10.5 Some Caveats About Using Functional Grammar i...
Learning to implement a functional linguistics approach requires a major commitment from teachers (and the administrators who support them). It is not an easy accomplishment to take on a new approach, without support for underlying areas of professional or knowledge needs. In fact, there are immense difficulties in providing both quality and time rich programs of professional learning support to teachers who are taking on new pedagogical approaches in standards-driven, high-stakes test oriented educational environment. In addition to the issue of financial resources, other factors may also be at work. For example, Gebhard et al. (2013) found that while her teacher candidates were willing and able to learn functional grammar, their learning and desire to implement it were greatly influenced by their previous schooling experiences and the context in which they taught (e.g., assessment practices, mandated curriculum). In other words, the teachers' conception of grammar and their classroom practices were shaped by their personal experiences as language learners, the professional coursework they took, their immediate classroom realities (e.g., students' academic preparation and motivation, availability of instructional resources), and the larger institutional forces (e.g., policy, funding, and culture) that affected curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices. Additionally, as Love (2010) pointed out, "the extent to which teachers absorb externally produced 'expert' knowledge depends on complex factors such as the context of the teaching, the perceived relevance of the 'expert' knowledge, the degree of autonomy available, the opportunities for sustained professional development, and the presence or absence of a like-minded professional community" (p. 351). Thus, successful, sustained implementation of FLA will depend on whether teachers can adapt it to their specific contexts and whether they have access to a supportive learning and teaching community in school (or department). As Jones and Chen (2012) suggested in the Australian context, where similar issues with teacher knowledge and teacher development exist, "[t]here is an urgent need for comprehensive programs that extend teachers' existing linguistic knowledge, recognize and build on their pedagogic expertise and yet are nuanced enough for their diverse needs and teaching contexts" (p. 166).
The complexity of teacher learning and the technicality/novelty of functional grammar suggest that teachers may need further support beyond the format of a summer institute or a university course. Humphrey (2017) found, for example, that professional learning to develop and apply linguistic subject knowledge "seems to be most successful and sustainable when there is ongoing support from expert mentors, as well as collaboration within school communities" (p. 244). She favored a "gradual release of scaffolds" model, where mentors are able to work closely with teachers in the classroom through modeling and then team teaching, to help teachers develop confidence and expertise in using functional grammar. Fang (2014c) reported that successful implementation of new pedagogies requires that teachers continue to be supported through follow-up classroom visitations and monthly meetings beyond the intensive learning experience provided in the summer institute. In other words, teachers need opportunities to continue to interact with SFL experts and among themselves. Faculty with SFL expertise can visit teachers' classrooms regularly. During these visits, they can observe how functional grammar is being implemented and provide feedback by identifying areas of strength and areas that need improvement. Sometimes, teachers can identify an area of instruction for SFL experts to focus on so that both parties can collaboratively address targeted concerns.
During monthly meetings, teachers share with SFL experts successes and concerns in their daily instruction and brainstorm solutions for problems. Each meeting begins with a discussion of a recent SFL-related article or book that teachers have read during the month. The article or book is recommended by SFL experts or nominated by teachers. These monthly articles or books provide fresh ideas that teachers find relevant and are eager to try out. Following the article/book discussion, teachers share what they have been doing in the classroom as well as the concerns and problems they encounter in their teaching. They bring texts used in the classroom, recordings from classroom discussion, and/or sample writing produced by their students for conversation about which SFL principles and concepts are relevant to the situation and what functional grammar analysis strategies may help specific students tackle comprehension challenges or improve writing effectiveness. In short, monthly meetings give teachers a forum where they can solve problems with colleagues and reaffirm or sharpen their practices. These in turn increase their professional wisdom, motivation, confidence, and commitment.
An emphasis on functional grammar in literacy instruction does not mean that a functional linguistics approach (FLA) is the only way to teach reading and writing in English education. Given the complexities involved in the reading and writing processes as well as the diversity and variability of students in the classroom, it is clear that FLA should not be the sole instructional approach used in literacy instruction. Other approaches or methods that are viable or have proven effective should remain integral to a teacher's pedagogical tool kit and be simultaneously in place if functional grammar is to be effective in a pedagogical environment characterized by a plurality of cultures, voices, interests, goals, and demands. In other words, adopting a functional focus on language in literacy instruction does not mean that teachers need to abandon all that they have learned about effective curriculum and instruction.
Essentially, teachers must embrace a flexible stance in their teaching (Pearson, 2004; Schleppegrell, 2004). Their pedagogical decisions should be made based on a consideration of factors such as curriculum goals and lesson objectives, the complexity of the reading/writing processes, student characteristics, financial resources, institutional cultures, and disciplinary norms. At the same time, they must inform themselves of the affordances and limitations of different approaches to literacy instruction, such as whole language, process approach, product-oriented approach, and functional linguistics approach. For example, there has been a tendency over the past two decades towards a greater emphasis on the reader and writer than on language and text in English literacy instruction in China. This shift is a result of the movements toward whole language (in reading) and process approach (in writing). These approaches give greater agency to reader and writer, foregrounding the role of background knowledge, identity, and prior experience in language learning and literacy development. They have the potential to increase student engagement with academic tasks. At the same time, however, they also tend to downplay the importance of explicit knowledge about grammar in language/literacy learning. The whole language approach rightly sees reading as a process of making sense, but often argues against an explicit, systematic focus on grammar. Without explicit attention to language forms, the approach denies students access to linguistic resources that can be helpful for constructing understanding. The process approach to writing instruction focuses students on the composing process of planning, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing, but is believed to be less tolerant of systematic grammar instruction. Without an explicit focus on language forms and how they make meanings in context, students may not develop the linguistic tools needed to compose texts that meet the expectations of particular tasks, genres, and registers. A product-oriented approach is said to focus on the final product of writing without careful consideration of the context in and the process by which the writing is produced. The approach can result in texts with formulaic structures and pompous styles that limit students' creativity, undermine the rhetorical effectiveness of text, and lead teachers to underestimate students' meaning-making capacities.(https://www.daowen.com)
A functional linguistics approach (FLA), with its linking of form to meaning and function, promotes discussion and analysis of how meaning is crafted through shaping grammatical choices to achieve the writer's rhetorical intentions and satisfy contextual needs. The approach is not to be seen as, to borrow from Clandinin (2009), "a commodity, something to be packaged in a standardized way and given to teachers through training or practice sessions" (p. 7). Rather, teachers need opportunities to draw on this new approach as a resource in their daily teaching practices rather than as something to be force fed. A key to successful enactment of FLA is the development of a shared metalanguage among teachers that facilitates explicit discussion of text and meaning. This new metalanguage, which teachers may initially find forbidding, does not have to be highly technical for instructional purposes, however. It can be tailored to the language use that teachers determine to be essential to the language development and success of their students (Humphrey, 2017) and build on students' prior knowledge including their existing language use (Galloway, Stude & Uccelli, 2015). In fact, teachers are encouraged to use metaphor (e.g., using "turning the volume up and down" to refer to the concept of graduation in appraisal analysis, using "showing vs. telling" to discuss how literary authors express attitudes in indirect vs. direct ways, replacing the term "material process" with "doing process") and other playful but functional ways of talking about meaning before more technical SFL terminology is introduced (if ever). The key is for teachers "to be explicit [and consistent] with learners about how an author infuses particular meanings into a text by making choices from what the grammar offers, and to offer learners options for making choices themselves as they speak and write" (Schleppegrell, 2020, pp. 22-23). Ultimately, teachers need to balance the demands of introducing to students a new metalanguage offered by SFL against the benefits of being able to engage them deeply in exploring how language choices construct meaning in text (Gebhard & Martin, 2011).
Furthermore, because advanced language/literacy learning requires regular interactions with complex texts across a variety of academic disciplines, English teachers will benefit from working with other disciplinary experts who are more intimately familiar with the norms, worldviews, values, and habits of mind of their disciplines. Such a partnership, when done in a truly collaborative manner, will maximize opportunities for student engagement and result in deeper learning. As students make learning gains from using FLA, teachers will find that the time and efforts spent on designing and implementing functional grammar lessons are worthwhile; moreover, teachers may be spending less time on preparing functional grammar lessons as they gain more familiarity with FLA and develop greater insights into the way texts in various disciplines are typically constructed (Achugar, Schleppegrell & Oteiza, 2007; Humphrey, 2017).
For a functional linguistics approach to take root and blossom in classroom practices, it needs to be infused into existing curriculum frameworks in ways that help teachers achieve the learning goals they need to achieve. For example, in the latest curriculum context in China (高等学校外语专业教学指导委员会英语组，2000), English students are expected to develop solid language and literacy skills that enable them to pursue careers across a wide range of fields including international affairs, education, business, science and technology, culture, and militaries. For non-English majors, students are expected to develop academic language and advanced literacy in their specialization (高等学校大学外语教学指导委员会，2017). These expectations require that students engage with a range of richly complex academic texts that are valued by disciplinary experts. Teachers need to be able to support students' learning about and through these texts. FLA enables teachers to make this happen. It can help teachers meet these goals by engaging students in deep learning about the characteristic language patterns that construct the texts of different disciplines and at the same time developing understanding about disciplinary content and habits of mind through language. Through a functional focus on lexicogrammar, teachers can help students learn to recognize the patterns of language that construct experience, knowledge, and value in different ways across different academic subjects, enabling them to more effectively engage in the advanced literacy tasks of generalization, abstraction, exposition, reflection, critique, and renovation across disciplines.