A Discourse-based Teaching of Writing for Iranian EFL Students: A Systemic Perspective

Assadi Aidinlou, Nader

|
|
|
How to cite
RIS EndNote BibTeX APA MLA Harvard Vancouver
|
Share

	A Discourse-based Teaching of Writing for Iranian EFL Students: A Systemic Perspective
Article 3, Volume 3, Issue 8, Summer and Autumn 2011, Page 53-70 PDF (218 K)
Document Type: Research Paper
Author
Nader Assadi Aidinlou^*
Assistant professor of Islamic Azad university , Ahar Branch
Abstract
The writing skill is often perceived as the most difficult language skill since it requires a higher level of productive language control than other skills (Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000). The present study introduced a discourse-based framework for the teaching of writing on the basis Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). To this end, 60 students majoring in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) were selected from among three different universities and assigned to experimental and control groups. All subjects were pre-tested for homogeneity, and then the experimental group was treated with SFL-oriented discourse knowledge for ten sessions with the non-treated group just receiving the traditional method of teaching writing. Following the treatment, a post-test was administered to the groups the results of which showed that there was a significant difference at p < .05 in the performance of the two groups on writing. It was concluded that the discourse-based teaching had a great effect on the writing of the Iranian TEFL majors.
Keywords
Discourse-based Teaching; writing; Systemic Functional Linguistic (SFL)


References
Birjandi, P., Alavi, S.M., & Salmani-Nodoushan, M.A. (2004). Advanced writing. Tehran: Zabankadeh Publications. Carrell, P. L. (1992). Awareness of text structure: Effects on recall. Language Learning, 42(1), 1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 1770.1992.tb00698.x Celce-Murcia, M. & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching: A guide for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Pinter Publishers. Faigley, L. L. (1985). Non-academic writing: The social perspective. In L. Odell & D. Goswami (Eds.), Writing in a non-academic settings (pp. 231-248). New York and London: Guildford Press. Grabe, W. (1988). Reassessing the term 'interactive'. In P. Carrell, J. Devine & D. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 56-70). New York: Cambridge University Press. Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2002). Teaching and reassessing reading. Harlow: Longman. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Register variation. In M. A. K. Halliday & R. Hasan (Eds.), Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective (2nd ed., pp. 29-43). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Hammond, J., Burns, A., Joyce, H., Brosnan, D., & Gerot, L. (1992). English for social purposes: A handbook for teachers of adult literacy. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University. Johns, A. M. (1990). L1 composition theories: Implications for developing theories of L2 composition. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second A Discourse-based Teaching of Writing for Iranian EFL Students 67 language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 24-36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kinneavy, J. (1969). The basic aims of discourse. College Compositions and Communication, 21, 297-304. Lotfipour-Saedi, K. (2006). Towards the textuality of a text: A grammar for communication. Tabriz: Forouzesh Publications. Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. New Jersey: Regents. Reid, J. M. (2001). Writing. In Carter, R. & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 28-33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shokouhi, H., & Amin, F. (2010). A systemist 'verb transitivity' analysis of the Persian and English newspaper editorials: A focus of genre familiarity on EFL learners' reading comprehension. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(4), 387-396. Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 657-677. Silva, T., & Matsuda, P. K. (2002). Writing. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp.251-266). London: Arnold. Sommers. N. (1980). Revision strategies of students writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 32, 378-388. Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zhang, X. (2008). The effects of formal schema on reading comprehension – An experiment with Chinese EFL readers. computational Linguistics and Chinese language Processing, 13(2), 197-214. Retrieved 20 July, 2010 from www.aclclp.org.tw/clclp/v13n2/v13na4.pdf 68 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning.No,8/Autumn & Winter 2011 Yaghchi, M. A. (2000). The impact of formal instruction of references and conjunctions on reading comprehension of Iranian EST students. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Iran University of Science and Technology, Iran.
Statistics Article View: 2,099 PDF Download: 4,026