


































Emerging Perspectives 
ep.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca 
 
 

Literature Review: Working Memory and Genre Instruction in an  
Elementary Context 

Miriam Ramzy1 

University of Calgary 

Teaching children to write is a complex and sophisticated task that teachers undertake 

in all subject areas.  For students to be successful writers, teachers benefit from 

developing a strong understanding of the writing process and the components 

necessary in a successful writing program.  This literature review, relevant for teachers 

of young children, focuses on two aspects of writing. It first looks at current writing 

practices in North American schools, and the role working memory plays in learning 

to write. Secondly, it focuses on the effectiveness of teaching genre through the lens 

of Systemic Functional Linguistic (SFL) theory.  Although limited research has been 

conducted on SFL in an English Language Arts context, and all the research included 

on SLF is from an Australian context, the results show positive effects on students’ 

writing.  Future research focusing on the impact of SFL in a writing classroom is highly 

recommended, especially for a North American classroom context. This literature 

review posits that when children receive explicit, research-driven writing instruction, 

writing performance improves.  

Keywords: systemic functional linguistics, genre, writing, writing by hand, explicit 

teaching, working memory, elementary education 

 

Ramzy, M. (2018). Literature review: Working memory and genre instruction in an 

elementary context. Emerging Perspectives, 2(1), 1-14. 

 

Learning to write involves the use of many cognitive processes.  It is a demanding endeavor 

for many students, as learning to write is comprised of interwoven layers that build upon the next.  

Many teachers struggle to effectively teach this process, and many students struggle to write 

successfully due to the complexities related to the writing process (Cutler & Graham, 2008; Gilbert 

& Graham, 2010; The National Commission on Writing, 2003). 

Even with the rise in electronic writing, writing by hand continues to be the most common 

form of communication in schools (Marr & Dimeo, 2006; Roberts et al., 2014). Writing is a 

necessary tool for many purposes (Graham, Harris, & Hebert, 2011). It is used for “gathering, 

remembering, and sharing subject-matter knowledge,” and it is “an instrument for helping children 

explore, organize, and refine their ideas about a specific subject” (Graham & Harris, 2005, p. 19). 

Thirty to 60% of the school day involves written tasks (Dinehart, 2015; Lust & Donica, 2011), and 

the ability to write is necessary for school success (Schneck, Shasby, Myers, & DePoy Smith, 2012; 

Vander Hart, Fitzpatrick, & Cortesa, 2010). Instruction in writing is necessary for students in 

Alberta, as our results on provincial assessments are of concern.     

                                                        
1 miriam.ramzy@ucalgary.ca 



Ramzy / Emerging Perspectives (2018)               2 

Alberta Education assesses children’s literacy development by way of the Provincial 

Achievement Test (PAT), recently re-introduced as Student Learning Assessment (SLA), and these 

tests have not shown signs of improvement in writing scores for children in grade three (Alberta 

Education, 2013). Expectations for the PATs have been established by a group of teachers, based 

on their experience and understanding of what characteristics students need to demonstrate to meet 

the acceptable or excellent standards.  Generally, the acceptable standard are scores between 50% 

and 80%, and the standard of excellence scores are reserved for students who score above 80% 

(Alberta Education, 2018). The multiyear report outcomes for the PATs, from 2009 through 2013, 

identify a lack of achievement at the standard of excellence in writing, with the percentage of those 

reaching that standard remaining stagnant at 14%, and an over-representation of students at the 

acceptable benchmark of 78% (Alberta Education, 2013, p. 1).  Although at first glance this might 

not seem concerning, when compared to the PAT results in reading achievement, 40% of students 

in grade three are able to achieve the standard of excellence.  These results suggest that many 

students are not achieving as much as they can in writing, and that schools are lacking in writing 

programs which are effective.     

In addition to the PAT data, Alberta participates in The Early Childhood Development 

Mapping Project (ECMap, 2014), which assesses children’s readiness for kindergarten in five 

domains: physical health and well-being, social competence, emotional maturity, language and 

thinking skills, communication skills, and general knowledge.  The data from this Canadian 

standardized assessment is also cause for concern regarding the writing development and abilities 

of our young students.  Only 50% of Alberta’s children are deemed ready for their earliest formal 

learning experiences (ECMap, 2014) based on an assessment of the five areas of development. 

According to the data from the ECMap (2014), far too many youngsters are deemed vulnerable in 

one or two of the domains, and there is a significant percentage, 23% and higher, of students 

struggling in each of the five areas.  Moreover, two of the five areas assessed are directly related 

to the early writing abilities of young children.  The area of physical health and well-being looks 

at students’ fine motor strength, one of the essential skills to engage with writing by hand.  

Language and thinking skills, a second domain, assesses students early interest in writing, and age 

appropriate writing skills and abilities.  Almost one in four students entering kindergarten 

experience difficulty in these two areas. This is further evidence to support planning and 

implementing evidence-based writing interventions in elementary classrooms, in order to address 

student readiness. If we consider these results, and then look three years down the road to the 

Alberta PAT results, it is clear from the percentage of students reaching the standard of excellence 

that the reading abilities of our students are being well-addressed in classroom instruction. 

However, the writing results indicate that students’ lack of readiness in writing skills and abilities 

as they enter school, as identified on the ECMap results, is not adequately being addressed and 

remediated by the end of grade three (Alberta Education, 2013).   

The Alberta achievement outcomes, noted above from the PAT and ECMap results, suggest 

the need to intervene in the literacy development of young children. There is a need to tackle the 

lack of preparedness and writing abilities through programmatic instruction that is developmentally 

progressive. This can be achieved through writing instruction that focuses on making meaning by 

way of purposeful engagements with literacy learning, that includes providing direct and explicit 

instruction (Berninger et al., 2006; Brisk, 2012; Christie, 2008, 2012). Instruction in genre, using 

a Systemic Functional Linguistic (SFL) approach, is one way to address the writing gap and the 

lack of preparedness of the young students entering Alberta classrooms.    

This literature review includes research from North America and Australia.  The 

introduction and presentation of current writing practices relies on research conducted within a 



Ramzy / Emerging Perspectives (2018)               3 

North American context, as this context is familiar to me.  The research on SFL, discussed below, 

comes from Australia, as Australia is where SFL was first introduced, and it continues to be the 

primary location for SFL-driven instruction. In this article, I analyze the writing instruction of 

elementary school-age children, framed by an understanding of working memory and its role in 

students’ writing.  I also present on the importance of genre instruction, and I examine research on 

the limited, but noteworthy topic of an SFL approach to teaching. The article concludes with a 

discussion of implications for future research.   

Current Writing Practices 

Research on writing practices in classrooms, especially elementary classrooms, is limited.  

The National Commission on Writing (2003) examined the writing practices in American 

classrooms and found that “the teaching and practice of writing are increasingly shortchanged 

throughout the school and college years” (p. 3).  The commission listed several recommendations, 

the most relevant and noteworthy of which were the following: first, schools need to double the 

amount of time spent writing in classrooms; second, teachers should be required to successfully 

complete a course in writing theory and practice to understand the complexity of the writing 

process; lastly, universities need to offer pre-service teachers multiple courses on how to teach 

writing (National Commission on Writing, 2003).    

In addition to these recommendations, research on American classrooms shows that pre-

service teachers are not adequately prepared to teach young children to write.  Cutler and Graham 

(2008) conducted a nationwide study with teachers from grades one to three to determine what 

writing instruction looked like in lower elementary classrooms.  They found that a very small 

percentage of the school day was devoted to writing, and that on average, students only spent 20 

minutes per day writing.  Additionally, 72% of the teachers surveyed rated their writing courses in 

post-secondary education as poor, or only adequate in preparing them to teach young children to 

write.  

In a nationwide study, Gilbert and Graham (2010) asked a random sample of teachers in 

grades four through six questions about their classroom writing practices.  These questions focused 

on pre-service teacher preparation, amount of time spent teaching writing in the classroom, amount 

of time children spent writing in the classroom, and the use of evidence-based writing practices.  

The study found that a large percentage of teachers felt unprepared to teach writing, and 65% 

indicated that they received minimal or no preparation to teach writing while attending post-

secondary school.  Teachers in this study spent an average of 15 minutes teaching writing per day, 

and students spent around 25 minutes writing in class daily.  Finally, Gilbert and Graham found 

that most teachers used some evidence-based practices, like providing verbal praise and 

encouragement, using direct instruction to teach writing skills, and having students set writing 

goals, but most of these were used infrequently in the classroom.  

Research looking specifically at teachers’ perceptions and skills in genre instruction has 

also been limited.  Until 2016, there had been no published research that looked at the ability of 

teachers to teach young children genre.  Reutzel, Jones, Clark, and Kumar (2016) were the first to 

look at elementary teachers’ abilities to identify and explain text structures and features in school 

genres.  Their results were similar to those discussed earlier regarding teacher preparedness.  

Reutzel et al. (2016) surveyed 21 elementary classroom teachers, from two different school 

districts.  They found that teachers do not have a good understanding of text features or the text 

structures of children’s stories and informational texts, and many were unable to sort text structures 

in narrative and informational texts.  It was only 37% of the time that teachers could identify the 



Ramzy / Emerging Perspectives (2018)               4 

text type and features of informational texts.  Teachers were able to do this only two out of three 

times, or 66.6%, for a children’s story book.  The research results are further evidence that there is 

“too little preparation in teacher education programs on understanding and analyzing text as an 

integral part of knowledge necessary for providing evidence-based comprehension instruction in 

the primary grades” (Reutzel et al., 2016, p. 91).      

To date, there is little, if any published research on teachers’ or pre-service teachers’ 

feelings of preparation in teaching writing or genre in Canada. However, based on the Alberta PAT 

data, and my personal experience in schools for over a decade as an elementary school teacher in 

both English and French immersion classrooms, I believe that the results could mirror those of the 

US.  An examination of the writing courses offered to pre-service teachers in Alberta raises serious 

concerns.  After visiting the course selection websites of three main universities in Alberta 

(University of Alberta, 2015; University of Calgary, 2015; University of Lethbridge, 2015), I 

concluded that classes in early literacy are limited, and there are very few courses that focus on 

literacy instruction, available for student enrollment.  Additionally, there is a severe deficiency in 

courses offered that focus solely on the teaching of writing; most of the literacy courses focus on 

the broad Language Arts curriculum.  

For the remainder of this paper, the focus will be genre instruction in an elementary context. 

I discuss the impact of explicit genre instruction on working memory, what it can look like in 

elementary classrooms, and one way we can effectively teach it to children.   

 
Working Memory  

For young children, engaging in the writing process is complex.  Learning to write is 

demanding, and a child’s memory is engaged in multiple on-going processes (Christie, 2008; 

McCutchen 2000, 2011; Medwell & Wray, 2007).  To understand the cognitive load placed on 

novice writers, it is important to understand the concept of working memory and its role in the 

writing process.      

Baddeley (1986) was the first to recognize the role working memory plays in cognitive 

processing.  He explains working memory as “the temporary storage of information that is being 

processed in any range of cognitive tasks” (p. 43).  Other studies explain that working memory is 

an active process with a limited capacity (Hoskyn & Swanson, 2003; McCutchen, 1996; Towse, 

Hitch, & Hutton,1998). It is the ability to concurrently carry out processing activities while 

retaining information, and it is responsible for storing and transforming information (Hitch, Towse, 

& Hutton, 2001).  In other words, working memory is a limited capacity system that is part of the 

human memory system responsible for both the temporary holding and processing of new and 

already-stored information, and manipulating information involved in the performance of complex 

cognitive tasks. 

The two components of working memory are storage capacity and processing abilities 

(McCutchen, 1996; 2000).  Storage capacity is the ability to store, access, and retrieve information 

stored in long-term memory, and hold this piece of information in working memory while 

completing a task.  Processing abilities are described as the processes necessary to complete a task.  

Storage capacity and processing abilities compete for working memory attention, as “the limited 

resources of working memory necessitate trade-offs” (McCutchen, 1996, p. 302). 

When working memory is engaged in the processing stage, there are three phases competing 

for attention: planning, translating, and revising (Hayes & Flower, 1980).  Planning consists of 

goal-setting and designing a writing plan to guide the production of a text.  The translating process 

comprises two parts.  The first, transcription, is the physical act of writing a letter, word, or sentence 



Ramzy / Emerging Perspectives (2018)               5 

down onto a page.  The second is text generation, which consists of generating ideas, and producing 

language corresponding to the information in the writer’s memory.  Finally, the revising phase 

entails a reviewing process to improve the quality of the text produced through re-reading and 

editing the transcribed text. 

Working memory and the writing process. The relationship between working memory and 

the writing process has been intricately examined in the past two decades.  Composition of written 

texts imposes considerable storage and processing demands on young children (Limpo, Alves, & 

Connelly, 2017; McCutchen, 1996).  If there is too much strain, the constraints can exceed the 

child’s working memory limitations, and writing performance will suffer (McCutchen 2000; 

Swanson & Berninger, 1996).  If students cannot fluently produce texts, that is, if they cannot write 

down individual words and sentences fluently, the demands of working memory are sizable (Limpo 

et al., 2017; McCutchen, 2011).   

Beginning writers’ attention is usually focused on handwriting (Olive, 2012), and this limits 

the earliest stages of writing (McCutchen, 2011).  According to Bourdin and Fayol (1994), poor 

handwriting imposes greater demands on working memory and leads to poorer performance on 

writing tasks.  Furthermore, McCutchen (1996) stated that “the physical act of transcribing written 

text is a major drain on cognitive resources of beginning writers, and text generation itself is also 

less fluent for younger writers” (p. 319). 

Working memory is engaged during every phase of the writing process: editing, translating, 

and revising (Hitch et al., 2001; Kellogg, 2001; McCutchen, Covill, Hoyne, & Mildes, 1994).  

Since working memory is crucial to the writing process, instruction in the three phases of the 

writing process, as identified by Hayes and Flower (1980), can help lessen the cognitive load placed 

on working memory and improve writing skill and performance (Kellogg, 2001; McCutchen, 1996; 

Peng & Fuchs, 2017; Yi & Luo, 2013). Once attention is freed from lower-level processing skills 

like handwriting fluency, room is cleared for higher-level processes, and working memory space 

can be allocated to other aspects of writing (McCutchen et al., 1994; McCutchen, 2011; Olive, 

2012). 

The working memory of young children is usually honed in the translating phase of the 

writing process. Thus, students usually ignore both planning and revising (McCutchen, 1996).  

Teachers need to help children reach a state of automaticity and flow in their handwriting, meaning 

that handwriting “can be effected swiftly, accurately and without the need for conscious attention” 

(Medwell & Wray, 2007, p. 12).   Explicit instruction focused on writing processes, beginning with 

lower-level skills like handwriting and phonics, moving to higher-level skills like genre features, 

vocabulary selection, editing, and revising, is how teachers can lessen the cognitive load in working 

memory for novice writers and improve writing performance.  When the writing processes of 

young children become proficient, more resources are available for higher-order thinking. 

Working memory and genre. Genre can be defined as “recurrent forms of texts used for 

specific purposes, with specific discourse, organization, and language features” (Brisk, Hodgson-

Drysdale, & O’Connor, 2010, p. 1).  A genre can be identified by its structure, determined by the 

basis of its form and use, and characterized by particular patterns (Christie, 2008).  There are 

various types of genres, each comprised of multiple sub-genres.  In a school context, teachers, 

schools, and communities have developed and accepted certain recognizable text types, or genres, 

that are instantiated through specific features.  The most common genres in elementary schools are 

fictional narratives, personal recounts of information, procedures, reports, explanations, and 

expositions (Brisk et al., 2010; Hodgson-Drysdale, 2013; Schleppegrell, 2001).   



Ramzy / Emerging Perspectives (2018)               6 

Skilled writers have access to genre knowledge, features, and rhetorical knowledge 

(McCutchen, 2000; 2011).  Knowledge of genre is one of the writing components that must be 

present in an effective writing program, and an area on which teachers must focus. Therefore, a 

focus on genre in pre-service teacher preparation programs is essential for student success.  

McCutchen (2011) and McCutchen, Covill, Hoyne, and Mildes (1994) have examined the 

relationship between working memory and genre instruction.  Familiarity with genre influences 

writing abilities by providing access to an organized schema of genre resources stored in long-term 

memory.  When children employ these resources stored in long-term memory, this eases the 

working memory demands during the translating phase, which facilitates access to planning and 

revising strategies.  Once students can fluently produce texts, working memory space is freed up 

to access information stored about genre (Hoskyn & Swanson, 2003; McCutchen et al., 1994; 

McCutchen, 2011).  Comprehensive knowledge about genre will allow writers to move beyond the 

constraints of working memory, and improve writing performance.  To affect change, teachers need 

to explicitly teach children various genres, and examine the features, language, and rhetorical 

knowledge associated with each of those genres. 

    

Genre in the Classroom   
For students to be successful writers in school and post-secondary institutions, and for 

adults to experience success at work, they must have a strong understanding of genres and of the 

writing process (Brisk et al., 2010; Christie, 1999; Fillmore & Snow, 2002; National Commission 

on Writing, 2003; 2005; Schleppegrell, 2004).  Therefore, it is recommended for teachers to expose 

students to a variety of genres beginning in kindergarten and continuing through grade twelve and 

into university (Fillmore & Snow, 2002; Schleppegrell, 2004).   

Simply exposing children to genres, however, is insufficient. According to Hodgson-

Drysdale (2013), “knowledge of genres is not implicit and the language and structure of each genre 

must be taught” (p. 21). Genre must be taught through explicit instruction, and it is the 

responsibility of teachers to explicitly teach genre features, functions, and purposes, and make 

explicit the expectations associated with different genres to impact the writing skills of young 

children (Aguirre-Muñoz, Park, Amabisca, & Boscardin, 2009; Brisk et al., 2010; Quinn, 2004; 

Schleppegrell, 2001). The assumption related to the idea that instruction in genres must be made 

explicit is twofold.  Teachers have a developed understanding of genre types and a deep 

understanding of the structures, features, patterns, and purposes associated with the most common 

genres.  In addition, teachers have the ability and expertise to explicitly and effectively explain, 

model, and teach this specific genre information to their students.  These assumptions must be met 

in order for teachers to have a positive effect on children’s writing.   

Genre and systemic functional linguistics.  One way that teachers can frame genre 

instruction in a classroom context is through Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL).  Systemic 

Functional Linguistics theory was developed by Halliday (1994) and was first introduced in teacher 

education preparation and English Language Arts (ELA) programs thirty years ago in Australia.  

English Language Arts programs focus specifically on teaching literacy skills, such as reading, 

writing, listening, and speaking.  Systemic Functional Linguistics examines how language is used, 

the purposes it serves, and how we achieve those purposes (Halliday, 1994).  Systemic Functional 

Linguistics is one way we can construct meaning from a text, achieved by focusing on the 

functional aspects of the language being used (Anderson, 2013).  Simply put, SFL is the study of 

the relationship between language and its functions in social settings.  It is a more explicit way of 

teaching specific language features and writing structures of academic genres.  It helps students 



Ramzy / Emerging Perspectives (2018)               7 

understand what they need to write in order to be understood, accepted, and successful in a school 

context (Schleppegrell & Go, 2007).   

Implementing SFL theory to teach genre focuses on how the language and structure of 

writing tasks vary by genre (Brisk, 2012).  Individual genres are made up of registers, and the 

register is what differentiates one genre from another (Christie, 2012; Schleppegrell, 2001).  The 

linguistic features that make up a specific register are what allow us to read a text and form an 

impression on the text type (Schleppegrell, 2001).  A register is defined by three key features: field, 

tenor, and mode.  Field refers to the lexical density of the text, and how the ideas are expressed 

through content words and content-specific vocabulary.  These language choices are dependent on 

the context of the situation.  Tenor refers to the relationship between the writer and the reader.  

Tenor ranges from the use of personal language to impersonal language.  The channel of 

communication, such as written versus spoken or formal versus informal, refers to the mode 

(Aguirre-Muñoz et al., 2009; Brisk et al., 2010; Quinn, 2004).  These three features, when 

combined, form a register, which identifies the genre.  Therefore, explicit instruction is necessary 

not only in purpose, function, and audience, but also in the way registers are used in the most 

common genres at school.        

In an optimal elementary classroom setting, instruction on genres through SFL theory 

would resemble that of the gradual release of responsibility model, where instruction begins as 

teacher-led, then the teacher and students working together to construct knowledge, and ends with 

students working independently (Brisk et al., 2010; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983).  The teacher 

would begin by deconstructing mentor texts in a certain genre to make explicit and obvious the 

features, functions, and purposes.  Focus would also be on the audience and the registers, or the 

specific language choices associated with the genre, used.  If the focus in a writing classroom is on 

the explanation of texts, for example, writing a text explaining how to build a snowman, a series 

of lessons might emphasize the use of third person rather than first person.  In the second phase, 

the teacher and students would construct a text in the focus genre together.  Finally, after many 

mini-lessons, practice, and feedback, students would construct a text independently (Brisk et al., 

2010; Christie, 2008; Martin, 2009).  This type of genre instruction using SFL theory “makes the 

linguistic expectations of academic language explicit and discernible to teachers and their students” 

(Aguirre-Muñoz et al., 2009, p. 300). 

Systemic functional linguistics in the classroom.  There has been a limited amount of 

research conducted in elementary classrooms to investigate the effectiveness of using an SFL 

theory to inform genre instruction and its impact on the writing abilities of young children.  

Additionally, most of the research conducted in elementary schools has focused on bilingual 

students, students who speak or are learning two languages fluently (e.g., Brisk, 2012; Wollman-

Bonilla, 2000), and English Language Learners (ELLs), students whose first language is not 

English (e.g., Aguirre- Muñoz et al., 2009; Schleppegrell & Go, 2007).  Little research has looked 

at SFL in the context of an ELA classroom.  Nevertheless, the research available suggests that 

using an SFL approach to genre instruction has a positive impact on the writing of young children 

(e.g., Brisk, 2012; Brisk & Zisselsberger, 2011; Quinn, 2004).       

Schleppegrell and Go (2007) and Aguirre-Muñoz et al. (2009) studied the impact of 

teaching middle school ELLs the functions and grammar features in specific genres in ELA 

classrooms.  The studies demonstrated that when a teacher’s understanding of genre improves, this 

has a positive impact on ELLs’ academic writing.  Schleppegrell (1998) conducted another study 

to determine if an SFL approach to teaching genre to middle school students would improve their 

science writing.  The focus was on students in grades seven and eight who were learning how to 

write a descriptive paragraph on a science topic.  All three studies found that when instruction in 



Ramzy / Emerging Perspectives (2018)               8 

the focus genre is explicit, students’ writing competencies improved, and students experienced 

more success in writing. 

Quinn (2004) also looked at expository science writing in a grade six science classroom. 

The focus of her study was not on the writing performance of students per se; rather, she focused 

on how, through explicit instruction of explanatory texts in science through the lens of SFL, 

students’ knowledge and understanding of the genre improved.  In Quinn’s (2004) study, she found 

that explicit instruction of explanatory texts led to improved writing, and that the students 

developed a stronger understanding of the structure of the genre and could explain the use of some 

linguistic features associated with the target genre.  

In an elementary school context, the findings are very similar to those revealed in middle 

school studies; moreover, the same challenges are present.  The research is limited, and most of the 

research has been done with respect to teaching genre in the science classroom (Brisk et al., 2010; 

Honig, 2010; Matthiessen, Slade, & Macken, 1992; Tower, 2005; Wollman-Bonilla, 2000), or 

focuses primarily on bilingual students and ELLs (Brisk, 2012; Brisk & Zisselsberger, 2011; 

Wollman-Bonilla, 2001).   

Studies focusing on elementary science classrooms have demonstrated repeatedly that 

when teachers scaffold the language and expectations of science genres, and when instruction is 

explicit, three things happen (Brisk et al., 2010; Honig, 2010; Matthiessen, Slade, & Macken, 1992; 

Tower, 2005; Wollman-Bonilla, 2000).  The first is that teachers develop a stronger awareness of 

genres, and their instruction in the areas of functions, purposes, and linguistic features improves.  

Second, students themselves develop a stronger understanding of the genre being taught.  Third, 

student writing improves.  

There has been a small number of studies implemented to determine the effects of an SFL 

approach to teaching genre on elementary-aged students’ writing with a focus on ELA classrooms 

(Brisk, 2012; Brisk & Zisselsberger, 2011; Wollman-Bonilla, 2001).  Wollman-Bonilla (2001) 

examined the effects of explicitly teaching audience awareness on grade one students’ writing in 

the genre of persuasive writing.  Brisk’s (2012) study examined the effects of explicitly teaching 

first, second, and third-person in grades three through five, on bilingual students’ writing.  Brisk 

and Zisselsberger (2011) investigated the impact on the writing of three bilingual kindergarten 

students’ personal narratives after teachers had been taught SFL theory.  In all three studies, 

students revealed a deeper understanding of genre, and the writing abilities of the elementary 

students improved.   

Even though much of the above research focuses on elementary and middle school science 

classrooms, ELLs, or bilingual students, I posit that the results are also applicable to a general 

education English Language Arts classroom.  The way in which we  teach genres to students might 

benefit from following the same sequence of instruction, no matter what content area is the focus. 

There are some researchers who critique explicit instruction in genre education, explaining 

the process is too prescriptive (Freedman & Medway, 1994), and that this type of instruction 

teaches forms and structures as empty and unconnected to students (Sawyer & Watson, 1987).  

Freedman and Medway (1994), and Sawyer and Watson (1987) argue that if we prescribe forms, 

structures, and functions too rigidly to students, they will not have the opportunity to be creative 

in their compositions. The authors further state that students should be allowed to experiment and 

play with writing in order to reach their potential success.  While I appreciate this point of view, 

and agree that we need to allow children room for creativity and experimentation when they write, 

I would argue that by first providing a solid foundation in writing fundamentals we would be 

empowering our students to experiment with language and writing.  Many researchers (Christie, 

2012; Jones, Clark & Reutzel, 2016; Roessingh & Bence, 2017) support this view.  Without the 



Ramzy / Emerging Perspectives (2018)               9 

knowledge and understanding of how to form a text, we cannot expect young children to write 

creatively, and with success. 

Pre-service teacher training, or professional development training for current teachers, 

focusing on genre pedagogy through the lens of SFL theory, can offer a way for teachers to improve 

their own understandings of genres.  This understanding can then be transferred to students, and 

will not only improve the students’ understandings of genres and language, but will also improve 

their writing skills (Aguirre-Muñoz et al., 2009).  Instruction must emphasize the functions, 

purposes, structures, and linguistic features of different genres (Brisk et al., 2010).  

 

Research Implications 
The way teachers organize and implement writing programs in schools is critical to student 

success (Brisk, 2012; Brisk et al., 2010; Graham & Harris, 2005; Roberts et al., 2014).  In 

elementary classrooms, I believe there are five components that are essential to include in an 

effective writing instruction program for students to achieve success: printing, high-frequency 

words, spelling, genre instruction, and vocabulary. These components are evident in the literature 

on research-based practices and recommendations by educational experts in the field of writing 

(Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2012; Berninger et al., 2006; Dinehart, 2015; Graham, 

MacArthur, & Fitzgerald, 2013; Joshi et al., 2008; Temple, Nathan, & Temple, 2013). While this 

paper has only focused on genre instruction, I believe that by explicitly and systematically exposing 

young learners to all five of these foundational components, teachers will provide their students 

with the necessary basic tools for success in communicating their thoughts, dreams, and discoveries 

throughout their lives. 

The research on genre instruction and SFL is limited, but it is unmistakably clear that 

through explicit instruction of genres, with an understanding of an SFL theory, the writing 

performance of students improves.  Further research around teaching genre from an SFL 

perspective to determine the impact on young students’ writing skills is necessary.  It would be 

beneficial for this research to focus on the development of young children’s writing in the ELA 

classroom, and on all learners, rather than just ELLs.   

 

Limitations and Conclusion  
This literature review was limited by the available research on the topic, and the argument 

that instruction should occur in a direct and explicit manner.  The research looking at pre-service 

teacher preparation and teaching young children to write is limited, and thus far I have not found 

any conducted within Canada.  Additionally, due to the limited amount of research around SFL, 

and the fact that the research took place in Australia, the generalizability of SFL to a North 

American context is limited.  Moreover, my beliefs around early literacy instruction are present 

throughout this paper.  SFL strongly aligns with my belief that instruction is most effective when 

direct and explicit, and that this type of instruction leads to the highest amounts of success for 

young children.  Because of this position, the research reviewed for this paper is partial towards 

my teaching philosophy. 

As per my discussion throughout this paper, it is clear that writing is a complex process: 

one that is not easily taught or learned, and one that involves many interwoven components. 

Instruction in genre and the way we teach children to write needs to be explicit for students to 

experience success.  The information stemming from this literature review will add to the growing 

body of research highlighting the importance of early literacy skills development, specifically the 

importance of explicitly teaching the most common genres in schools, using an SLF lens for 



Ramzy / Emerging Perspectives (2018)               10 

instruction.  A further examination of the impact of explicit genre instruction on the writing abilities 

of young students, focusing on using SFL, will be beneficial for teachers, university educators, and 

students.  Continuing to investigate SFL is essential as a large percentage of our young students in 

Alberta are entering the classroom not ready for school (ECMap, 2014). Our provincial 

achievement test data for students in grade three, in writing, echoes this lack of readiness (Alberta 

Education, 2013), and hints at the lack of effective instruction to develop children’s writing 

abilities.  Additionally, by focusing instruction on genre, the cognitive load placed on students’ 

working memory will be reduced, allowing room for a focus on higher level skills to be 

incorporated in their writing.   

Preparing pre-service teachers to teach genre to elementary school-aged children, by 

focusing on SFL theory, can lead to improved writing.  Learning to write cannot be achieved by 

simply exposing children to the writing components and processes, but rather through planned, 

direct, and purposeful instruction.  It is my belief that when instruction in genre is direct and 

systematic, this will help students develop the literacy skills they need to be successful in school.       

 

References 

Aguirre-Muñoz, Z., Park, J.-E., Amabisca, A., & Boscardin, C. K. (2009). Developing teacher 

capacity for serving ELLs’ writing instructional needs: A case for systemic functional 

linguistics. Bilingual Research Journal, 31(1/2), 295–322. 

doi:10.1080/15235880802640755 

Alberta Education. (2018). Provincial achievement tests: PAT overview. Retrieved from 

https://education.alberta.ca/provincial-achievement-tests/about-the-pats/ 

Alberta Education. (2013). Multiyear Report, Provincial Results: 2009-2013.  Retrieved from 

https://education.alberta.ca/media/7627999/multiyearp.pdf. 

Anderson, K. T. (2013). Contrasting systemic functional linguistic and situated literacies 

approaches to multimodality in literacy and writing studies. Written Communication, 30(3), 

276–299. doi:10.1177/0741088313488073 

Baddeley, A. D. (1986).  Working memory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.   

Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2012). Words their way: Word study 

for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.  

Berninger, V. W., Rutberg, J. E., Abbott, R. D., Garcia, N., Anderson-Youngstrom, M., Brooks, 

A., & Fulton, C. (2006). Tier 1 and Tier 2 early intervention for handwriting and composing. 

Journal of School Psychology, 44(3), 3–30. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.12.003 

Bourdin, B., & Fayol, M. (1994). Is written language production more difficult than oral language 

production? A working memory approach. International Journal of Psychology, 29(5), 

591-620. doi:10.1080/00207599408248175 

Brisk, M. E. (2012). Young bilingual writers’ control of grammatical person in different genres. 

The Elementary School Journal, 112(2), 445–468. doi:10.1086/521238 

Brisk, M. E., Hodgson-Drysdale, T., & O’Connor, C. (2010). A study of a collaborative 

instructional project informed by systemic functional linguistic theory: Report writing in 

elementary grades. Journal of Education, 191(1), 1–12.  

Brisk, M. E., & Zisselsberger, M. (2011). “We’ve let them in on a secret”: Using SFL theory to 

improve the teaching of writing to bilingual learners. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher 

preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 

111-126). New York, NY: Routledge.    



Ramzy / Emerging Perspectives (2018)               11 

Christie, F. (1999). Genre theory and ESL teaching: A systemic functional perspective. TESOL 

Quarterly, 33(4), 759–763. doi:10.2307/3587889 

Christie, F. (2008). Genres and institutions: Functional perspectives on educational discourse. In 

M. Martin-Jones, A. M. de Mejia & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language 

and education: Discourse and education (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 29-40). New York, NY: 

Springer.    

Christie, F. (2012). A language theory for educational practice. Language Learning: A Journal of 

Research in Language Studies, 62(1), 1–31. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00678.x 

Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of 

Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907-919. doi:10.1037/a0012656 

Dinehart, L. H. (2015). Handwriting in early childhood education: Current research and future 

implications. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 15(1), 97–118. 

doi:10.1177/1468798414522825 

Early Childhood Development Mapping Project. (2014). Retrieved from 

http://www.ecmap.ca/findings-maps/calgary-edmonton-results.html 

Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. E. (2002). What teachers needs to know about language. In C.T. 

Adger, C. E. Snow, & D. Christian (Eds.), What teachers need to know about language (pp. 

7-54). Washington, DC and McHenry, IL: Centre for Applied Linguistics and Delta 

Systems.   

Freedman, A., & Medway, P. (1994). Locating genre studies: Antecedents and prospects. In A. 

Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 1-20). London: Taylor and 

Francis.   

Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4-6: A national 

survey. Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 494-518. doi:10.1086/651193  

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Improving the writing performance of young struggling 

writers: Theoretical and programmatic research from the centre on accelerating student 

learning. Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 19–33. doi:10.1177/002246699903300202 

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2011). It is more than just the message: Presentation 

effects in scoring writing. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44(4). 

Graham, S., MacArthur, C. A., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds). (2013). Best practices in writing instruction 

(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.   

Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. 

Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: 

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.   

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward 

Arnold.  

Hitch, G. J., Towse, J. N., & Hutton, U. (2001). What limits children’s working memory span? 

Theoretical accounts and applications for scholastic development. Journal of Experimental 

Psychology, 130(2), 184–198. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.184 

Hodgson-Drysdale, T. (2013). Teaching writing informed by systemic function linguistics: “I never 

would have thought of doing that…” (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Boston College, 

Massachusetts.  

Honig, S. (2010). What do children write in science? A study of the genre set in a primary science 

classroom. Written Communication, 27(1), 87–119. doi:10.1177/0741088309350159 

Hoskyn, M., & Swanson, H. L. (2003). The relationship between working memory and writing in 

younger and older adults. Reading and Writing, 16(8), 759–784. 

doi:10.1023/A:1027320226283 

http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.184


Ramzy / Emerging Perspectives (2018)               12 

Jones, C. D., Clark, S. K, & Reutzel, D. R. (2016). Teaching text structure. The Elementary School 

Journal, 117(1), 143-169. doi:10.1086/687812  

Joshi, M., Treiman, R., Carreker, S., & Moats, L. (2008). How words cast their spell: Spelling is 

an integral part of learning the language, not a matter of memorization. American 

Educator, Winter, 6-8. Retrieved from  

http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/winter0809/joshi.pdf 

Kellogg, R. T. (2001). Competition for working memory among writing processes. The American 

Journal of Psychology, 114(2), 175–191. 

Limpo, T., Alves, R. A., & Connelly, V. (2017). Examining the transcription writing link: Effects 

of handwriting fluency and spelling accuracy on writing performance via planning and 

translating in middle grades. Learning and Individual Differences, 53, 26-36. 

doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2016.11.004  

Lust, C. A., & Donica, D. K. (2011). Effectiveness of a handwriting readiness program in head 

start: A two-group controlled trial. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65(5), 

560–568. 

Marr, D., & Dimeo, S. B. (2006). Outcomes associated with a summer handwriting course for 

elementary students. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60(1), 10–15. 

doi:10.5014/ajot.60.1.10 

Martin, J. R. (2009).  Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and 

Education, 20(1), 10-21. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.003  

Matthiessen, C., Slade, D., & Macken, M. (1992). Language in context: A new model for 

evaluating student writing. Linguistics and Education, 4(2), 173–193. doi:10.1016/0898-

5898(92)90013-M 

McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. 

Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 299–325. doi:10.1007/BF01464076 

McCutchen, D. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory 

of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 13–23. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3501_3 

McCutchen, D. (2011). From novice to expert: Implications of language skills and writing-relevant 

knowledge for memory during the development of writing skills. Journal of Writing 

Research, 3(1), 51–68. doi:10.17239/jowr-2011.03.01.3  

McCutchen, D., Covill, A., Hoyne, S. H., & Mildes, K. (1994). Individual differences in writing: 

Implications of translating fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 256–266. 

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.256 

Medwell, J., & Wray, D. (2007). Writing: What do we know and what do we need to know? 

Literacy, 41(3), 10-15. 

National Commission on Writing. (2003). The neglected “r”: The need for a writing revolution. 

Retrieved from http://www.collegeboard.com 

National Commission on Writing. (2005). Writing: A powerful message from state government. 

Retrieved from http://www.collegeboard.com 

Olive, T. (2012). Working memory in writing. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), Past, present, and future 

contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 485–503). New 

York, NY: Taylor & Francis. 

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. 

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317-344.  

Peng, P., & Fuchs, D. (2017). A randomized control trial of working memory training with and 

without strategy instruction: Effects on young children’s working memory and 

http://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.60.1.10
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.003


Ramzy / Emerging Perspectives (2018)               13 

comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(1), 62-80. 

doi:10.1177/0022219415594609 

Quinn, M. (2004). Talking with Jess: Looking at how metalanguage assisted explaining writing in 

the middle years. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 27(3), 245-261.  

Reutzel, D. R., Jones, C. D., Clark, S. K., & Kumar, T. (2016). The informational text structure 

survey (ITS2): An exploration of primary grade teachers’ sensitivity to text structure in 

young children’s informational texts. Journal of Educational Research, 109(1), 81–98. 

doi:10.1080/00220671.2014.918927 

Roberts, G. I., Derkach-Ferguson, A. F., Siever, J. E., & Rose, M. S. (2014). An examination of 

the effectiveness of Handwriting Without Tears ® instruction. Canadian Journal of 

Occupational Therapy/Revue Canadienne D’ergothérapie, 81(2), 102–13. 

doi:10.1177/0008417414527065 

Roessingh. H. & Bence, M. (2017). Intervening in early written literacy development for gifted 

children in Grade 2: Insights from an action research project. Journal for the Education of 

the Gifted, 40, 2, 168-196.  

Sawyer, W., & Watson, K. (1987). Questions of genre. In I. Reid (Ed.), The place of genre in 

learning: Current debates (pp. 46-57). Victoria, AU: Deakin University, Centre for Studies 

in Literacy Education. 

Schleppegrell, M. J. (1998). Grammar as a resource: Writing a description. Research in the 

Teaching of English, 32(2), 182–211.  

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and 

Education, 12(4), 431–459. doi:10.1016/S0898-5898(01)00073-0  

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. 

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.   

Schleppegrell, M. J. & Go, A. L. (2007). Analyzing the writing of English learners: A functional 

approach. Language Arts, 84(6), 529–538.  

Schneck, C., Shasby, S., Myers, C., & DePoy Smith, M. L. (2012). Handwriting without tears 

versus teacher-designed handwriting instruction in first grade classrooms. Journal of 

Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention, 5(1), 31–42. 

doi:10.1080/19411243.2012.675759 

Swanson, H. L., & Berninger, V. W. (1996). Individual differences in children’s working memory 

and writing skill. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63(2), 358–385. 

doi:10.1006/jecp.1996.0054 

Temple, C., Nathan, R., & Temple, C. (2013). The beginnings of writing (4th ed.). New York, NY: 

Pearson. 

Tower, C. (2005). What’s the purpose? Students talk about writing in science. Language Arts, 

82(6), 472–483.  

Towse, J. N., Hitch, G. J., & Hutton, U. (1998). A re-evaluation of working memory capacity in 

children. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 195–217. doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2574 

University of Alberta. (2015, November 27). Course Catalogue. Retrieved from 

https://catalogue.ualberta.ca/Course. 

University of Calgary. (2015, November 27). Course Catalogue. Retrieved from 

http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/current/education-educ.html. 

University of Lethbridge. (2015, November 27). Course Catalogue. Retrieved from 

https://www.uleth.ca/ross/courses. 



Ramzy / Emerging Perspectives (2018)               14 

Vander Hart, N., Fitzpatrick, P., & Cortesa, C. (2010). In-depth analysis of handwriting 

curriculum and instruction in four kindergarten classrooms. Reading and Writing, 23(6), 

673–699. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9178-6 

Wollman-Bonilla, J. E. (2000). Teaching science writing to first graders: Genre learning and 

recontextualization. Research in the Teaching of English, 35(1), 35–65. 

doi:10.2307/40171506 

Wollman-Bonilla, J. E. (2001). Can first-grade writers demonstrate audience awareness? Reading 

Research Quarterly, 36(2), 184–201. doi:10.1598/rrq.36.2.4  

Yi, B., & Luo, S. (2013). Working memory and lexical knowledge in L2 argumentative writing. 

Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 23, 83–102. doi:10.1353/aje.2013.0004 

 

 

 

 


