READING TO LEARN PEDAGOGY 37 Applying the Reading to Learn Pedagogy To Improve Entrepreneurship Students’ Exposition Texts Juan Gabriel Vencesla juan@ukwms.ac.id Widya Mandala Catholic University Surabaya Surabaya, Indonesia Article History Abstract This article discusses a classroom action research (CAR) which applied Reading to Learn (R2L) to teach EFL reading and writing with Indonesian- speaking entrepreneurial management students at Universitas Katolik Widya Mandala Surabaya. R2L is a genre based literacy pedagogy based on Systemic Functional Linguistics. This CAR was designed based on an R2L pilot study conducted a few months earlier, and it consisted of three cycles, each one of which involved Detailed Reading, Joint Rewriting, and Joint Construction. The objective was to help the participants independently write an exposition text. Through observation and reflection, the class meetings of the second and third cycles were fine-tuned. Observation involved journal entries written by the teacher-researcher and the students. The effects of R2L on the exposition writing skills of the students were measured by comparing a pre-test and a post-test written by the participants. The criteria used to compare both texts were based on Rose and Martin (2012), and Martin and White (2005). It was found that the participants improved in terms of (1) Purpose; (2) Staging and Phases; and (3) Attitude. Thus, this study serves as further evidence of the effectiveness of the R2L Pedagogy to teach English writing in EFL contexts like Indonesia. Received: 04-11-20 Reviewed: 22-05-21 Accepted: 26-05-21 Keywords: Reading to Learn (R2L); Genre based literacy pedagogy; Systemic Functional Linguistics; Appraisal Theory; EFL Writing DOI https://doi.org/10.33508/bw.v9i1.2808 Introduction The Faculty of Entrepreneurship of Widya Mandala Surabaya Catholic University gave me the opportunity to become an assistant lecturer of English-124 from August to December 2018. Thirty eight students took this course, and we met for 100 minutes every week. Because that course was the only opportunity for the students to https://doi.org/10.33508/bw.v9i1.3143 38 READING TO LEARN PEDAGOGY practice their English skills, the lecturer in charge of English-124 decided to encourage the students to make use of the British Council app at home. That way, they would also practice their English skills outside the classroom. The lecturer in charge also required the students to write an English learning journal weekly. The purpose of this requirement was double. Firstly, it would help the students develop their English writing skills. Secondly, it would help the students reflect on their own learning journey. Since the English learning journal was an assignment, I assisted the lecturer in charge to grade it. I made use of the R2L rubric (Rose & Martin, 2012, p. 282), which is divided in to the following categories: Context, Discourse, Grammar and Graphic Features. Because there were thirty eight students and they had to write a weekly journal entry for thirteen weeks, I analyzed 494 journal entries. The data analysis revealed three writing proficiency level groups: high, medium, and low. The three groups showed weaknesses in terms of Context. The medium and low groups also showed weaknesses in terms of Discourse, and Grammar and Graphic Features. Upon analyzing the students’ journal entries, I came to wonder how to help those students improve their English writing skills. I went through the English as a Second and as Foreign Language writing instruction literature in search of a solution to this problem. Hyland (2003) highly recommends the genre-based approach to writing instruction. From all the genre-based approaches to writing instruction, I got particularly interested in the Reading to Learn (hence, abbreviated R2L) Pedagogy because of the effectiveness of the following study. Rose and Martin (2014) carried out a study with 10,000 participants ranging from kindergarten to junior secondary in Western New South Wales. All of them underwent R2L instruction for three school terms. The participants were classified into high, middle, and low achieving groups. The participants were given a pre-test and a post-test. The results showed that the kindergarten average score grew by 70%, and the difference between low and high achieving students was reduced from 16% to 8%. The other age groups experienced an average score improvement from 30 to 40%, and the difference between low and high achieving students decreased from 50% to 25%. In addition to the results of this study, I also decided to implement the R2L Pedagogy because of the availability of the Teacher Training Books and DVDs which make it easy for teachers to learn and implement. Literature Review To better understand the R2L Pedagogy, it is necessary to be familiar with the three main traditions of genre-based writing instruction as described by Hyon (1996): Systemic Functional Linguistics, English for Specific Purposes, and Rhetorical Genre Studies. R2L belongs to the Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) tradition, which is also known as the Sydney School. Its main theoretical principle is known as Language in Social Context, according to which language is “meaning in social context” (Rose, 2015a, p. 1). This theory is based on two pillars, the first one of which is the three metafunctions of language: interpersonal, ideational, and textual. Rose and Martin (2012) explain that the interpersonal metafunction enacts relationships, the ideational metafunction construes our experience, and the textual metafunction relates the text to its context. The second pillar is the division of language into the following levels: Phonology and Graphology, Lexicogrammar, and Discourse Semantics. READING TO LEARN PEDAGOGY 39 Rose and Martin (2012) describe Phonology as the realisation of words as patterns of sounds in spoken language, and Graphology as the realisation of words as patterns of letters in written language. They also describe Lexicogrammar as “patterns of meaning within clauses” (2012, p. 19), and Discourse as “patterns of meaning across whole texts” (2012, p. 18). Based on the metafunctions and levels of language mentioned above, Halliday proposes the following three dimensions of Social Context: Field, or social activity; Tenor, or social relations; and Mode, or relevance in context. According to Rose (2015b, p. 2), Martin (Martin, 1992; Martin & Rose, 2008) developed Halliday’s theory by “stratifying context as two levels”. For him, Field, Tenor, and Mode are three dimensions that make up Register, which is the first layer of Social Context. The second layer is Genre or the “global social purpose” of texts (2012, p. 20). Rose (2015a) explains that Genre is a more abstract stratum than Register. That is why, Rose and Martin (2012, p. 20) also state that Genre is a “configuration of Tenor, Field, and Mode”. Rose (2015b, p. 2) adds to the definition by stating that “Genre specifies the particular combinations of field, tenor, and mode allowed by a given culture, realized by the stages and phases through which a text unfolds.” All the information mentioned in this section is summarized in figure 1. Figure 1. A stratified model of language in social context (Rose, 2015b, p. 2) The R2L Pedagogy has previously been implemented in Indonesia, and has also been the object of research of a few studies. One of these studies is Listyani (2018) who implemented the R2L Pedagogy in the English Department of Satia Wacana Christian University. Her research was quantitative, and the design was one-group pretest-posttest. She compared the students writing before and after implementing the R2L Pedagogy. She did a paired-sample test, and found a 0.048 p-value, which meant that students performed better in their post-test than in their pre-test. Another study is Samanhudi and Sugiarti (2013) who implemented the R2L Pedagogy in the Sampoerna School of Education. They did a qualitative research with a case study design. Twelve of the participants were EFL- Teaching Department students, and the other eight were Math-Teaching Department students. Their instruments were texts written by the participants, class observations, interviews, and journals written at the end of every class. They concluded that the participants’ writing improved after the implantation of the R2L Pedagogy. There have also been studies conducted in the Indonesian high school context like Kartika-Ningsih (2015), and Damayanti (2017). The present study aims at contributing to the research of the R2L Pedagogy implementation in the Indonesian context, in which English is a foreign language. While previous studies report the implementation of 40 READING TO LEARN PEDAGOGY the R2L Pedagogy in Indonesian high schools (Damayanti, 2017; Kartika-Ningsih, 2015), and Teaching Departments (Listyani, 2018; Samanhudi and Sugiarti, 2013), this study reports the implementation of the R2L Pedagogy in the Faculty of Entrepreneurship of Universitas Katolik Widya Mandala Surabaya. From the age point of view, these Entrepreneurship students are similar to the Teaching Department students reported in previous studies, but their field of study is different. Also, this research focuses on the exposition genre, whereas Listyani (2018) taught academic writing, and Samanhudi and Sugiarti (2013) taught the discussion genre. This present research also has a different research design from those two studies; this is a Classroom Action Research (CAR). Methods Participants The participants of this research were three students from the Faculty of Entrepreneurship of Universitas Katolik Widya Mandala Surabaya. In the Odd Semester (August-December) of the 2018- 2019 academic year they took the English- 124 course, which is the only English language learning course offered by the Faculty. In that English course, their weak EFL writing skills became evident through their English language learning journals. To help them overcome those weaknesses, they were invited to participate in an R2L program in the Even Semester (January-May) of the same academic year (2018-2019). Three English-124 students agreed to participate. They were eighteen year old at that time, and their first language is Bahasa Indonesia. The Design This study followed a Classroom Action Research (CAR) design, based on the stages proposed by Kemmis and McTaggart (1986): Planning, Action, Observation, and Reflection. A description of each stage is provided below. Planning In the Planning stage, a solution was searched to help the English-124 course students overcome their difficulties to write in English. From all the genre-based approaches to EFL writing instruction, R2L was selected because of its research-based evidence of effectiveness (Acevedo & Lövstedt, 2014; Blecua Sánchez & Sánchez Garrido, 2017; Damayanti, 2017; Gouveia, 2014; Kartika-Ningsih, 2015; Millin, 2011; Pedrosa, 2017; Rose & Martin, 2014; Samanhudi & Sugiarti, 2013; Whittaker, 2014; Whittaker & García Parejo, 2018; Wildsmith-Cromarty & Steinke, 2014). After R2L was selected as the means to help the students, a pilot study was conducted during the English-124 course in November 2018. Based on the results of the pilot study, an R2L intervention program was designed to be implemented in the following semester (January-May) of the same academic year (2018-2019). It was decided that the students would learn exposition writing in the intervention program. The Dean of the Faculty personally invited the English-124 students to participate in this intervention program. Action. The R2L intervention program was conducted in March-May 2019. This CAR took three cycles in the hope of fine- tuning subsequent cycles through observation, and reflection. Each cycle took three weeks. Table 1 presents the details of the CAR schedule. Observation. The data collected in the Observation stage were the opinion of both participants and teacher-researcher about the performance of the participants in class. Opinion not related to the participants’ READING TO LEARN PEDAGOGY 41 performance in class was not taken into account for the purpose of this study. Thus, the participants’ performance is the unit of analysis of this study. The participants’ written opinion was collected through a dialogue journal written at the end of each meeting. A dialogue journal is defined by Griffee (2012) as a journal written by the students to the teacher. The researcher’s written opinion was collected through a diary journal written at the end of each meeting. Griffee (2012, p. 204) defines a diary journal as “a document maintained by an individual writing a report to himself or herself on some topic area, such as learning a language or teaching a course.” To determine whether the participants’ exposition writing skills improved as a result of the intervention program, a pre-test and a post-test were administered before and after the program respectively. Both the pre-test and the post-test were exposition writing tests. The issue of the pre-test was, “Should Cigarettes Be Banned in Indonesia?” and the issue of the post-test was “Should Social Media Be Illegal for People under 18?” The students could take as much time as they needed to complete both tests. Reflection. In the reflection stage, the observation data was analyzed so as to come up with ideas to better implement R2L in the following cycles. First of all, the data from the participants’ dialogue journals, and researchers’ diary journal, were analyzed based on the technique proposed by Griffee (2012). The first step was to thoroughly read the journals to search for themes, especially themes which happened more than once. The second step was to tally up the occurrences of each theme. The third step was to sort the themes logically. The fourth step was to support those themes with quotes taken from the journals. Table 1. Classroom Action Research Schedule Cycle CAR Stage R2L Curriculum Genre Date Cycle 1 Planning November- March Action Preparing for Reading and Detailed Reading March 18-24 Joint Rewriting March 25-31 Joint Construction April 1-7 Reflection Cycle 2 Planning April 8-14 Action Preparing for Reading and Detailed Reading Joint Rewriting April 15-21 Joint Construction April 22-28 Reflection Cycle 3 Planning April 29- May 5 Action Preparing for Reading and Detailed Reading Joint Rewriting May 6-12 Joint Construction May 13-19 Reflection 42 READING TO LEARN PEDAGOGY The pre-tests and the post-tests were analyzed in terms of Purpose, Staging, Phases, and Attitude. The analysis of Purpose, Staging, and Phases was based on the Teacher Resource Package developed by Rose (2015c, Book 2 and Book 3). The Purpose of the exposition genre is to claim for one’s point of view. The stages of exposition texts are Thesis, Arguments, and Restatement. The phases of exposition texts are Position Statement, Preview of Arguments, Topic, Elaboration, Review of Arguments, and Position Restatement. The analysis of Attitude was based on Martin and White (2005), and Martin and Rose (2007). There are three types of attitudinal resources: Affect, Judgments, and Appreciation. Results The implementation of R2L Regarding the Detailed Reading meetings, the sample exposition text selected for the first cycle was entitled, “Australia Day Should Be Celebrated on the 26th of January”. It was found that the participants could not easily follow the teacher’s sentence preparation comments because of their low English listening proficiency level, so it was decided that the teacher would prepare the sentences using both English and Bahasa Indonesia. The sample text read in the second cycle was entitled, “In Favour of Progress”. In this second session, the teacher prepared the sentences using both English and Bahasa Indonesia. Even if the teacher used Bahasa, the participants still found the text difficult to understand. Because the students needed additional time to understand the text, there was no time left for the researcher to teach the text’s stages, phases, and attitudinal resources. The sample text selected for the third cycle was entitled, “Traffic Must Be Reduced in Central Sydney”. Just like it happened in the previous cycle, the participants still had difficulty understanding the text. The Joint Rewriting meetings were meant to help the participants learn “to appropriate the language resources of accomplished authors, and to control technical, abstract and literary language” (Rose, 2015b, p. 8). Because the focus of the intervention program was the exposition genre, it was very important for the participants to learn the attitudinal resources. In the first cycle, the teacher decided not to direct their attention to the attitudinal resources because they had much difficulty rewriting the text. It was too difficult for them to come up with synonyms and suitable words to express their ideas. In the second cycle, the teacher began the session by teaching the metalanguage for attitudinal resources. Then, he focused the participants’ attention to the attitudinal resources. They were able to rewrite some of them, but they found it very difficult. In the third cycle, the participants were also able to rewrite some attitudinal resources. However, it was difficult for them, and it took them much time to finish. As a result, there was not enough time for them to learn the metalanguage for the other Systems of Discourse: Ideation, Conjunction, and Identification. In the Joint Construction meetings, the participants were expected to write a complete text together with the teacher. In the first cycle, it became clear that the time was just enough for them to learn the stages and phases of the exposition genre; there was no time left for them to work on their language patterns. In any case, the participants had already had the opportunity to improve their language patterns in the joint rewriting meetings. In the second cycle, it also became evident that the participants had much difficulty coming up with the READING TO LEARN PEDAGOGY 43 arguments. They needed to understand that the arguments were meant to support their Position Statement. Thus, in the third cycle, the teacher especially focused on helping them to think of the arguments. The texts written by the participants Table 2 shows a short description of the Purpose of the pre-tests and post-tests based on the Progression Rubrics of Rose (2015c, Book 3). It can be seen that both Participants 1 and 2 wrote a pre-test with a Purpose “appropriate for task”, which means they claimed for one’s point of view. Because their post-test was not only appropriate for task, but also well-developed, it can be considered that they improved in terms of Purpose after the intervention. The same can be said regarding Participant 3, whose case is even clearer because he wrote a pre-test discussing two sides of an issue, which is not the Purpose of the exposition genre. Table 2. Purpose of the pre-tests and post-tests Purpose Participant 1 Pre-test Appropriate for task Post-test Appropriate for task and well-developed Participant 2 Pre-test Appropriate for task Post-test Appropriate for task and well-developed Participant 3 Pre-test Not appropriate for task Post-test Appropriate for task and well-developed It can be seen in Table 3 that Participants 2 and 3 did not write the preview and review of arguments in their pre-tests, but they did so in their post-tests. Participant 1 did not write the preview and review of arguments in both the pre-test and post-test. Nevertheless, it can be stated that Participant 1 also improved in terms of Stages and Phases because in his post-test he divided his paragraphs based on the stages, and he wrote three arguments as compared to the two arguments which he wrote in his pre-test Table 3. Stages and Phases in the pre-tests and post-tests Thesis Arguments Restatement Position Statement Preview of Arguments Topic Elaboration Review of Arguments Position Restatement Pretest Participants 1, 3 Participants 1, 2, 3 Participants 1, 2, 3 Participant 2 Participants 1, 3 Posttest Participants 1, 2, 3 Participants 2, 3 Participants 1, 2, 3 Participants 1, 2, 3 Participants 2, 3 Participants 1, 2, 3 Table 4 shows the attitudinal resources written by the participants in the pre-tests and post-tests. It can be observed that every one of them wrote more attitudinal resources in the post-test than in the pre-test. They did not only improve in terms of quantity, but also quality. They wrote more field-specific attitudinal resources in the post-tests. For example, Participant 3 wrote very generic appreciations in his pre-test like: problem, help, dangerous, bad, and improve. On the other hand, his post- test’s appreciations are more field specific like: efficient, quick, not foolproof, and safe. Also, their post-tests’ attitudinal resources developed their arguments much better than their pre-tests’ attitudinal resources did. 44 READING TO LEARN PEDAGOGY Table 4. Attitudinal resources in the pre-tests and post-tests Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3 Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Affect 2 3 1 0 10 6 Judgments 1 4 2 7 3 6 Appreciations 10 23 11 21 20 34 Total 13 30 14 28 33 46 Tables 5, 6, and 7 display the sub-types of attitudinal resources written by the three participants. It can be observed that they used appreciation the most. This finding is consistent with Liu (2013) who states that this pattern is common for the argumentative genre. The three participants avoided expressing emotions, and being judgmental. They limited themselves to appreciate the issues which were the following. The pre- test’s issue was, “Should Indonesian Ban Motorcycles?” The post-test’s issue was, “Should Social Media Be Banned for People under the Age of 18?” Table 5. Types of affect in the pre-tests and post-tests Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3 Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Positive Desire 2 0 0 0 8 5 Negative Desire 0 1 0 0 2 0 Negative Security 0 1 1 0 0 0 Negative Happiness 0 0 0 0 0 1 Table 6. Types of judgments in the pre-tests and post-tests Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3 Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Positive Capacity 1 1 1 1 0 3 Negative Capacity 0 3 0 0 0 2 Negative Propriety 0 0 1 6 1 1 Negative Tenacity 0 0 0 0 1 0 Negative Normality 0 0 0 0 1 0 Table 7. Types of appreciations in the pre-tests and post-tests Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3 Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Positive Valuation 7 8 5 1 9 7 Negative Valuation 3 15 6 20 11 27 Discussions As stated above, it was found that the three participants improved in terms of Purpose, Staging, Phases, and Attitude. These finding are consistent with Millin (2011), Rose and Martin (2014), Wildsmith- Cromarty and Steinke (2014), Acevedo and Lövstedt (2014), Gouveia (2014), Whittaker (2014), Pedrosa (2017), Blecua Sánchez and READING TO LEARN PEDAGOGY 45 Sánchez Garrido (2017), and Whittaker and García Parejo (2018). There are also studies conducted in Indonesia reporting similar findings like Samanhudi and Sugiarti (2013), Kartika Ningsih (2016), and Damayanti (2017). Because the present study reports positive results from the teaching of a genre (i.e. exposition) different from the genre taught in previous studies, it serves as evidence that R2L is effective for the teaching of different genres. From the educational setting point of view, which is tertiary education, this study is similar to Millin (2011), Samanhudi and Sugiarti (2013), and Wildsmith-Cromarty and Steinke (2014). The other studies were conducted either in primary or in secondary schools: Acevedo and Lövstedt (2014), Gouveia (2014), Whittaker (2014), Pedrosa (2017), Blecua Sánchez and Sánchez Garrido (2017), Kartika Ningsih (2016), Damayanti (2017), and Whittaker and García Parejo (2018). One of the studies, Rose and Martin (2014), also included kindergarten participants in addition to primary and secondary students. There is also an important variable distinguishing these studies from one another, which is the target language. Rose and Martin (2014) report the implementation of R2L to teach English as a first language. The following studies report the implementation of R2L to teach English as a second or as a foreign language: Millin (2011), Samanhudi and Sugiarti (2013), Wildsmith-Cromarty and Steinke (2014), Kartika Ningsih (2016), and Damayanti (2017). The following studies report the implementation of R2L to teach both English as a foreign language and a first language: Acevedo and Lövstedt (2014) report the teaching of Swedish; Gouveia (2014) reports the teaching of Portuguese; Whittaker (2014), Pedrosa (2017), and Blecua Sánchez and Sánchez Garrido (2017) report the teaching of Spanish. The present study belongs to the group of studies teaching English as a second or a foreign language. This present study is also different from some previous studies (Acevedo & Lövstedt, 2014; Gouveia, 2014; Millin, 2011; Pedrosa, 2017; Whittaker, 2014; Wildsmith-Cromarty & Steinke, 2014) in the sense that it does not report the students’ text scores, but rather a description of the texts. Other previous studies do report descriptions of the students’ texts (Blecua Sánchez & Sánchez Garrido, 2017; Kartika-Ningsih, 2015; Rose & Martin, 2014; Whittaker & García Parejo, 2018). The descriptions reported by those studies are similar to the present one because they describe the Purpose, Staging, and Phases of the students’ text. However, they are also different because they do not describe the Attitude of the students’ texts like this study does. In the case of this study, the three participants had the same English proficiency level at the time of the research. Therefore, it could not be determined whether R2L helped close any gap between faster and slower performing students. Because of that, this study is different from Millin (2011), Rose and Martin (2014), Kartika-Ningsih (2015), Damayanti (2017), and Blecua Sánchez and Sánchez Garrido (2017) which data reveal a closing of the gap. The TeL4ELE also aimed at closing that gap, but the three reports do not present any specific data. These reports only present the example of a few students from a disadvantaged background who improved after receiving R2L instruction. Samanhudi and Sugiarti (2013), and Pedrosa (2017) do not make any mention related to the closing of the gap either. 46 READING TO LEARN PEDAGOGY Conclusions and Suggestions Based on the analysis of the pre-tests and post-tests written by the participants, the following conclusions can be drawn from the present study. First, the three participants improved in terms of Purpose. They wrote a well-developed post-test, which claims for their point of view. Secondly, their post-test also included the correct Stages of an exposition, which are Thesis, Arguments, and Restatement. Third, they wrote the correct exposition Phases in their post-tests: Position Statement, Preview of Arguments, Topic, Elaboration, Review of Arguments, and Position Restatement. Fourth, they also showed improvement in terms of Attitude. They wrote more variety of attitudinal resources in their post-test. They also wrote more field-specific attitudinal resources. They better developed their arguments using attitudinal resources. Most of the genre- based, including R2L, research in Indonesia has been conducted either in secondary schools or in English Departments. This study reports the implementation of R2L in an Entrepreneurship Faculty. Therefore, this study also serves as evidence of the effectiveness of R2L in non-English Departments in Indonesia. Juan Gabriel Vencesla, M.Pd. teaches Business English at the Business Faculty of Widya Mandala Catholic University Surabaya. He earned his ELT Master’s degree from the Graduate School of the same university in 2019. His main interest is EFL reading and writing instruction, and Systemic Functional Linguistics. References Acevedo, C., & Lövstedt, A.-C. (2014). Sweden Project Outputs, Teacher Learning for European Literacy Education. Agustien, H. I. (2006). Genre-based approach and the 2004 English curriculum. A Plenary Paper Presented at UPI National Seminar, 27. Aunurrahman, A., Hamied, F. A. H., & Emilia, E. (2017). Exploring the Tertiary EFL Students’ Academic Writing Competencies. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 72–79. Blecua Sánchez, I. B., & Sánchez Garrido, C. (2017). Cambios de enseñanza- aprendizaje tras la implementación del modelo Reading to Learn/Leer para Aprender en las aulas de educación secundaria de un Centro bilingüe. Lenguaje y Textos, 46, 55–68. Damayanti, I. L. (2017). From storytelling to story writing: The implementation of reading to learn (r2l) pedagogy to teach English as a foreign language in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 232–245. Emilia, E. (2005). A critical genre-based approach to teaching academic writing in a tertiary EFL context in Indonesia. https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/ bitstream/ handle/11343/39548/81416_1234.pdf?s equence=1 Emilia, E., & Hamied, F. A. (2015). Systemic functional linguistic genre pedagogy (SFL GP) in a tertiary EFL writing context in Indonesia. TEFLIN Journal, 26(2), 155. Gouveia, C. (2014). Teacher learning for European literacy education: Project outputs from Portugal. Lisbon: ILTEC. Griffee, D. T. (2012). An introduction to second language research methods: READING TO LEARN PEDAGOGY 47 Design and data. TESL-EJ Publications, Berkeley. Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press. Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 693–722. Kartika-Ningsih, H. (2015). Multilingual re- instantiation: Genre pedagogy in Indonesian classrooms. Kartika-Ningsih, H., & Gunawan, W. (2019). Recontextualisation of genre-based pedagogy: The case of Indonesian EFL classrooms. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 335–347. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1986). The action research planner. Deakin University Press. Listyani. (2018). Enhancing Academic Writing Skills through “Reading to Learn” Strategy. Arab World English Journal, 9(1), 268–280. Liu, X. (2013). Evaluation in Chinese University EFL Students’ English Argumentative Writing: An APPRAISAL Study. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(1). Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. John Benjamins Publishing. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. Bloomsbury Publishing. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. Equinox. Martin, J. R., & White, P. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. SAGE Publications, inc. Millin, T. (2011). Scaffolding Academic Literacy with Undergraduate Social Science Students at the University of KwaZulu-Natal using the Reading to Learn Intervention Strategy: An Evaluative Study [PhD Thesis]. MSc Dissertation, The University of Edinburgh Moray House School of Education. Paltridge, B. (2014). Genre and second language academic writing. Language Teaching, 47, 303–318. Pedrosa, B. (2017). Implementación del modelo Leer para aprender en un contexto plurilingüe. Lenguaje y Textos, 46, 41–54. Richards, K. (2009). Interviews. In Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction (pp. 182–199). Palgrave Macmillan. Rose, D. (2015a). Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Genre Studies around the Globe. Beyond the Three Traditions, 299–338. Rose, D. (2015b). New developments in genre-based literacy pedagogy. Handbook of Writing Research. Rose, D. (2015c). Reading to Learn: Accelerating learning and closing the gap. Teacher training books and DVDs. Reading to Learn. Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2014). Intervening in contexts of schooling. Discourse in Context: Contemporary Applied Linguistics, 273–300. Rozimela, Y. (2004). The Role of explicit teaching in improving EFL students’ writing. Samanhudi, U., & Sugiarti, S. (2013). Reading to Learn Program to Teaching Critical Writing in English for Academic Purpose Class. LEKSIKA, 7(2). Whittaker, R. (2014). Teacher learning for European literacy education (TeL4ELE) Final report Spain. 48 READING TO LEARN PEDAGOGY Whittaker, R., & García Parejo, I. (2018). Teacher Learning for European Literacy Education (TeL4ELE): Genre-based pedagogy in five European countries. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 31–57. Widiati, U., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2006). The Teaching of EFL Speaking in the Indonesian Context: The State of the Art. Jurnal Bahasa Dan Seni, 2(34), 269–292. Widodo, H. P. (2006). Designing a genre- based lesson plan for an academic writing course. English Teaching: Practice & Critique (University of Waikato), 5(3), 173–199. Wildsmith-Cromarty, R., & Steinke, K. (2014). The write approach: Can R2L help at tertiary level? Per Linguam: A Journal of Language Learning, 30(1), 38–54.