5.2 Conclusion
5.2.3 Limitations of the Study
Overall, this study supported the idea that the instruction of TC, TP and rhetorical moves promoted coherence and the results of this investigation
146
complemented those of earlier studies. However, the generalizability of these results was subject to certain limitations. For instance, the intervention merely lasted 3 weeks, inclusive of the TC, TP and genre instruction. Cognitive overload might influence the learners’ performance in the posttest. More time was needed to allow sufficient practice and acquisition. Next, the students participated in the study were from the same school in New Taipei City of the same background and proficiency level. The findings were tentative, but not conclusive and thus might not be applied to learners at diverse levels due to the small sample size. Future studies are recommended to include more students from different schools to generalize the effect of the instruction in EFL language classrooms.
Notwithstanding these limitations, the study contributes to existing knowledge by providing empirical evidence and concluded that the instruction informed by SFL cast positive influence on increasing the coherence in EFL senior high school learners’
picture writings. Nonetheless, analyzing the influence of the instruction in L2 contexts was still at the experimental stage. This research will serve as a base for future studies.
There is a need to continue the line of research in uncovering the effect of teaching TC, TP and rhetorical moves in EFL senior high school classrooms. To provide more definitive evidence, it would be intriguing to focus on different text types and explore the long-term effect of the instruction on L2 senior high school learner writings.
147
These would be fruitful areas for further research in the field.
To conclude, the current study examined the effect of the TC, TP and rhetorical structure instruction on the EFL senior high school learners’ picture writings. The findings indicated that the instruction informed by SFL had a positive influence on the coherence and content development in the learners’ picture writings. With the well-established rhetorical moves, improvement in content and coherence was observed after the instruction. Moreover, a wide variety of logical connectors and TPs were employed to connect sentences in the learners’ posttest picture writings.
However, it was found that the learners still heavily relied on constant TPs with people participants in unmarked themes. One possible reason might be that picture writings usually revolved around the same character. Many learners were inclined to begin their sentences with the same unmarked themes when describing stories. Thus, constant TPs were frequently employed to connect sentences.
Not until recently has SFL instruction been extensively implemented in L2
settings. Also, the existing research reported inconclusive results (Brown & Marshall, 2012; Chen & Su, 2012; Cheng, 2008; Henry & Roseberry, 1998). Direct empirical evidence is still necessary to investigate whether the instruction informed by SFL can achieve its potential. To sum up, further research is needed to affirm the effectiveness of genre-based approach informed by SFL theory, and to provide specific guidance on
148
incorporating the instruction of rhetorical moves, TPs and TCs into EFL writing pedagogy.
149
REFERENCE
Albufalasa, M. I. M. A. (2013). The effect of the explicit teaching of thematic structure and generic structure on EFL students’ writing quality and motivation
(Doctoral dissertation), University of Leicester. Retrieved May 06, 2016, from http://hdl.handle.net/2381/28520
Atkinson, D. (2003). L2 writing in the post-process era: Introduction. Journal of Second Language, 12, 3-15
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). The Problem of Speech Genres. In M. M. Bakhtin, Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.). Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Barthes, R. (1977). Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narratives, in:
Image-Music-Text. London : Fontana.
Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 134-144.
Bawarshi, A. S., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). An Introduction to History, Theory, Research,
and Pedagogy. Washington: Parlor press.
150
Belmonte, I. A., & McCabe, A. (1998). Theme-Rheme patterns in L2 writing.
Didáctica, 10, 13-31.
Berry, M. (1989). Thematic options and success in writing. In C. S. Butler, R. A.
Cardwell, & J. Channell, Language and literature: theory and practice.
Nottingham: University of Nottingham.
Bhatia, V. K. (1991). A genre‐based approach to ESP materials. World Englishes, 10(2), 153-166.
Bhatia, V. K. (1999). Integrating products, processes, and participants in professional writing. In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 21-39). London: Longman.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bloor, M. (1998). English for specific purposes: The preservation of the species (some notes on a recently evolved species and on the contribution of John Swales to its preservation and protection). English for Specific Purposes, 17(1), 47-66.
Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (1992). Given and new information in the thematic organization of text: An application to the teaching of academic writing.
Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics, 6, 33-43.
151
Bohnacker, U. (2010). The clause-initial position in L2 Swedish declaratives: Word order variation and discourse pragmatics. The Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 33(2), 105–143.
Brown, G. T., & Marshall, J. C. (2012). The impact of training students how to write introductions for academic essays: An exploratory, longitudinal study.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(6), 653-670.
Brown, K., & Miller, J. (1991). Syntax: A linguistic introduction to sentence structure.
(2nded.). London: Routledge.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. Language and communication, 1, 1-47.
Chandler, D. (2007). Semiotics: the basics. Routledge.
Chen, S. (2012). A Study on Correlations between English Professional Subject of the Technological and Vocational Education Joint College Entrance Exam and
Picture Writing Performance of Students from Department of Applied Foreign
Languages of Vocational High Schools. (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from
National Chengchi University.
152
Chen, Y. M. (2002). The problems of university EFL writing in Taiwan. The Korea TESOL Journal, 5(1), 59-79.
Chen, Y. S., & Su, S. W. (2012). A genre-based approach to teaching EFL summary writing. ELT journal, 66(2), 184-192.
Cheng, A. (2006). Understanding learners and learning in ESP genre-based writing instruction. English for Specific Purpose, 25, 76-89.
Cheng, F. W. (2008). Scaffolding language, scaffolding writing: A genre approach to teaching narrative writing. The Asian EFL Journal, 10(2), 167-191.
Cheng, X.T. (2002). Cohesion and coherence in English compositions. Journal of School of Foreign Languages Shandong Teachers’ University, 2(11), 94- 98.
Christie, F. (2004). Systemic Functional Linguistics and a theory of language in education. Ilha do Desterro A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies, (46), 013-040.
Christie, F. (2012). Language education throughout the school years: A functional perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Christie, F., & Dreyfus, S. (2007). Letting the secret out: Successful writing in
secondary English. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 31(2).
Correa, D., & Domínguez, C. (2014). Using SFL as a tool for analyzing students’
narratives. HOW Journal, 21(2), 112-133.
153
Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crombie, W., & Johnson, D. (2008). Writing texts in English: A guide for intermediate and advanced learners. Tsang Hai Book Publishing Company.
Crossley, S. A. & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society
(pp. 984-989). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Daneš, F. (1974). Functional sentence perspective and the organisation of the text. In
F. Danes (Ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective. Prague: Academia.
Dastjerdi, H. V., & Talebinezhad, R. M. (2006). Chainpreserving deletion procedure in cloze: A discoursal perspective. Language Testing, 23(1), 58-72.
Derewianka, B. (2004). Exploring how texts work. Newtown, AU: Primary English Teaching Association.
dos Santos, V. P. (2002). Genre analysis of business letters of negotiation. English for specific purposes, 21(2), 167-199.
Ebrahimi, S.F., & Khedri, M. (2011). Thematicity in research article abstracts: A cross-disciplinary study. Educational Quest, 2(3), 287-292.
154
Ebrahimi, S. F., & Ebrahimi, S. J. (2012a). Information development in EFL students’
composition writing. Advances in Asian Social Science, 1(2), 212-217.
Ebrahimi, S. F., & Ebrahimi, S. J. (2012b). Markedness in writing: A case of EFL students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(4), 773-777.
Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London:
Continuum.
Enkvist, N. E. (1974). "Theme Dynamics" and Style: An Experiment. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 5, 127-153.
Fang, Z., Schleppegrell, M. J., & Cox, B. E. (2006). Understanding the language demands of schooling: Nouns in academic registers. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(3), 247-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3803_1 .
Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney: Macquarie University/AMES.
Feng, Z. (2013). Functional Grammar and Its Implications for English Teaching and Learning. English Language Teaching, 6(10), 86.
Fetzer, A. (2008). Theme zones in English media discourse: Forms and functions. Journal of pragmatics, 40, 1543-1568.
Fowler, R. (1996). On critical linguistics1. Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis, 1.
155
Gao, W.Y. (2012). Nominalization in medical papers: A comparative study. Studies in Literature and Language, 4(1), 86-93.
Gerot, L., and Wignell, P. (1994). Making sense of Functional Grammar. Australia:
Gerd Stabler.
Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy and thinking: learning in the challenge zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
González, V., Chen, C. Y., & Sanchez, C. (2001). Cultural thinking and discourse organizational patterns influencing writing skills in a Chinese
English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learner. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(4), 627-652.
Green, C. F., Christopher, E. R., and Mei, J. L. K. (2000). The incidence and effects on coherence of marked themes in interlanguage texts: a corpus-based
enquiry. English for specific purposes, 19, 99-113.
Halliday, M. A., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in spoken and written English.
Longman's, London.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London, England:
Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc.
156
Hawes, T, & Thomas, S. (1997). Problems of thematisation in student writing. RELC journal, 28, 35-54.
Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (1998). An evaluation of a genre-based approach to the teaching of EAP/ESP writing. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 147-156
Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (2001). A narrow-angled corpus analysis of moves and strategies of the genre: ‘Letter of Application’. English for Specific Purposes, 20(2), 153-167.
Herriman, J. (2011). Themes and theme progression in Swedish advanced learners’
writing in English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 10, 1-28.
Ho, D. G. E. (2009). Systemic text analysis in the ESL writing classroom: Does it
work? RELC Journal, 40(3), 333-359. doi:10.1177/0033688209343869
Hu, H.Y. (2008). On textual cohesion in Chinese students’ English writing. Journal of
Zhejiang Normal University (Social Science), 33(3), 113-116.
Humphrey, S., & Droga, L. (2002). Getting started with functional grammar. Berry, NSW: Target Texts.
Hyland, K. (2002). 6. Genre: Language, Context, and Literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 113-135.
Hyland, K. (2004a). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate
writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151.
157
Hyland, K. (2004b). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in Three Traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 693-722. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3587930
Hyon, S. (2002). Genre and ESL reading: a classroom study. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 121-141). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ikaningrum, R. E. (2009). Developing Students’ Ability to Write a Report Genre Through Thematic Progression Approach (Action Research in the English
Department, Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, Tidar University of
Magelang) (Master’s thesis), Universitas Negeri Semarang, Jawa Tengah,
Indonesia. Retrieved May 06, 2016, from http://118.97.13.60/
Jalilifar, A. (2010). The status of Theme in applied linguistics articles. Asian ESP Journal, 2, 7-39.
Jing, W. (2014). Theme and thematic progression in learner English: A literature review. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 16(1), 67-80.
Johns, M. A. (1997). Text, role, and context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
158
Kalan, A. (2013). Integrating Speaking and Listening Activities into Teaching Anglo-American Academic Writing Rhetoric. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(1).
Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 148-161.
Labov, W. & Waletzky, J. (1997). Narrative Analysis: Oral Version of Personal Experience, in: Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7 (1-4). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3-38.
Lai, S., & Tseng, M. L. (2012). Genre analysis of requesting letters in business language textbooks and the workplace. The Asian ESP Journal, 8(3), 5-27.
Lee, I. (2002). Teaching coherence to ESL students: A classroom inquiry. Journal of second language writing, 11, 135-159.
Lemke, J. L. (1994). Genre as a strategic resource. Paper presented at the 84th Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English. Orlando, FL. Retrieved on 14 March, 2016.
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/8
0/13/7f/8e.pdf
Li, C., & Thompson, S. (1976) Subject and topic: a new typology of language. In C.
Li, Subject and topic (pp. 457-489). New York: Academic Press.
159
Lin, X. H. (2006). 九十五學年度學科能力測驗試題分析(英文考科) [Item analysis of Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) English 2006]. Taipei: College Entrance Examination Center.
Lin, Z. (2017). Teaching EFL Writing: An Approach Based on the Learner’s Context Model. TESOL Journal, 8(1), 142-165.
Liu, J.X. & Liu, L. (2013). An empirical study on the application of theme theory in the field of writing pedagogy. English Language Teaching, 6(5), p117.
Loi, C. K. (2010). Research article introductions in Chinese and English: A
comparative genre-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(4), 267-279.
Lores, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organization.
English for Specific Purposes, 23(3), 280-302.
Lovejoy, K. (1998). An analysis of sentential Themes in academic writing:
implications for teaching sentence style and revision. Conference on College Composition and Communication Speeches/Meeting Papers, pp. 3 – 12.
Ma, J. (2001). Thematic progression, cohesive devices and coherence in English writing-- Analysis of CET-4 and CET-6 writing papers. Foreign Language Education, 22(5), 45-50.
160
Marcelino, T. N. (2003). Analysis of lexical chains and coherence in a children’s and news story. Zona Prôxima, 4, 38-61.
Martin, J.R. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with Discourse. London and NY:
Continuum.
Martínez, P. M. (2003). A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 22(1), 25-43.
Mauranen, A. (1996). Discourse competence – evidence from thematic development in native and non-native texts (pp. 195-230). In Ventola, E. and A. Mauranen (eds.), Academic writing. intercultural and textual issues. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Mellos, V. D. (2011). Coherence in English as a second language undergraduate writing: A Theme-Rheme analysis. (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from San Diego
State University Library & Information Access.
North, S. (2005). Disciplinary variation in the use of theme in undergraduate essays. Applied linguistics, 26(3), 431-452.
Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the Language Learning Classroom. Ann Arbor, MI:
The University of Michigan Press.
161
Pang, T. (2002). Textual analysis and contextual awareness building: a comparison of two approaches to teaching genre. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom:
Multiple perspectives (pp. 145-161). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Parsons, G. (1991). Cohesion coherence: Scientific texts. Functional and systemic
linguistics: Approaches and uses, 55, 415.
Polkinghorne, D. (1988). Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Rafiei, K. and Modirkhamene, S. (2012) 'Thematicity in published vs. unpublished Iranian TEFL these', Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(6),
1206-1213.
Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R. B. (2000). Genres, authors, discourse communities:
theory and application for (L1 and) L2 writing instructors. Journal of Second language writing, 9, 171-191.
Schachter, J., & Rutherford, W. E. (1979). Discourse function and language transfer.
Working Papers in Bilingualism, 19, 3-12.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Siahaan, J. (2013). An Analysis of Students ‘Ability and Difficulties in Writing
Descriptive Texts. Journal of English and Education, 1(1), 114-121.
162
Stotsky, S. (1983). Type of lexical cohesion in expository writing: Implications for developing the vocabulary of academic discourse. College Composition and Communication, 34(4), 430-46.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.
Cambridge University Press.
Tappan, M. B., & Brown, L. M. (1991). Stories told and lessons learned: Toward a narrative approach to moral development and moral education. In C. Witherell
& N. Noddings (Eds.), Stories lives tell: Narrative and dialogue in education (pp. 171-192). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Tardy, C. M. (2006). Researching first and second language genre learning: A
comparative review and a look ahead. Journal of second language writing, 15, 2, 79-101.
Thompson, S. (1978). Modern English from a typological point of view: some implications of the function of word order. Linguistische Berichte, 54, 19-35.
Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing functional grammar (2nd ed.). London, UK:
Arnold.
163
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1991). Themes, thematic progressions, and some implications for understanding discourse. Written Communication, 8(3), 311-347.
doi:10.1177/ 0741088391008003002
Wang, L. (2007). Theme and rheme in the thematic organization of text: Implications for teaching academic writing. Asian EFL Journal, 9(1), 164-176.
Wang, X.W. (2010). TP pattern and coherence in English writing: Analysis of TEM-4 writing papers. Foreign Language Research, 2, 103-106.
Wei, J. (2013). Corpus-based research on topical theme choices in Chinese and Swedish English learners’ English writings. Theory and Practice in Language
Studies, 3(12). Forthcoming.
Witt, S. & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College Composition and Communication, 32, 189-204.
Wright, A. (1996). 1000+ pictures for teachers to copy. London: Longman.
Wu, H.W. (2003). Reading Narrative and Expository Texts: An Interactive into the Reading Strategies Used by Vocational High School Students in Taiwan. Ph.D.
Thesis, Providence University, Taichung County, Taiwan.
Yasuda, S. (2015). Exploring changes in FL writers’ meaning-making choices in summary writing: A systemic functional approach. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 27, 105-121.
164
Zhang, Y. H. (2004). Thematic progression and coherence in writing. Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice, 2, 47-50.
Zhang, H., & Li, X. (2009) 'Contrast studies on thematic progression in English newspaper and broadcasting news texts', Journal of XinJiang Education Institute, 25(3), 117-120.
165
APPENDIX A
Teaching Material of the Instruction Program
166 Introduction I. Goals
When students are preparing for General Scholastic Aptitude Test, they often ask, “How to excel on the composition section?” Many students expect Amelia to teach writing strategies and how to organize ideas.
Students also report that they have problems with describing objects and procedures, developing ideas as well as structuring sentences. The picture writing challenge is going to familiarize students with picture writing in GSAT and improve coherence and organization in writings.
II. The Schedule
Stage 1: Instruction-Word Choice in Picture Writings
Class 1: Introduction
Class 2: The Meaningful Units (participants)
Class 3: The Meaningful Units (process, circumstance)
Stage 2: Instruction-Organization in Picture Writings
Class 4: The Structure of a Sentence (theme and rheme)
Class 5: The Organization of a Paragraph (setting and transition)
Class 6: The Organization of a Passage (the opening and closing techniques) Class 7: Development of a Passage (the theme-rheme connections)
Stage 3: Exercise- The Picture Writing Tasks
Class 8: Generating Ideas
Class 9: Essay Writing and Peer Review Class 10: Revision and Self-evaluation
III. Systemic Functional Grammar (SFL)
Systemic Functional Grammar (SFL) emphasizes the communicative function of the language. The aim of teaching SFL is to help students understand how grammar is used to make meanings in different occasions.
IV. Exercises- Guessing Game
1. Read Text A and B and guess what (genre) they are.
Text A __________________________. Text B _______________________________.
2. Check in the box if you can get the result by using the SFL or traditional grammar analysis.
167
A. [The cartoon] follows Phineas and his English stepbrother, Ferb, on summer vacation. Every day, the boys embark on a new project, which annoys the controlling sister, Candace. She frequently tries to reveal the boys’ secret activities to their mother.
Participant
B. I am standing here today and declaring that we can end child marriage in a generation. This is the moment where a girl and a girl, and millions of girls worldwide, will be able to say, "I will
marry when I want." Thank you.
Results SFL Traditional
Grammar 1. how words are organized in sentences (句子裡單字的組成)
2. how language is put together to communicate meanings (意思表 達)
3. language use in different contexts (語言不同的使用方式) 4. how the topic develops (主題的發展)
5. a form-focused analysis (偏重形式的分析)
3. The differences between SFL and traditional grammar:
Aspects SFL Traditional Grammar
1. Focus (焦點) how language is used to convey meanings for different purposes
how words are put together in sentences
different language use in cultural and social contexts
correct language use in writing and speech
N. V. N. Conj. Pron. Adj. N. N. Prep. N. N.
N. Be-V. Ving Adv. Adv. Conj. Ving. Conj. N. Aux. V. N. N. Prep.Art. N.
168
5. Basis (基礎) meaning-based form-based
Stage 1: Instruction-The Word Choice in Picture Writings The Meaningful Units: Participants
Reviewing Systemic Functional Language (SFL)
(1) What does SFL emphasize? ________________________ , ________________________
(2) Which one is the analysis of a sentence from an SFL perspective? ________________________
a. Ferb saw Perry just now. (sensing) Ferb was watching TV just now. (doing) Ferb looked tired. (being)
b. Ferb saw Perry just now. (sense verb+ O)
Ferb was watching TV just now. (sense verb + O) Ferb looked tired. (linking verb + adj.)
The Participant in a Sentence
Name Traditional Grammar Function Types
Participant the repeating nouns in a passage
(1) Highlight the participants and specify the type.
Text A
One evening, John was invited to his old friend´s wedding. Meeting so many classmates in the university, he became more and more excited. He talked a lot with others, laughed happily, and also, drank a lot.
When it got darker and darker outside, he knew that he had to go home. So much did John drink that he couldn´t even drive home on his own. He then walked on the side of the road and tried to find a taxi. He waved at the cars, shouted loudly, and even ran onto the road. Soon, there came a car. It stopped in front of him, the drunken man got on the car without hesitation, and fell asleep immediately.
Opening his eyes again, John found himself in the police station. To his dismay, he learned that he
Opening his eyes again, John found himself in the police station. To his dismay, he learned that he