A Summary Writing Model Based on Van Dijk’s Concept of Macrostructure and its Application within the Genre-Based Approach

Document Type: Original Article

Authors

1 PhD Candidate in TEFL, Department of English Language Teaching, Ahar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahar, Iran

2 Assistant Professor in TEFL, Department of English Language Teaching, Ahar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahar, Iran

Abstract

This study was an attempt to provide a comprehensive model for summary writing based on the model of Van Dijk’s concept of macrostructures. The effectiveness of the model was examined in a genre-based quasi-experimental study with the data collection procedure lasting a semester. The participants included 60 female English learners divided into two experimental and control groups. The results of the study revealed that the experimental group outperformed the control group in the posttest which was mainly due to the potential role the treatment had in increasing the learners’ structural awareness in order to help them find the most important parts of the texts, i.e. those relating to the main idea of the text and disregard the less relevant ones. The results of this study contributed to the understanding of the genre-based model and that English learners could get the essence of a given text by only understanding the gist and comprehending some sentences in a text. English learners could realize that all of the words and sentences in a text have a responsibility of conveying a particular message and that there is no need to memorize or remember every individual information in a text.
 

Keywords


Allen, R. (2013). Bursting Bubbles:‘Soap Opera. Audiences, and the Limits of Genre’, in Remote Control: Television, Audiences and Cultural Power, eds. by Ellen Seiter, Hans Borchers, Gabriele Kreutzner, and Eva-Maria Warth (London and New York: Routledge, 1989), 44-54.

Bell, J. H. (1991). Using Peer Response Groups in ESL Writing Classes. TESL Canada journal, 8(2), 65-71.

Brown, J. D., & Bailey, K. M. (1984). A categorical instrument for scoring second language writing skills. Language learning, 34(4), 21-38.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of com-municative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.

Casazza, M. E. (1993). Using a model of direct instruction to teach summary writing in a college reading class. Journal of Reading, 37(3), 202-208.

Chastain, K. (1988). Developing Second Language Skills.(3rd edn.) San Diego. In: CA.

Chen, Y.-S., & Su, S.-W. (2011). A genre-based approach to teaching EFL summary writing. ELT journal, 66(2), 184-192.

Fairbairn, G. J., & Winch, C. (1991). The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Guiding Readers and Writers, Grades 3-6: Teaching Comprehension, Genre, and Content Literacy: ERIC.

Friend, R. (2001). Effects of strategy instruction on summary writing of college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(1), 3-24.

Hedgcock, J. S., & Ferris, D. R. (2018). Teaching readers of English: Students, texts, and contexts: Routledge.

Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading & writing in second language writing instruction: University of Michigan Press.

Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217-230.

Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (1993). The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Kinneavy, J. L. (1971). A theory of discourse: The aims of discourse.

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture: Equinox.

Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second language writing. Journal of second language writing, 10(1-2), 35-53.

McDonough, K., Crawford, W. J., & De Vleeschauwer, J. (2014). Summary writing in a Thai EFL university context. Journal of second language writing, 24, 20-32.

Paltridge, B. (1996). Genre, text type, and the language learning classroom.

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.): Routledge.

Rivard, L. P. (2001). Summary writing: A multi-grade study of French-immersion and Francophone secondary students. Language Culture and Curriculum, 14(2), 171-186.

Santosa, C. M., Strong, C. M., Nowakowska, C., Wang, P. W., Rennicke, C. M., & Ketter, T. A. (2007). Enhanced creativity in bipolar disorder patients: A controlled study. Journal of affective disorders, 100(1-3), 31-39.

Sharma, A. (1986). Widdowson, HG Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. In: University of Toronto Press.

Spack, R. (2004). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: A longitudinal case study, updated. Crossing the curriculum: Multilingual learners in college classrooms, 19-45.

Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of article Introductions.: Aston ESP Research Reports, No 1. Language Studies Unit. The University of Aston at Birmingham. Republished University of Michigan Press 2011.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1980). An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction, and Cognition. MacrostructuresErlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing: Ernst Klett Sprachen.

Wu, Y., & Dong, H. (2009). Applying SF-Based Genre Approaches to English Writing Class. International education studies, 2(3), 77-81.

Yu, G. (2007). Students' voices in the evaluation of their written summaries: Empowerment and democracy for test takers? Language Testing, 24(4), 539-572.

Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL quarterly, 16(2), 195-209