeated cycles of interrogation weekly on different samples of the genre not only allow thestudents to cumulatively acquire the genre type but also cultivate the habits of mind. It is hoped thatthese repetitive processes will engender this habit of mind of the students to engage in genre
interrogation before writing. Similarly, opportunities for metacognition were afforded.
Having gone through what I would consider to be an experimental attempt at approaching RGS
in my reading and writing class, there are several gaps that emerged. I will briefly discuss three ofchallenges: situatedness, metacognition, and assessment.

The challenge of situatedness
Each writing social act is embedded in a system of activity (Bazerman, 2017) in which we findourselves. Whether it is in response to a written request or an initiation, we locate ourselves as anagent within the system, a system that affords its peculiar socio historical cultural context andnetwork of agencies. This is the writing scene that the writers find themselves in. Moreover, when ateacher tasks the student with writing the system of activity that the student and teacher are in (let’scall it the classroom genre) presents the situatedness of the writing context. How then does thestudent project themselves into performing the writing act of the target genre with this classroom
genre situatedness “interfering” with the writing scene? The actual writing act, derived not out of anecessity or desire of the writing scene of the target genre, is supplanted by an injunction albeit
contrived by the teacher. The teacher’s requirement of a writing submission dominates the rhetoricalgenre analysis process where the student’s consideration of his writing act is not located within thewriting scene but located within the classroom genre system. In short, the student is confronted withand will be confused by two writing contexts: the target genre, and classroom writing scene

68Towards Rhetorical Genre Studies Some Conceptual Implications and Practical Considerations in Teaching Writing

The nature of RGS in writing is a response, a social act, in a specific situation and context of thewriting scene. In analyzing the genre within this framework, the student acquires the awareness of
the writing genre by interrogating the writing scene. Through this process of interrogation, thestudent familiarizes themselves to the typified social acts of writing within these socio culturalcontexts. In turn, with the familiarity of these typified socio cultural contexts, the student willarguably be able to respond adequately in similar social acts of writing upon encountering such socio
cultural contexts. Inasmuch as this familiarity of these typified social acts are desired, the goal of RGS
is not so much as acquiring this familiarity rather the ability to be aware of genres and begin engaging
metacognitively as a writer in these writing scenes by first interrogating them.
If interrogation is the primary goal, then, when the writing scenes are of the classroom genre
type of writing situation, the interrogation will be limited in its scope as students are regularlypresented the same classroom genre throughout the course. The interrogation would repeatedly andinvariably result in students identifying themselves as students and the audience as the professor towhom they are writing. Hence, for all the pieces of writing social acts, the contexts are rather fixed.
It is my suggestion therefore that for students to engender the interrogation of the context andsituation in their future writing scenes, teachers can design role-playing writing scenarios forstudents to “act” out the scene. In so doing, students will interrogate their writing scene as theywould, if they are encountering such similar situations in real life. While role playing is at best asimulation, it can offer a more realistic situatedness of the genre (social action) analysis whencompared with the classroom genre type. Because “writing involves so many problem-solving
judgments, it is best learned through a long sequence of varied problem-solving experiences invaried situations” (Bazerman, 2017, p. 34).

The challenge of metacognition
So, what exactly was being metacogitated? In RGS, students first familiarize themselves with thegenre presented by interrogating other scenes of writing and thereafter interrogating their own
writing scenes to write that genre. The metacognition is then, thinking about how they question thegenre and how they practice the genre. Hence, it is not only thinking about the genre (Tinberg,2015), the knowledge required for writing, but also the reflection on how they thought about thegenre, including thinking about for thinking about their practice of writing and reflecting on theirthoughts on their writing scene. It is instructive to note that the reflection here is “a mode of inquiry:
a deliberate way of systematically recalling writing experiences to [frame or] reframe the current
writing situation” (Taczak, 2015, p. 73). So, it is evaluating and improving their interrogation of thegenre and not just recounting the process.
While my RGS class did afford opportunities for metacognition, there was no feedback andmeans to ascertain the types of metacognition that could have been discussed and improved. It waswell and good that students engaged in discussion on what thinking to improve on, but how do I
know this happened and what exactly was discussed? More likely my students were recalling theirthought processes but did not seriously work on making changes to the way they think or question.
The reflection activity assumed that metacognition occurred naturally or incidentally. While
opportunities or activities for metacognition should be designed into an RGS classroom, some visible
form should also be put in place for feedback and specificity.
Second, metacognition involves thinking and questioning one’s planning, monitoring, andevaluation (Taczak & Robertson, 2016). How did I organize my interrogation of the writing scene?

69

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）

Was the process adequately performed? What aspects should I prioritize in the interrogation? What
was my criteria in evaluating the purpose, context, topic, authorship, audience, structure, and format?
Did I give sufficient time to interrogate the writing scene? These questions are what my students
should have examined in metacognition. Yet, though ideal, these may require more time and spacefor engendering a good practice of RGS interrogation. These are clearly difficult challenges to thepractice of RGS.

The challenge of assessment
RGS views genre as a social action. The acquisition and awareness of the genre occurs byinterrogating the social action and writing scene of the genre. The first challenge in assessment isassessing the social action. How do we assess social action? Social actions are complex forms of“typified ways of acting within recurrent situations and as cultural artifacts that can tell us things
about how a particular culture configures situations and ways of acting” (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010, p.
76). They are complex because of the very nature of “the social motives, relations, values, andassumptions embodied within a genre that frame how, why, and when to act” (p. 77). Clearly there
are multifaceted and inter-connected values to consider when evaluating a social action in a piece ofwriting. The complexity of social action is a challenge to be observed and evaluated. If one were todeconstruct and concretize the social action into criteria for evaluation, it can be an unenviable task.
However, if social action are “typified ways of acting” embodying “the social motives, relations,values, and assumptions” of an actor, it is the actor who can provide the criteria for assessment. Afterall, the social act of writing that emerges out of the multifaceted and inter-connected values of
purpose, context, and rhetoric of the writing scene seeks to realize that social act of the writer.
Second, the social act that is intended by the writer has to be evaluated by the reader of the social actof writing. The reader, performing the role of the intended audience in the writing scene, is well
positioned and valid to make judgments on the effect of intended social act. The reader, then, in his
perception of the intended social act of the writer, makes the judgment.
Therefore, it would seem natural to include the intended social action of the writer as part of theassessment, as the intended social action would embody the confluence of the “the social motives,
relations, values, and assumptions embodied within a genre that frame how, why, and when to act”
(Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010, p. 77). This can be achieved with the writer, in this case, the student, toindicate the intended social action, which will form part of the assessment criteria of the writing
assignment. The assessor, would in turn, play the role of the reader of the writing scene to evaluate
the expressed intended social action. This would also “complete” the genre writing scene, unless ofcourse if the scene entails action in a genre system. The inclusion of the student’s criteria inassessment is reflective of the participatory act of students in having a say in the curriculum design(Eisner, 2001; Freire, 1993).
The second challenge to the assessment in an RGS class is the assessment of metacognition, thelinchpin of RGS. RGS is about cultivating knowledge about writing (genre acquisition) through thepractice of interrogating the writing scene (genre awareness) in order to perform the social action(genre). The first consideration is its necessary inclusion in the assessment of the writing act.
Writing teachers have long evaluated pieces of writing as finished products including drafts.
Metacognition, or thinking about thinking, is rarely observed, and assessed. If metacognition
processes are prized in RGS, it would be meaningful to include it in the assessment.
But how do we assess this cultivation and practice of interrogation? Writing teachers have long70

Towards Rhetorical Genre Studies Some Conceptual Implications and Practical Considerations in Teaching Writingused written drafts to observe the progress of students’ writing process and provide feedback.
Writing portfolios that include prewriting and drafts of the same writing piece has been used to trace
the development and editing of a piece of writing. However, cultivation and practice of interrogation
are thinking processes and are not discrete knowledge of genre. How can we observe theseprocesses of planning, monitoring, and evaluating of their thinking? Think-aloud protocols andreflective diaries are known to record metacognition of students, including surveys and interviews.
Whatever forms it takes, it is suggested that in RGS classrooms, metacognition should be observed
and assessed.

Conclusion
In discussing the concept of RGS in writing, recasting genre as a social action offers educators
an authentic way to teach writing as it should be — interrogating the writing scene, both as a way toacquire the genre and a resource to “participate in the actions of a community” (Miller, 1984, p. 165).
The pedagogical implications of RGS necessitate the engendering of habits of mind of constantinterrogation of texts as a reader and interrogation of writing scenes as a writer. Such mindsets will
surely put any student of reading and writing in a competent place to be a successful communicatorof social acts. It is acknowledged that in seeking to cultivate habits of mind to engage in metacognition
before and during a writing social act is not an overnight exercise but one that requires sustained andregular practice (Meyer et al., 2010). A study into the effects of this approach should suitably follow
to illuminate this. The challenges to the RGS classroom emerge when the writing pedagogy entersuncharted territories of engendering of habits of mind of constant interrogation of texts. But whenand if we are able to appropriate the challenges of situatedness, observe and assess metacognition,and cultivate mindset, we may reap untold treasures in our students’ ability to write well in their everchanging writing scenes and genre.

References
Aciman, A., & Rensin, E. (2009). Twitterature: The World’s Greatest Books Retold Through Twitter.
Penguin.
Anson, C. M., & Moore, J. L. (2016). Critical Transitions: Writing and the Question of Transfer. The
WAC Clearinghouse: University Press of Colorado.
Bakhtin, M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson, & M. Holquist (Eds.) Speech
genres and other late essays (pp. 60-102). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bawarshi, A. (2003). Genre and the invention of the writer: Reconsidering the place of invention incomposition. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
Bawarshi, A., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An introduction to history, theory, research, and pedagogy.
West LaFayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Bazerman, C. (2009). Genre and cognitive development: Beyond writing to learn. In C. Bazerman, A.
Bonini, & D. Figueiredo (Eds.) Genre in a changing world (pp. 283-298). Fort Collins, CO: The
WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press.
Bazerman, C. (2013). A theory of literate action. Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor
Press.
Bazerman, C. (2017). The psychology of writing situated within social action: An empirical andtheoretical program. In P. Portanova, J. M. Rifenburg, & D. Roen (Eds.) Contemporary71

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）

perspectives on cognition and writing. The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado.
Beaufort, A. (2007). College Writing and Beyond: A New Framework for University Writing Instruction.
Logan, UT: Utah State UP.
Campbell, K. K., & Jamieson, K. H. (1979). Form and genre in rhetorical criticism: An introduction.
In K. K. Campbell, & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.) Form and genre: Shaping rhetorical action (pp.
9-32). Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication Association.
Devitt, A. J. (2004). Writing genres. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Eisner, E. W. (2001). What does it mean to say a school is doing well? Phi Delta Kappen, 82 (5),367-372.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Johns, A.M. (2015). Moving on from genre analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19,
113-124.
Meyer, J. H. F., Land, R., & Baillie, C. (2010). Editor’s preface. In J. H. F. Meyer, R. Land, & C. Baillie(Eds.) Threshold concepts and transformational learning (pp. ixxlii). Champaign, IL: Sense.
Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.
Miller, C. R., & Kelly, A. R. (Eds.). (2017). Emerging genres in new media environments. Palgrave
Macmillan/ Springer.
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1988). “Teaching for Transfer.” Educational Leadership 46.(1), 22-32.
Russell, D. R. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written
Communication, 14, 504-554.
Smit, D. (2004). The End of Composition Studies. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Taczak, K. (2015). Reflection is critical in the development of writers. In L. Adler-Kassner, & E.
Wardle (Eds.) Naming what we know: Threshold concepts of writing studies (pp. 78-79). Logan,
UT: Utah State University Press.
Taczak, K., & Robertson, L. (2016). Reiterative reflection in the twenty-first-century writingclassroom: An integrated approach to teaching for transfer. In K. B. Yancey (Ed.) A Rhetoric ofReflection (pp. 42-63). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
Tinberg, H. (2015). Metacognition is not cognition. In L. Adler-Kassner, & E. Wardle (Eds.) Naming
what we know: Threshold concepts of writing studies (pp. 75-76). Logan, UT: Utah State University
Press.
Yancey, K. B., Robertson, L., & Taczak, K. (2014). Writing across contexts: Transfer, composition, andsites of writing. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

72Towards Rhetorical Genre Studies Some Conceptual Implications and Practical Considerations in Teaching Writing

Appendix A
Outline of weekly schedule of RGS in a semester
RGS progression

Tasks

1

purpose, context, topic, author, and audience.

Reading 1, Quiz, Discussion

2

purpose, context, topic, author, and audience.

Pre-Reading 2, Quiz, Discussion

3

purpose, context, topic, author, audience, and structure.

Pre-Reading 3, Quiz, Discussion

4

purpose, context, topic, author, audience, structure, and sentences Pre-Reading 4, Quiz, Discussion

5

purpose, context, topic, author, audience, structure, and sentences Pre-Reading 5, Quiz, Discussion, Writing

6

purpose, context, topic, author, audience, structure, format,
rhetoric, and sentences.

Pre-Reading 6, Quiz, Discussion, Writing

7

purpose, context, topic, author, audience, structure, format, andrhetoric of Writing Assignment 1

Draft 1, Peer review

8

purpose, context, topic, author, audience, and structure.

Pre-Reading 7, Quiz, Discussion
Draft 2 Submission, Metacognition

9

purpose, context, topic, author, audience, structure, rhetoric, andsentences.

Pre-Reading 8, Quiz, Discussion

10

purpose, context, topic, author, audience, structure, rhetoric, andsentences.

Pre-Reading 9, Quiz, Discussion

11

purpose, context, topic, author, audience, structure, and rhetorical
Pre-Reading 10, Quiz, Discussion
patterns.

12

purpose, context, topic, author, audience, structure, and rhetorical
Pre-Reading 11, Quiz, Discussion
patterns.

13

purpose, context, topic, author, audience, structure, and rhetorical
Pre-Reading 12, Quiz, Discussion
patterns.

14

purpose, context, topic, author, audience, structure, format, andrhetorical patterns of Writing Assignment 2

Draft 1, Peer review
Draft 2 Submission (1 week after class)73

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）

Appendix B
Question 8.
This question is about content. In the first sentence, this phrase, “...students are given the spaceto question, analyze, and understand why and how a text is written... (L6-L7), what is the writerusing the content for?
Answera. The author is describing the audience of the RGS.
b. The author is describing what RGS is and the process of RGS.
c. The author is describing what RGS is and knowledge transfer.
d. The author is describing what RGS is and the disadvantage of RGS.
Question 6.
This question is about the structure of Pre-Reading 3A. Which of the following best describes
how the different parts are organized?
Answera. Introduction of RGS - Summary of what is RGS - Benefits of RGS.
b. Introduction of RGS - Benefits of RGS - Future of RGS.
c. Introduction of RGS - Benefits of RGS - Summary of what is RGS and benefits.
d. Introduction of RGS - Summary of what is RGS and benefits - Future of RGS.
Question 6.
This question is about the sentences in the Pre-Reading. What types of sentences does this text
generally use?
Answera. Present tense.
b. Past tense.
c. Continuous tense.
d. Future tense.
Question 7.
This question is about the language AND organization of the Pre-Reading 4. How does theauthor use language to organize the important ideas?
Answera. Uses cause and effect: hence, therefore, etc.
b. Uses problem and solution: state the problem and give the solution.
c. Uses numbering to sequence the ideas: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.
d. Uses conjunctions to connect the ideas: Lower case. but, however, etc.
Question 5.
This question is about the Lower case use in the Pre-Reading 7. How did the author convince
you convince you of the number of the rhetorical strategies to use at the end of the essay?
Answera. The author uses logos to convince me to write them well, which is better than using all three.

74

Towards Rhetorical Genre Studies Some Conceptual Implications and Practical Considerations in Teaching Writingb. The author uses ethos to convince me to write them well, which is better than using all three.
c. The author uses pathos to convince me to write them well, which is better than using all three.
d. The author uses words like “write them well” and “poorly” to convince me to write them well,which is better than using all three.
Question 6.
This question is about the Lower case use in the Pre-Reading 7. Which of the following phrase
did the author use as part of the rhetorical strategy to convince you on how many of therhetorical strategies to use at the end of the essay?
Answera. “While it may be more convincing to use all the three strategies,..”b. “It is more important to write them well in our essays to achieve the effect.”c. “A poorly written essay with all three may not be as persuasive as one that is well written.”d. “Rhetorical strategies such as logos, ethos, and pathos are necessary...”Group Discussion Application Questions
Refer to the Sample essay titled, “Is Fashion Really Important?” (315 words)
Discuss in your group and answer this question.
Analyze the structure of this essay.
1. How many reasons did the writer use to support his claim, “that fashion is important” (L2)?
State the number.
2. Did the writer write something negative about fashion? (Yes or No)
Refer to the Sample essay titled, “Gun Control Essay” (313 words)
Discuss in your group and answer these questions.
TAQ4: Analyze the claim of this essay.
1. How many supports did the writer write in his claim? State the number.
2. Is the claim clearly stated? (Yes or No)
3. Did the writer restate the claim of his essay again in the conclusion? (Yes or No)

75