A Genre-Based Model for EFL Learners’ Summary writing and learners’ attitudes towards it: A Mixed Methods Study

Document Type: Original Article


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


Research findings on teaching of language learning strategies found that summarizing is of tremendous role in learning in general, and in reading comprehension in particular. Due to its importance and also due in large to the fact that there wasn’t a comprehensive way of summarizing the current study tried to provide an inclusive genre -based model for text summarizing, and examine its effectiveness in a mixed-methods study which lasted for one academic semester. The results of the quantitative phase revealed that the experimental group outperformed in the posttest. It can be said that the effectiveness of the Genre-based model is principally due to its role in increasing the learners’ structural awareness, namely in supporting them in finding out the schematic structure of texts and eradicating the insignificant parts. In the qualitative phase the researcher designed a questionnaire and found out attitudes of the learners towards the model. The results exposed that learners had positive attitudes towards the genre-based model of summary development. Through making use of the model they have an effective tool for taking the gist of texts out of them, and make connections with what they already know.


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.

Chinijani, ME and Satariyan, A. (2013). An inductive teaching of writing skills: Bilingual analysis-based teaching, Nazeri Publishing Co., Tehran, Iran, pp. 132. ISBN 978-600-6032-25-2

Cohen, A. D. (1994). Assessing language ability in the classroom.

Flowerdew, J., & DudleyEvans, T. (2002). Genre analysis of editorial letters to international journal contributors. Applied linguistics, 23(4), 463-489.

Fowler, W. S., & Coe, N. (1976). Nelson English Language Tests. Canada: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd.

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.

Khan, A., & Salim, N. (2014). A review on abstractive summarization methods. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 59(1), 64-72.

Li Chiang, N. (2014). The importance of summarization on conducting research. (MA),

Manchon, R. M., Murphy, L., & de Larios, J. R. (2007). Lexical retrieval processes and strategies in second language writing: A synthesis of empirical research. International Journal of English Studies, 7(2), 149-174.

Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly journal of speech, 70(2), 151-167.

Nagy, W. (2007). Technical report on macro- rules for summarizing texts: Center for Study of Reading.

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

Sarig, G. (1993). Composing a study-summary: A reading/writing encounter. Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives, 161-182.

Satariyan, A. & Mohseni, A. (2014). Writing Skill and Categorical Error Analysis: a Study of First Year Undergraduate University Students. Iranian Journal of Research in English Language Teaching, vol. 1(3), pp. 20-30

Tuan, L. T. (2011). Teaching Writing through Genre-based Approach. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 1(11).

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

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