










































Article 
 

Cristiane Vicentini, Doctoral Candidate, University of Miami, Miami, FL; email cxr809@miami.edu 
(https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2501-0315). 
 
Dr. Luciana C. de Oliveira, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Graduate Studies and Professor, 
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; email deoliveiral@vcu.edu (https://orcid.org/0000-
0003-0296-4316). 
 
Jia Gui, Doctoral Candidate, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; email guij2@vcu.edu 
(https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5476-1495). 
 

Integrating Technology into Genre-
based Writing Instruction for 
Multilingual Learners 

GATESOL Journal 
2022, Vol. 32(2), pp. 27–42 

doi:10.52242/gatesol.167 
ISSN: 2331-6845 

 

 
Cristiane Vicentini 
University of Miami 
 

Luciana C. de Oliveira 
Virginia Commonwealth University 
 

Jia Gui 
Virginia Commonwealth University 
 

Abstract 
Although L2 writing is an essential element in multilingual learners’ language and literacy 
development in K–12 schools, it is often underemphasized and overlooked in lieu of the 
greater emphasis placed on reading. This lack of focus warrants the need for more specific 
writing instruction in K–12 schooling, especially since it is through the development of writing 
skills that learners become better able to communicate and interact with others, achieve 
academic success and career advancement, and have access to increased opportunities within 
and outside of instructional settings. The achievement of these goals can be facilitated through 
the support of educators and the implementation of a genre-based pedagogy. In this article, 
we discuss how technology can be integrated into genre-based writing instruction, 
highlighting how different tools can be used at various points in time in both face-to-face and 
online environments. We also provide examples of tools that can facilitate the implementation 
of this writing pedagogy, based on research in elementary, secondary, and tertiary classrooms. 
 
Keywords 
L2 writing, writing skills, genre-based writing instruction, technology 

 
Introduction 
Although L2 writing is an essential element in multilingual learners’ (MLs’) language and literacy 
development in K–12 schools, it is often underemphasized and overlooked in lieu of the greater 
emphasis placed on reading (de Oliveira, 2017). Unfortunately, this lack of focus results in writing 
unpreparedness in schools across the U.S. According to the latest available reports from the 
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), in 2011, only 27% of 8th and 12th graders 

mailto:cxr809@miami.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2501-0315
mailto:deoliveiral@vcu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0296-4316
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0296-4316
mailto:guij2@vcu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5476-1495


28 GATESOL Journal 32(2)  
 

performed at or above proficiency level (the remaining were at or above the basic level1). These 
results show the need for more specific writing instruction in K–12 schooling, especially since it 
is through the development of writing skills that learners become better able to communicate and 
interact with others, achieve academic success and career advancement, and have access to 
increased opportunities within and outside of instructional settings (Kellogg & Raulerson, 2007; 
Kellogg & Whiteford, 2009; Wellington, 2010). The achievement of these goals can be facilitated 
through the support of educators and the implementation of a genre-based pedagogy. Though the 
genre-based pedagogy that we discuss in this article has been mostly used in face-to-face settings 
without the need for technology, we show here how different technology tools can be used at 
various points in time in both face-to-face and online environments and provide examples of tools 
that can facilitate the implementation of this writing pedagogy, based on research in elementary, 
secondary, and tertiary classrooms. An additional goal is to provide suggestions on how to 
incorporate technology tools within each phase of a specific teaching model for writing instruction. 
 
Genre-Based Approach to Writing Instruction 
Genre-based pedagogies have been used successfully by educators and scholars teaching writing 
in English as a second language (ESL)/English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts for more than 
15 years (de Oliveira et al., 2020; Hsu & Liu, 2019). Genre-based approaches emphasize that 
writing pedagogies should provide students with explicit and systematic explanations of how 
language works in social contexts (Hyland, 2003; Martin, 2009; Rusinovci, 2015). Additionally, 
they help to improve students’ ability to understand and produce texts (Almacıoğlu & Okan, 2018; 
Luu, 2011) in a cohesive and purposeful manner (Luu, 2011). One approach within genre-based 
pedagogies is informed by systemic-functional linguistics (SFL), which is the one we address in 
this article. We use the notion of genre based on SFL conceptualizations, as a staged goal-oriented 
social process. Genre is staged because it takes us more than one step to reach our goals; it is goal-
oriented because we should have a purpose to write; and it is social because writers shape their 
texts for particular audiences (Rose & Martin, 2012). 

This specific genre-based approach enables students to become active participants in 
academic and professional settings and their larger communities (Hammond & Derewianka, 2001). 
Such genre-based approach informed by SFL has evolved to include a Teaching-Learning Cycle 
(TLC) originally developed by Joan Rothery (see Rothery, 1989). The TLC has gone through 
several iterations over time from its original conceptualization but has remained an apprenticeship 
model for genre-based pedagogy based on SFL (Rose & Martin, 2012). We use the TLC as a model 
to emphasize scaffolding instruction and to guide learners as they go through different phases of 
the cycle. 
 
The Teaching-Learning Cycle (TLC) 
Through a carefully constructed series of activities, the TLC affords interactive, structured, 
language-centered instruction for diverse content areas and instructional settings. The TLC was 
developed for implementation in literacy teaching using the principle of “guidance through 
interaction in the context of shared experience” (Rose & Martin, 2012, p. 52). This principle refers 
to the guidance provided by teachers in talking, reading, and writing about a specific text in the 
context of a shared experience (e.g., a common text, movie, reading). This means that students 
                                                            
1 The NAEP Basic level refers to partial mastery of the prerequisites that are fundamental for the performance at the 
NAEP Proficient level. The Proficient level includes mastery of analytical skills, subject-matter knowledge and its 
use in real world situations (NAEP, 2011). 



Vicentini, de Oliveira, & Gui 29 
 

write about something that they shared as an activity, since shared experiences are critical 
components of writing. The TLC originally consisted of three phases—Deconstruction, Joint 
Construction, and Independent Construction (Callaghan & Rothery, 1988)—and over time, the 
TLC has evolved from the original approach developed by Rothery (1989; see e.g., Brisk, 2015; 
Feez & Joyce, 1998; Gibbons, 2002; Martin & Rose, 2008; Rose, 2015). With additional work in 
elementary classrooms over the years, some authors noticed the need to provide increased support 
for multilingual learners to further explore the genre in pairs or small groups and therefore added 
an additional phase to the TLC entitled Collaborative Construction (Brisk, 2015, de Oliveira, 
2017). This phase of the TLC allows students to actively interact—while working together in pairs 
or groups—and then write about a shared activity or experience (e.g., a field trip, a movie, a school 
event) before moving to Independent Construction, when students write on their own.  This article 
is framed upon these four phases due to our belief in its valuable contribution to writing instruction, 
as shown in Figure 1. 
 
Figure 1 
Teaching-Learning Cycle 
 

 
 



30 GATESOL Journal 32(2)  
 

To set the context, the TLC begins with the overall preparation and development of the 
necessary knowledge to carry out the writing process. In the TLC, this development and guidance 
of needed knowledge is known as building field. Building field often occurs through Detailed 
Reading (DR) as a means to develop students’ content knowledge in a particular topic and to 
facilitate instruction. Building field continues as students need support for developing knowledge 
about the topic they are writing about (Rose & Martin, 2012). DR entails teachers’ selection of 
passages from texts to be covered thoroughly (i.e., read sentence by sentence); it is during this time 
that teachers and students can interpret the textual content, discuss it, and make connections that 
will facilitate understanding. However, that does not mean that DR is restricted to this particular 
phase—it can be implemented at all phases of the TLC iteratively; that is, at any time there is a 
need to activate learners’ background knowledge or provide scaffolding during the completion of 
a task. Particularly for multilingual learners, DR is a vital component within the genre-based 
approach to writing instruction. Scholars have used the DR phase in different ways. Some have 
considered it a part of the Deconstruction phase of the TLC (Rose, 2015) while others employ it 
separately, making it the first step to be completed before initiating the other phases (de Oliveira 
et al., 2020; Kuiper et al., 2017; Nagao, 2020).  

Once DR is complete, it is time for Deconstruction; in this phase, teachers provide mentor 
texts selected from a specific genre for students to work on and respond to teacher prompts meant 
to scaffold students’ knowledge of language and meaning. Examples of mentor texts include: (i) 
texts created by multilingual learners themselves; (ii) texts that the teacher and students co-created 
in past years; or even (iii) published texts that teachers find (i.e., online, in textbooks, magazines, 
or other sources) that could serve as exemplars for students. For the deconstruction, teachers can 
perform a variety of tasks through whole class interactions: they can model, call attention to 
specific features of text, and/or carry out discussions related to how the text is organized, its 
purpose, and other linguistic styling and choices of mechanics (de Oliveira et al., 2020; de Oliveira 
& Lan, 2014; Palincsar & Schleppegrell, 2014). Deconstruction can also be performed through the 
use of graphic organizers (Brisk et al., 2011; Brisk, 2015) or other visual displays (de Oliveira & 
Avalos, 2018). 

The next phase involves Joint Construction, a time when the teacher and students construct 
a text together that follows the same genre as the mentor text deconstructed previously. Frequently 
performed in whole class format, this collaboration between the teacher and the students enables 
learners to apply the language features that were previously highlighted and modeled. In this phase, 
as both the teacher and students are co-constructing the new piece of writing, the teacher plays the 
role of the scribe, eliciting information from the class and scribing what is being said (i.e., writing 
it on the board or projecting it as it is being typed on a word processor). Once this new text is 
produced, Collaborative Construction (de Oliveira, 2017) may take place. Although not present in 
the original TLC, this phase was added due to its vital role in supporting the learning of 
multilingual students or young learners (e.g., in grades K–2) who are novice English language 
writers. During Collaborative Construction, students work with their classmates (in pairs or small 
groups) to continue practicing writing in this new genre. Together, they can negotiate ideas, 
brainstorm, write, review, and revise content; at this point in the TLC, students are working more 
independently and the teacher only provides scaffolding as needed. After the completion of this 
optional phase comes the final phase of the TLC: Independent Construction. Here, students write 
independently and use the previous scaffolded examples and prior experiences deconstructing texts 
to write a new piece following the same genre (de Oliveira et al., 2020; Derewianka & Jones, 
2016). 



Vicentini, de Oliveira, & Gui 31 
 

In other models of writing instruction, such as process writing approaches, mentor texts 
featuring what is expected are not provided to MLs. Instead, they are left to write on their own 
from the start, without guidance from teachers on how to accomplish this. Feedback is typically 
given on what teachers might have seen as “errors” and no discussion that builds MLs’ knowledge 
about language is included as part of various phases. Teachers ask students to write independently 
from the get-go and then they provide feedback on various drafts, hoping students will improve. 
Teachers do not compose texts jointly with their class, a missing but critical step for MLs (Caplan 
& Farling 2016). This type of approach creates a knowledge vacuum (Rose & Martin, 2012), and 
students are left to draw on their own experiences without explicit guidance from the teacher. The 
TLC creates a very different kind of experience for MLs as it is an apprenticeship model that 
engages them as language users in all phases of activity. Joint Construction is especially important 
for MLs as they discuss and write together with the teacher in a guided practice, experiential 
learning environment. MLs experience the principle ‘guidance through interaction in the context 
of shared experiences;’ that is, guidance about writing provided by the teacher through interactions 
in the classroom with all students about some kind of shared experience in which all students were 
involved. 

Even though the TLC is most commonly used in face-to-face settings without the need for 
technology (i.e., pen and paper), tech tools can also be employed to facilitate genre-based writing 
instruction in both face-to-face and online environments. With this in mind, consider the following 
scenario, which we include as an example to illustrate how the different phases of the TLC can be 
implemented in any instructional setting and applied to any content area, with or without the 
support of tech tools. In this sense, the choice of tech tool used by the instructor is left to them; 
that is, they can choose to use a word processor, or a particular website or mobile application 
accessible on their tablets or cell phones. Please refer to the ‘Infusing Technology into the TLC’ 
section of this paper for specific suggestions of tools to use in each of the phases of the Teaching-
Learning Cycle. 
 
Teaching Scenario 
During the Detailed Reading phase, students activated their background knowledge and built their 
content knowledge of the topic weather in Florida. Students learned about the various 
temperatures in Florida, looked at a map to see which areas were warmer and which were not and 
what seasons those temperatures occurred. Moving on to the Deconstruction phase, they read and 
analyzed features present in a mentor text titled “It is Always Sunny, Warm, and Pleasant in Miami 
Beach” which was a descriptive report about the weather in Miami Beach. Afterwards, the whole 
class worked together in the Joint Construction of a text in the same genre—a descriptive report—
as the mentor text. The teacher elicited ideas from students and acted as a scribe, writing what they 
said on a word processor projected onto the smart board (or, in pen and paper settings, writing on 
the whiteboard) in the front of the classroom. They wrote It is always hot, humid, and 
uncomfortable in Orlando. Then, it was time for students to work in small groups and create their 
own adaptations of the mentor text during the Collaborative Construction phase of the TLC. One 
small group wrote It is always windy, cool, and comfortable in Tampa Bay, while another decided 
on It is always sunny, hot, and humid in the Everglades. Finally, the teacher asked each student to 
write their own texts in the genre they had practiced during all the phases of the TLC (i.e., 
Independent Construction). Students started working in class and finished their pieces for 
homework. 
 



32 GATESOL Journal 32(2)  
 

Literature Review 
 
Genre-Based Approach and the TLC 
Research on the genre-based approach and the TLC has been carried out in different settings and 
grade levels to improve English language learners’ (ELLs) awareness of genre and writing 
competence. A case study conducted by de Oliveira and Lan (2014) explored how the 
implementation of genre-based pedagogy through the TLC in a 4th grade science classroom 
successfully scaffolded and supported the development of an ELL’s writing of procedural recounts 
in the science genre. Also, in the elementary school setting, de Oliveira (2017) conducted research 
investigating the implementation of the TLC and the deconstruction of a mentor text specifically 
developed to teach the book recount genre to students in a first-grade classroom. More recently, 
de Oliveira and colleagues (2020) co-designed English language arts (ELA) units for first graders, 
specifically focusing on the implementation of interactional scaffolding practices2 to engage and 
support a group of elementary school students as they progressed through each of the phases of 
the TLC. 

In addition to research at the elementary school level, several scholars across different parts 
of the world have conducted research on TLC at the college level across disciplines. A case study 
based in Turkey focused on English Language and Literature students and their teachers, using the 
three-phase teaching-learning cycle (i.e., deconstruction, joint construction, and independent 
construction) to facilitate students in building metacognitive awareness of the declarative type. 
Findings revealed that not only did students’ writing performance improve but their attitudes 
toward writing also changed. Students showed more self-confidence and positive attitudes toward 
writing, and their essay scores increased (Almacıoğlu & Okan, 2018). Similar results were also 
found in Thailand, where the TLC was applied to support the development of writing competence 
of 44 Thai university students. Findings revealed that these students were able to develop linguistic 
features and overall organization of writing, and that the approach afforded an enhancement of 
genre awareness, text organization, and the use of linguistic features characteristic of a particular 
genre (Thongchalerm & Jarunthawatchai, 2020). Moreover, in Vietnam, the implementation of the 
TLC in the development of the biographical recount genre for first-year university students 
successfully contributed to enhancing their writing, as they were able to identify and use key 
features of this genre (Luu, 2011). In Japan, 27 EFL college students benefited from the support 
of TLC in enhancing their lexicogrammatical choices and understanding of metafunctions for 
analytical exposition essay writing. Through a five-phase TLC approach, the students were able to 
identify target vocabulary and structures and enhance their ability to write in the target genre. 
Participants in this study successfully (i) built field; (ii) deconstructed a mentor text; (iii) jointly 
constructed a new text in the same genre; (iv) worked independently in writing their own texts, 
and also (v) identified and located similar texts in the same genre (Nagao, 2020). Genre-based 
writing research in a Dutch tertiary education context revealed that the TLC effectively improved 
participants’ writing skills by enhancing their usage of structure and linguistic features (Kuiper et 
al., 2017). Furthermore, in South Korea, second-year university students taking English as a 
foreign language writing classes were taught via the genre-based pedagogy for eight weeks. 
Results from the analysis of pre-, posttests, and delayed post tests indicated that through each stage 
of the TLC, participants’ writing improvement progressed (Jung, 2017), which corroborates the 
vital role that implementing this type of instruction can have in better preparing learners to write.  
                                                            
2 Interactional scaffolding practices entail initiation-response-feedback (IRF) discourse sequences, which actively 
engage students in the learning and development of discursive practices (Hammond & Gibbons, 2005). 



Vicentini, de Oliveira, & Gui 33 
 

Genre-based pedagogy is not limited to the teaching of English as a second or foreign 
language. In fact, Allen and Goodspeed (2018) investigated how 19 students taking a French 
course at a large public university in the Midwest United States were able to identify (i.e., 
deconstruct) features from mentor texts and use them in the creation of their own writing in the 
same genre (persuasive writing – manifestos). Findings revealed that genre-based pedagogy 
favorably influenced students’ perceptions of its effectiveness in support of foreign language 
writing. 

Genre-based pedagogy and specifically the TLC are ways to implement what the newest 
edition of the WIDA English Language Development Standards Framework calls a functional 
approach to language development (WIDA, 2020). WIDA defines language development as “an 
interactive social process that occurs over time to expand what we can do with language” (WIDA, 
2020, p. 20). This definition closely aligns with the genre definition provided in this article. A 
functional approach draws on SFL (see p. 359 of the WIDA Framework [WIDA, 2020] for a fuller 
explanation and details). 

The literature demonstrates the positive impact of the TLC in the teaching of learning of 
second language writing regardless of grade level or linguistic background. However, although the 
COVID-19 pandemic has brought online learning and the use of technology to the forefront, much 
of the available literature on TLC supporting second-language writing is still based on face-to-face 
settings. In these cases, the implementation of technology is welcome but not vital to the delivery 
of instruction as it is in online learning contexts. 
 
Technology Affordances to Second Language Writing Instruction 
Information and communication technologies (ICTs) have become prevalent in our daily lives; the 
Internet, mobile applications and digital tools, learning management systems, video games, 
simulations, virtual and augmented reality, among others, have transformed the manner in which 
we can access information, collaborate, communicate, educate, and entertain ourselves. Within the 
education field, ICTs have enabled instructors to create content, deliver instruction, and design 
materials that afford multimodal communication and meaning-making experiences for learners of 
various linguistic and cultural backgrounds and English language skills. In these rich, multimodal 
instructional environments, L2 writing instruction can be greatly facilitated. Among the vital roles 
of integrating technology into L2 writing instruction are (i) to afford collaboration in synchronous 
and asynchronous settings (Bikowski, 2014; Bikowski & Vithanage, 2016; Martin & Lambert, 
2015); (ii) to present material in multimodal formats such as images, motion, speech, sound, text, 
among others (Boling et al., 2008; Smith, 2014; Vicentini & de Oliveira, 2018); (iii) to provide 
online feedback and scaffolding (Mohamadi, 2018; Nova, 2018); and (iv) to provide prompt, 
individualized support for students’ acquisition and development of vocabulary, grammar, and 
mechanics of writing such as punctuation, capitalization, spelling (Dzekoe, 2017; Yamaç et al., 
2020). In this sense, tech tools can greatly enhance teachers’ work—especially those who teach 
large groups. Technology such as word processors’ spellcheckers, online writing assistants (e.g., 
Grammarly, Ginger), and corpora-based tools (e.g., Netspeak3, COCA Corpus) assist students with 
vocabulary and grammar, including collocations, prepositions, and frequently used phrases. 

In view of these new digital affordances, this article can fill a current gap by presenting 
specific technology and digital tools that can be utilized to facilitate the instruction of each phase 

                                                            
3 More information on the affordances of Netspeak can be found here: https://ittc.co.uk/netspeak-one-word-leads-to-
another/ 

https://ittc.co.uk/netspeak-one-word-leads-to-another/
https://ittc.co.uk/netspeak-one-word-leads-to-another/


34 GATESOL Journal 32(2)  
 

of the TLC and offering suggestions on how to approach these phases when teaching in face-to-
face and in online settings. 
 
Infusing Technology into the TLC 
This section details how to infuse a variety of technology tools into each of the four phases of the 
TLC in both face-to-face and online settings. Then, at the end of each phase, we present classroom-
based examples for both settings.  
 
Tools for the Detailed Reading Phase 
Tools that can enhance the implementation of this phase include those that serve to build field; that 
is, to establish the context and content knowledge of the topic. In addition, the tools described in 
this section afford the introduction of content in an interactive manner. Nearpod, Mentimeter, and 
EdPuzzle enable educators to create interactive presentations and videos. Nearpod offers a myriad 
of activities for presenting, brainstorming, eliciting responses, and evaluating students through 
formative and summative assessments. Similarly, Mentimeter affords the creation of presentations 
that are both beautiful and interactive, as well as polling and collecting feedback. EdPuzzle allows 
educators to adapt video content (e.g., from YouTube, TED or TEDEd, Khan Academy, Vimeo) 
by cropping and editing the videos and then adding annotations, interactive questions, other 
images, links with additional information, or any content that will serve to enhance the Detailed 
Reading phase. Kahoot, which has become ubiquitous in educational settings, is another tool that 
can be used to present content but also as formative assessment. There are also other options for 
those who prefer to replace Kahoot: Quizlet Live and Quizizz. Quizizz is a great alternative that 
eliminates the speed in which a Kahoot game is played. Instead of a particular amount of time 
assigned to each question, learners can answer them individually; that is, they select the proper 
choices at their own pace. Finally, in contrast to Kahoot and Quizizz, Quizlet Live allows students 
to work in groups. The software assigns students into small groups (i.e., two to four players) which 
are then given a mascot (e.g., elephants and koalas) as a means to sort and identify all students. 
Each member of the group then sits together to play the game and answer the questions correctly. 
The particularly interesting twist, which can truly enhance collaboration, is that students will not 
receive all the answers on their devices; they must check with other group members to find the 
correct answer to the question and then submit it from the device in which the answer appears. 
One last suggested tool for interactivity in the presentation of content is Flippity, which can turn 
spreadsheets into flashcards, quizzes in game show format, crossword puzzles, among other 
interactive formats to introduce or review content, obtain formative assessment, and assign 
additional practice activities. 

Specifically in online learning settings where content is presented asynchronously, it is 
vital that students be presented with information that is clear; they should also be given 
opportunities to locate and get access to other sources of information that might enhance the 
understanding of a particular topic. In view of this, we suggest sharing content through tools such 
as Explain Everything. Not only does this technology afford brainstorming, placement, and 
organization of multimodal information (e.g., videos, images, voice annotations) in both 
synchronous and asynchronous settings, Explain Everything also allows users to share their 
content as an interactive video that captures sound and object movement. Teachers can add links, 
comments, post-it notes, writing prompts, export the content as a video link, and share them with 
learners. Table 1 summarizes the tools described in this section and specifies those that can be 
used for face-to-face or online learning settings. 



Vicentini, de Oliveira, & Gui 35 
 

Table 1 
Technology Tools for the Detailed Reading Phase of the Teaching and Learning Cycle 
 

TLC Phase Technology for Face-to-Face 
Instructional Settings 

Technology for Online Settings 

Detailed 
Reading 

● Nearpod 
● Mentimeter 
● EdPuzzle 
● Kahoot 
● Quizlet Live 
● Quizizz 
● Flippity 

● Nearpod 
● EdPuzzle 
● Quizizz 
● Explain Everything 

 
Classroom-based example (detailed reading). After selecting a specific passage from 

The Empty Pot (Demi, 1996) short story, Mrs. Ann King (pseudonym), a grade 2 teacher in a 
public school in Indiana, got ready to start Detailed Reading. She utilized Nearpod to present the 
passage to students in multimodal format. Each sentence was presented in one slide, where 
students could hear it being read out loud and see images depicting key words and phrases. Once 
all the selected sentences were presented, Mrs. King gave students an interactive quiz, created 
using Kahoot. The quiz had questions about the story, its characters, and also covered some key 
vocabulary and phrases. Students used tablets to answer the questions and received individual 
feedback (correct/incorrect) after submitting their answers. At the end of the activity, results were 
shown to students (top scorers) and the teacher went over each of the questions, highlighting 
specific parts of the story and answering questions students had. Finally, Mrs. King assigned a 
quiz for homework. This quiz, created via EdPuzzle, was embedded in The Empty Pot YouTube 
video (Toadstools and Fairydust, 2021). Similar questions to those presented during class (via 
Kahoot) were posed to students in the EdPuzzle quiz to consolidate learning. Because EdPuzzle 
allowed students to replay the video segments related to each question, extra practice opportunities 
were afforded.  

When teaching this same class in a synchronous online setting, Mrs. King utilized Explain 
Everything, where she recorded step-by-step instructions of what tasks students were going to 
perform during the lesson, how to create accounts for Nearpod and EdPuzzle and how to log in 
using their computers. Mrs. King sent the Explain Everything video to students over the weekend, 
and on the day of the class, she presented the Nearpod slides, covering the content and answering 
questions. Then, in a similar manner to the face-to-face class, everyone played Kahoot and 
EdPuzzle was assigned for homework. 
 
Tools for the Deconstruction Phase 
Tools that can enhance the implementation of this phase include those that serve to model the 
deconstruction of texts, highlighting and breaking down specific features present in a particular 
genre. During the Deconstruction phase of the TLC, educators can use presentation tools such as 
Google Slides and Microsoft PowerPoint to guide students and elicit information as they 
emphasize textual features in a more engaging and interactive manner (using images, sound, color, 
etc.). Besides these two common tools, options such as Adobe Express (previously known as 
Adobe Spark), Microsoft Sway, and Pear Deck can bring novelty to the lessons. Teachers can also 
present content in visually rich and multimodal formats by utilizing ThingLink. With this tool, it 
is possible to add tags to images (or videos) that will enhance their presentation. These tags can 



36 GATESOL Journal 32(2)  
 

then place text, audio, video, voice comments, website links, quizzes, maps, and many other digital 
resources onto specific parts of the selected background and allow users to click on the tags and 
dig deeper into the information you are presenting. Text and slides can be added to the background 
as long as they are first exported to picture or video formats (e.g., screenshots or screenrecordings 
of content from presentation slides, online texts, or others). ThingLink also works very well when 
implementing the deconstruction phase in asynchronous online settings. Because the content is 
presented (i.e., tagged) in multimodal formats, learners can explore the content at their own pace, 
and what is best, re-read or replay the information placed in each tag, which is usually not typically 
the case in face-to-face synchronous instruction. Another option that is especially helpful for text 
deconstruction in online settings is Kaizena. Kaizena is a Google Docs add-on that embeds 
multimodal feedback (e.g., voice, text, video) into a Google Doc. Teachers’ comments created 
within Kaizena can even be created and saved as “lessons,” which can then be reutilized and 
reshared with other learners. See table 2 for a summary of the tools described in this section that 
can be used in face-to-face settings or online. 
 
Table 2 
Technology Tools for the Deconstruction Phase of the Teaching and Learning Cycle 
 

TLC Phase Technology for Face-to-Face 
Instructional Settings 

Technology for Online Settings 

Deconstruction ● Google Slides 
● Microsoft PowerPoint 
● Adobe Express 
● Microsoft Sway 
● Pear Deck 
● ThingLink 

● ThingLink 
● Kaizena 

 
Classroom-based example (deconstruction). Ms. Kathy Rodriguez (pseudonym), a grade 

7 teacher in a public school in Florida, was excited to present the slides she created using Pear 
Deck, as they afforded great interactivity and collaboration opportunities. Within the Pear Deck 
slides, the following activities were embedded: First, a quick poll eliciting students to write what 
they remembered from the passage they worked during Detailed Reading (e.g., key words, 
characters, topic, etc.). As all submitted answers gradually appeared on the slides, Ms. Rodriguez 
praised students and asked further questions to ensure that students were ready to move to the 
Deconstruction phase. Then, Ms. Rodriguez presented a new slide with a mentor text for students 
to deconstruct. Ms. Rodriguez guided students as they read a descriptive report highlighting the 
seven new wonders of the world. She facilitated whole class interactions, calling attention to 
textual features, key words, and organization of the text. Once the mentor text was deconstructed, 
Ms. Rodriguez moved on to another slide, which this time afforded students to use the drag and 
drop feature to answer whether something was Correct or Incorrect based on what they had 
discussed during deconstruction. Each student used their own tablet to drag their icon to their 
selected answer choice as the teacher read aloud prompts such as ‘The statue of the Christ 
Redeemer is very tall’ or ‘The Taj Mahal is made of gold,’ along with other prompts that afforded 
further discussion of the topic. Whenever needed, the teacher would go back to the mentor text 
and the group would then search for the answers to the prompts they had answered incorrectly. 
The final slide in Pear Deck was a graphic organizer in which students were asked to write the 
adjectives, descriptive verbs, and key phrases for each of the new wonders of the world. 



Vicentini, de Oliveira, & Gui 37 
 

When teaching this same class in a synchronous online setting, Ms. Rodriguez used the 
same activities. However, when she was asked to teach asynchronously, Ms. Rodriguez did not 
use Pear Deck slides. Instead, to gauge students’ understanding, she sent students a poll created 
with Mentimeter, asked everyone to answer the questions within a specific timeframe (one or two 
days), and later shared a link containing all students’ answers. Ms. Rodriguez shared a tutorial 
created with Explain Everything, going over the full deconstruction of the text; she also shared a 
graphic organizer created with ThingLink in which each new wonder of the world had hyperlinks 
and other attachments (e.g., videos, voice notes, text, and images) to increase students’ 
comprehension of key features presented in the mentor text. 
 
Tools for the Joint Construction and Collaborative Construction Phases 
During these two phases of the TLC, it is vital to incorporate tech tools that afford interaction and 
collaboration. In face-to-face settings, the most commonly utilized technology tools for 
collaborative writing are Google Docs and Word Online, since both offer opportunities for learners 
to collaborate in the construction of a new text. In the Joint Construction phase, the teacher acts as 
a scribe, adding to the document or editing it while students visualize the new content or changes. 
During the Collaborative Construction phase—which is commonly carried out with students 
working in pairs or groups—students decide their own roles (including who in the group will be 
the scribe); students work together and the teacher takes the role of facilitator. When it comes to 
online learning settings, Google Docs and Word Online afford opportunities for students to be 
simultaneous co-authors (i.e., who can write/edit the same document synchronously), which is a 
great opportunity for enhanced interactivity during the Collaborative Construction phase. Google 
Docs and Word Online can be made even more interactive with the addition of multimodal 
interactive prompts (i.e., audio, voice notes, text, hyperlinks, among others). We suggest utilizing 
Kaizena, the Google Docs add-on described in the ‘Tools for the Deconstruction Phase’ for this 
purpose. Alternatively, in case teachers are interested in solely adding voice notes to Google Docs, 
Mote, a free Chrome extension, is suggested. Table 3 summarizes the tools that can be used for to 
teach in face-to-face or online learning settings. 
 
Table 3 
Technology Tools for the Joint Construction and Collaborative Construction Phases of the 
Teaching and Learning Cycle 
 

TLC Phase Technology for Face-to-Face 
Instructional Settings 

Technology for Online Settings 

Joint Construction and 
Collaborative 
Construction 

● Google Docs 
● Word Online 

 

● Google Docs 
● Word Online 
● Kaizena 
● Mote 

 
 
      Classroom-based example (joint construction followed by collaborative 
construction). To start the Joint Construction phase, Mark Smith (pseudonym), a grade 9 teacher 
in New York, started a Google Doc that contained a writing prompt in the same genre they had 
been working on: a scientific procedural recount. This time, they were going to write about the 
extraction of DNA from a strawberry. First, they discussed what needed to be done to carry out 
each task in the experiment; then, Mr. Smith (i.e., the teacher who acted as a scribe, writing what 



38 GATESOL Journal 32(2)  
 

students were saying) added the procedural instructions to the Google Doc. After that, students 
performed the task in the manner that it had been written. Throughout the Joint Construction phase, 
Mr. Smith constantly asked students to refer to the mentor text and reminded them—through 
questions and prompts—of key features that should be present in this new piece of writing. Once 
they finished recounting the procedures of this experiment, Mr. Smith gave students the 
opportunity to work more independently albeit still in a group setting (i.e., Collaborative 
Construction). It was during the Collaborative Construction phase that he (i) divided students into 
groups and gave members the opportunity to decide their own responsibilities; (ii) assigned a 
project to be presented in two weeks: Each group should start a new Google Doc, come up with 
an idea for an experiment they would like to carry out, conduct the experiment, and then write a 
scientific procedural recount of it. 

When Mr. Smith taught this same class in an asynchronous online setting, he utilized Mote 
to record audio feedback and place it in specific parts of the assigned project for Collaborative 
Construction. By sharing his comments using his voice, Mr. Smith was able to use a friendly tone 
to facilitate students’ comprehension and to highlight key points in a more detailed and personal 
manner. 
 
Tools for the Independent Construction Phase 
To enhance the implementation of this final phase of the TLC we suggest tools that allow learners 
to create, edit, and share their independently constructed texts, such as Wikis, blogs, digital books, 
and comic strip builders. Recommended tools which afford the creation of multimodal texts are 
Canva, Piktochart, Edublogs, and Adobe Express. For writing digital books, Book Creator is ideal, 
since it offers “app smashing;” that is, the addition of multiple applications that work in 
combination with one another for the creation of a final product. Examples of app smashing include 
adding an image to ThingLink, then several tags: one with a hyperlink, another with a 
screenrecording, and embedding a short TEDEd video to facilitate understanding of a particular 
topic. Finally, suggested comic strip builders include Pixton, Make Beliefs Comix, and Storyboard 
That. Particularly when teaching in online learning settings, educators should opt for the use of 
tools that can incorporate multimodal prompts and feedback so that student engagement can be 
maintained. Table 4 summarizes the tools that can be used for face-to-face or online learning 
settings. 
 
Table 4 
Technology Tools for the Independent Construction Phase of the Teaching and Learning Cycle 
 

TLC Phase Technology for Face-to-Face 
Instructional Settings 

Technology for Online Settings 

Independent 
Construction 

● Canva 
● Piktochart 
● Edublogs 
● Adobe Express 
● Book Creator 
● Pixton 
● Make Beliefs Comix 
● Storyboard That 

● Canva 
● Piktochart 
● Edublogs 
● Adobe Express 
● Book Creator 
● Pixton 
● Make Beliefs Comix 
● Storyboard That 

 



Vicentini, de Oliveira, & Gui 39 
 

Classroom-based example (independent construction). After Dr. Jorge Arruda’s 
(pseudonym) students finished working in groups, it was now time to introduce the last phase of 
the TLC: Independent Construction. In this college freshman composition class in Virginia, 
students had been engaged in discussions about pandemics over time, including the most recent 
pandemic experiences. Because the class had been discussing COVID-19 and how the pandemic 
affected the population in different parts of the world, students’ final project assignment was to 
use Canva to develop (i.e., write and design) their own COVID-19 narratives. Students could 
choose among the available free templates in a variety of formats to tell their stories; some chose 
presentation templates and used separate slides to display their writing; some chose posters or 
infographic templates that allowed them to showcase the entire text at once. After finishing their 
work, students were asked to present it to the teacher and their classmates, sharing details of the 
overall writing experience (e.g., what they learned about a topic, whether they benefitted from the 
activities, etc.) 

Using such digital tools during Independent Construction can be helpful for students who 
are composing and presenting their own writing; these tools offer students opportunities to engage 
with text (i.e., write it and present it) in a multimodal manner. 
 
Conclusion 
A genre-based approach to writing instruction using the Teaching-Learning Cycle (TLC) with the 
latest technological tools can effectively support MLs as they go through four phases of activity in 
the TLC: Deconstruction, Joint Construction, Collaborative Construction, and Independent 
Construction. When working in each of these phases, students actively engage with the featured 
genre while the technology tools support them as writers. These tools can be infused in each of the 
distinct TLC phases in both face-to-face and online settings. In view of this, the provided 
classroom-based examples for technology-enhanced instruction exemplify how this can be 
accomplished in meaningful ways for MLs within each of the phases of the TLC.  

The technology tools we included in this article are suggestions that can be used in the 
distinct phases of the TLC to afford as much student interaction as possible. As we demonstrated 
through the classroom-based examples, when students engaged in writing with the teacher, with 
other students, and independently, the tools supported instruction by (a) highlighting new content 
through multimodal formats; (b) facilitating formative assessment and feedback; (c) affording 
additional opportunities for interaction; (d) showcasing and sharing students’ work; and (e) 
maintaining overall interest and active participation in various writing practices. 

We would like to emphasize that since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, discussions 
regarding online learning and tech tools have become more prevalent; however, much of the 
literature on TLC in support of second-language writing instruction remains based on face-to-face 
settings. By presenting specific technology for each of the phases of the TLC, we aimed to fill this 
gap and contribute to the current literature in the field. 
 
References 
 
Allen, H. W., & Goodspeed, L. (2018). Textual borrowing and perspective-taking: A genre-based 

approach to L2 writing. L2 Journal, 10(2), 87–110. https://doi.org/10.5070/L210235331 
Almacıoğlu, G., & Okan, Z. (2018). Genre-based approach to writing instruction for students at 

an English language and literature department. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 
4(1), 701–100. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.460635 

https://doi.org/10.5070/L210235331
https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.460635


40 GATESOL Journal 32(2)  
 

Bikowski, D. (2014). The pedagogy of collaboration: Teaching effectively within an evolving 
technology landscape. In G. Pickering & P. Gunashekar (Eds.), Innovation in English 
language teacher education (pp. 223–231). British Council. 

Bikowski, D., & Vithanage, R. (2016). Effects of web-based collaborative writing on individual 
L2 writing development. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1), 79–99. 
https://doi.org/10125/44447 

Boling, E., Castek, J., Zawilinski, L., Barton, K., & Nierlich, T. (2008). Collaborative literacy: 
Blogs and internet projects. The Reading Teacher, 61(6), 504–506. https://doi.org/10.1598/
RT.61.6.10 

Brisk, M. E. (2015). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogy for K–5 
classrooms. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781317816164 

Brisk, M. E., Hodgson-Drysdale, T., & O’Connor, C. (2011). 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002205741119100102 

Callaghan, M., & Rothery, J. (1988). Teaching factual writing: A genre-based approach: the 
report of the DSP Literacy Project, Metropolitan East Region. Metropolitan East 
Disadvantaged Schools Program. 

Caplan, N. A., & Farling, M. (2017). A dozen heads are better than one: Collaborative writing in 
genre‐based pedagogy. TESOL Journal, 8(3), 564–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.287 

de Oliveira, L. C. (2017). A genre-based approach to writing instruction in K–12. TESOL 
Connections. http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolc/downloads/features/2017/
2017-07-TLC.pdf 

de Oliveira, L. C., & Avalos, M. (2018). Critical SFL praxis among teacher candidate: Using 
systemic functional linguistics in K–12 teacher education. In R. Harman (Ed.), Bilingual 
learners and social equity: Critical approaches to systemic functional linguistics (pp. 109–
123). Springer. 

de Oliveira, L. C., & Lan, S. W. (2014). Writing science in an upper elementary classroom: A 
genre-based approach to teaching English language learners. Journal of Second Language 
Writing, 25(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.05.001 

de Oliveira, L. C., Jones, L., & Smith, S. L. (2020). Interactional scaffolding in a first-grade 
classroom through the teaching–learning cycle. International Journal of Bilingual 
Education and Bilingualism. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13670050.2020.1798867 

Demi. (1996). The empty pot (Demi, Illus.). Square Fish. 
Derewianka, B., & Jones, P. (2016). Teaching language in context (2nd ed.). Oxford University 

Press. 
Dzekoe, R. (2017). Computer-based multimodal composing activities, self-revision, and L2 

acquisition through writing. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 73–95. 
https://doi.org/10125/44612 

Feez, S., & Joyce, H. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. National Centre for English Language 
Teaching and Research, Macquarie University. 

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language 
learners in the mainstream classroom. Heinemann. 

Hammond, J., & Derewianka, B. (2001). Genre. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge 
guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge University Press. 

https://doi.org/10125/44447
https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.6.10
https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.6.10
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781317816164
https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741119100102
https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741119100102
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.287
http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolc/downloads/features/2017/2017-07-TLC.pdf
http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolc/downloads/features/2017/2017-07-TLC.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.05.001
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1798867
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1798867
https://doi.org/10125/44612


Vicentini, de Oliveira, & Gui 41 
 

Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding 
in articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20(1), 6–30. http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/
__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/229760/20_1_1_Hammond.pdf 

Hsu, W. C., & Liu, G. Z. (2019). Genre-based writing instruction blended with an online writing 
tutorial system for the development of academic writing. Digital Scholarship in the 
Humanities, 34(1), 100–123. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqy021 

Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second 
Language Writing, 12(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00124-8 

Jung, K. M. (2017). SFL genre-based writing instruction: Expository essay in EFL. Modern 
Studies in English Language & Literature (현대영어영문학), 61(4), 421–455. 
https://papersearch.net/thesis/article.asp?key=3558130 

Kellogg, R. T., & Raulerson, B. A. (2007). Improving the writing skills of college students. 
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 237–242. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194058 

Kellogg, R. T., & Whiteford, A. P. (2009). Training advanced writing skills: The case for 
deliberate practice. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 250–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00461520903213600 

Kuiper, C., Smit, J., De Wachter, L., & Elen, J. (2017). Scaffolding tertiary students’ writing in a 
genre-based writing intervention. Journal of Writing Research, 9(1), 27–59. https://doi.org/
10.17239/jowr-2017.09.01.02 

Luu, T. T. (2011). Teaching writing through genre-based approach. BELT: Brazilian English 
Language Teaching Journal, 2(1), 121–136. https://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/index.php/
belt/article/view/9361 

Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and 
Education, 20, 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.003 

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. Equinox. 
Martin, N. M., & Lambert, C. (2015). Differentiating digital writing instruction. Journal of 

Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(2), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.435 
Mohamadi, Z. (2018). Comparative effect of online summative and formative assessment on EFL 

student writing ability. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 29–40. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.STUEDUC.2018.02.003 

Nagao, A. (2020). Adopting an SFL approach to teaching L2 writing through the teaching learning 
cycle. English Language Teaching, 13(6), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n6p64 

National Assessment of Educational Progress (2011). The nation’s report card. 
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/writing_2011/g12_national.aspx?tab_id=tab2&subtab
_id=Tab_1#chart 

Nova, M. (2018). Utilizing Grammarly in evaluating academic writing: A narrative research on 
EFL students’ experience. Premise: Journal of English Education, 7(1), 80–97. 
https://doi.org/10.24127/pj.v7i1.1300 

Palincsar, A. S., & Schleppegrell, M. (2014). Focusing on language and meaning while learning 
with text. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 616–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.178 

Rose, D. (2015). New developments in genre-based literacy pedagogy. In C. A. MacArthur, S. 
Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 227–242). Guilford 
Press. 

Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and 
pedagogy in the Sydney School. Equinox. 

Rothery, J. (1989). Learning about language. In R. Hasan & J. R. Martin (Eds), Language 

http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/229760/20_1_1_Hammond.pdf
http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/229760/20_1_1_Hammond.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqy021
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00124-8
https://papersearch.net/thesis/article.asp?key=3558130
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194058
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213600
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213600
https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2017.09.01.02
https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2017.09.01.02
https://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/index.php/belt/article/view/9361
https://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/index.php/belt/article/view/9361
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.003
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.435
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.STUEDUC.2018.02.003
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.STUEDUC.2018.02.003
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n6p64
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/writing_2011/g12_national.aspx?tab_id=tab2&subtab_id=Tab_1#chart
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/writing_2011/g12_national.aspx?tab_id=tab2&subtab_id=Tab_1#chart
https://doi.org/10.24127/pj.v7i1.1300
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.178


42 GATESOL Journal 32(2)  
 

development: Learning language, learning culture (pp. 199–256). Ablex. 
Rusinovci, X. (2015). Teaching writing through process-genre based approach. US-China 

Education Review, 5(10), 699–705. https://doi.org/10.17265/2161-623X/2015.10.006 
Smith, B. E. (2014). Beyond words: A review of research on adolescents and multimodal 

composition. In R. E. Ferdig & K. E. Pytash (Eds.), Exploring multimodal composition and 
digital writing (pp. 1–19). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-4345-1.ch001 

Thongchalerm, S., & Jarunthawatchai, W. (2020). The impact of genre-based instruction on EFL 
learners’ writing development. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 1–16. 
https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.1311a 

Toadstools and Fairydust. (2021, April 9). The empty pot (read aloud books for children). Chinese 
folk-tale storytime [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g7pH9eZLPc 

Vicentini, C., & de Oliveira, L. C. (2018). Using technology tools in writing instruction. NYS 
TESOL Journal, 5(2), 44–51. 

Wellington, J. (2010). More than a matter of cognition: An exploration of affective writing 
problems of post-graduate students and their possible solutions. Teaching in Higher 
Education, 15(2), 135–150. http://doi.org/10.1080/13562511003619961 

WIDA. (2020). WIDA English language development standards framework, 2020 edition: 
Kindergarten–grade 12. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. 
https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/WIDA-ELD-Standards-Framework-
2020.pdf 

Yamaç, A., Öztürk, E., & Mutlu, N. (2020). Effect of digital writing instruction with tablets on 
primary school students’ writing performance and writing knowledge. Computers & 
Education, 157, Article 103981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103981 

____________________________________________________________________________ 
 

Received: March 27, 2022 | Accepted: August 21, 2022 | Published: October 26, 2022 

https://doi.org/10.17265/2161-623X/2015.10.006
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-4345-1.ch001
https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.1311a
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g7pH9eZLPc
http://doi.org/10.1080/13562511003619961
https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/WIDA-ELD-Standards-Framework-2020.pdf
https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/WIDA-ELD-Standards-Framework-2020.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103981

	Integrating Technology into Genre-based Writing Instruction for Multilingual Learners
	GATESOL Journal2022, Vol. 32(2), pp. 27–42
	doi:10.52242/gatesol.167
	ISSN: 2331-6845

