Freedman, Aviva. “Show and Tell? The Role of Explicit Teaching in the Learning of New Genres.” Research in the Teaching of English 27.3 (1993): 222-51.
Freedman asks, “What role, if any, can or should the explicit teaching of genre features play in learning new genres?” (224 emphasis in original). In discussing the recent research about genre, Freedman writes, “The notion of genre has in recent years been reconceived so that the recurring textual regularities which characterize genres are themselves seen as secondary to, and a consequence of, the action that is being performed through the texts in response to recurring socio-cultural context”(225). In response to her research question, Freedman offers to hypotheses:
- The Strong Hypothesis: “explicit teaching is unnecessary; for the most part, not even possible; and where possible, not useful (except during editing, for a limited numbers of transparent and highly specific features). Further, whenever explicit teaching does take place, there is a risk of overlearning or misapplication” (226). The explicit teaching is not possible because (1) language is too complex to articulate all of its structures (232) and (1) we implicitly learn the rules underlying our language/writing (230).
- The Restricted Hypothesis: “Explicit teaching is neither necessary, not for the most part possible or useful, and [the hypothesis] acknowledges as well the potential harm in such teaching. However, the Restricted Hypothesis allows that. Under certain conditions and for some learners, explicit teaching may enhance learning” (226 emphasis in original). “The teaching must always be done either in the context of, or in very close [temporal] proximity to, authentic tasks involving the discourse…Of course, the success of even such contextualized teaching depends upon the accuracy of the teacher’s explicit knowledge and the congeniality of the student’s learning style” (244).
Freedman uses some of her own research as well as research about first- and second-language acquisition to support her hypotheses. She ends by calling for more research about teaching genre and about whether genre should be taught implicitly or explicitly.
Williams, Joesph M. and Gregory G. Colomb. “The Case for Explicit Teaching: Why What You Don’t Know Won’t Help You.” Research in the Teaching of English 27.3 (1993): 252-64.
Williams and Colomb refute Freedman’s argument in a variety of ways. First, they say that her hypotheses are not framed productively. Because the Strong Hypothesis is absolute, it can be disproven “by a single uncontested counter-example” (252). Even the Restricted Hypothesis is problematic because, though it is hedged, “The hedges are undefined” (253). Second, the scope of Freedman’s hypothesis is problematic. All of her examples address specific genres, yet, to be useful, her hypotheses need to address a more general academic writing. They continue, “So before we consider the substance of Freedman’s argument, we must take the liberty of reframing her question to make it not categorical, but prudential, not specific, but general…”Is the benefit of explicit teaching of salient features work the cost?” (253). The authors continue to weaken Freedman’s argument by showing how her claims are built on “shaky” and/or unreliable assumptions and sources.
They move to show how research in the field already supports explicit teaching of genre and offer their own research study to further prove their point. They end with these two notes for the support of explicit teaching:
- “But as Swales (1984, 1985) suggests, when students practice explicit features even before they are fully socialized, they are compelled to focus on, perhaps even to generate knowledge for those generic moves. When we learn social context, we are also learning its forms; but when we learn forms, we may also be learning their social contexts. Generic forms may be more generative than Freedman realizes” (262).
- “If teachers embrace implicit teaching and avoid explicitly focusing their students’ attention on the forms they are learning, they will ultimately hide from students –worse, form themselves – the ideological commitments and consequences of particular generic forms. It may be that explicit teaching is a necessary steps in the process of empowering students to choose how they participate in the communities they encounter and to what degree they will let that participation define who and what they are” (262).
Fahnestock, Jeanne. “Genre and Rhetorical Craft.” Research in the Teaching of English 27.3 (1993): 265-71.
Fahnestock argues against Freedman by pointing out that: (1) Freedman uses a variety of definitions of genre; these definitions shift the possibility and the benefit (or not) of explicitly teaching genre, and (2) Freedman ignores the fact that genres have been taught explicitly since classical rhetoric. In support of explicitly teaching, Fahnestock suggests that
- If we follow Miller’s definition of “genres as responses to recurrent situations” (266) – which Freedman cites at the beginning of her article – we must acknowledge that “To be able to create discourse that will count as a certain kind of action, one has to be able to produce a text with the features that distinguish it as belonging to a certain genre. One has to know the form to be able to perform” (267). Fahnestock’s unstated conclusion is that this form must be taught explicitly.
- When those in classical times were “presented…with real situations, they were prepared” (269). Fahnestock (again unstated) conclusion is that, if those in classical times were taught explicitly and were prepared for real life situations, then the same can be applied to teaching rhetoric in our time.
- Teaching as a craft is not all about implicitly passing knowledge, which is what Freedman suggests. When learning/teaching a craft, “there is tactile knowledge, us, but there is also an overwhelming body of transmitted verbal explanation and system. There is no craft or ‘art’ without explication of its principles so that they can be applied across situations” (269).
- Students are not going to recognize regularities in texts (and genres are only definable by regularities) if they do not expect regularities or do not know what counts as significant regularity worthy of imitation. Similarly, it is unlikely that adult writers, suddenly on the job, can produce successful versions of specific genres they are called on to produce if they have had no earlier practice with the building blocks of such genres” (270). The implication is that we need to explicitly teach students these regularities and building blocks.
Freedman, Aviva. “Situating Genre: A Rejoinder.” Research in the Teaching of English 27.3 (1993): 272-81.
Freedman addresses first the three questions posed by Fahenstock; “How is genre defined/ How should we interpret the history of explicit instruction of genre within the rhetorical tradition? And how does on best learn a craft?” (272). She ultimately argues that Fahenstock’s examples show (a) someone using, not learning, genre (273) or (b) someone teaching particular feature of a genre (like the organization), which the Restricted Hypothesis allows. Then, after criticizing Williams and Colomb for ignoring relevant literature and relying on teacher intuition too heavily, Freedman argues that Williams and Colomb understanding of teaching genre falls under the Restricted Hypothesis. Freedman also expands on her definition of genre:
“[G]enre is best understood pragmatically: as social act, or as typified rhetorical response within recurrent (socially-constructed) situations” (272). She stresses that she does, in fact, think form is important (Fahenstock suggested that Freedman does not): “Textual regularities continue to function as critical indicators of genre.” (272). She also asserts that context is more and is other than physical (or disciplinary setting) the social motive that animates genre is experienced in response to recurrent socially-constructed situations that can be defined along a range of social, cultural, political, ideological, and discursive context to which rhetors respond in their writing, and, as such shape and enable the writing; it is in this way that form is generative…As social actions governed by social motives within recurrent socially-constructed contexts, genres can only be learned when that social motive is experienced by the rhetoric; and that experiencing can only take place within the relevant context” (273).