example, the special issue of Journ

example, the special issue of Journal of Second Language Writing devoted to voice (Vol. 10, 1, 2002). Here is Ivanic þ and Camps’ (2002: 3) argument found in this issue:

All writing contains “voice”...which locates their users culturally and historically. Writers may, through the linguistic and other resources they choose to draw on in their writing, ventral quate an environmentally aware voice, a progressive-educator voice, a sexist voice, a positivest voice, a self-assured voice, a progressive-educator voice, a committed-to-plain English voice, or a combination of an infinite number of voices.

But as noted, voice in all contexts, including I-chat and e-mail, is constrained by the genre, the context. And the community: to use our writing voices effectively we need to consider the immediate rhetorical situation. Here, the work by Hunston and Thompson (2000) discussing writer’s stance is useful. Using corpus linguistics to guide them, these authors argue that our voices in academic texts are found when we:
1. Express our opinions... that may reflect the value system of our community or the particular group within that community with whom we affiliate.
2. Construct and maintain relations between reader and writer (here, Hyland’s [1998] working on hedging is useful)
3. Organize the discourse using meta textual features.

Hyland (2002), again using corpus studies, examines a more potentially face-threatening element of the author’s voice: the use of directives to the reader (e.g., “Look at this.”) within a variety of rhetorical contexts. So as academic writers, our students can maintain a voice, express their opinions, construct relationships with the reader through hedging and directives (and many other means), but they need help in how to accomplish their ends within the academic and professional genres with which they are unfamiliar.

3.6. Critical pedagogy: Ideology
By studying activity systems, genres, and writer and reader roles (or watching CNN), we have become acutely aware of the ideological thrust of every text and the ways in which multimodal factors interact to display these ideologies (see Silva and Brice 2004: 81 on nascent commentary in this area). Critical pedagogy, based loosely upon Freire (1973), encourages students to challenge, or at least question, the standard ideologies (see Benesch 2001) and to negotiate them within activity systems. Benesch tells us that when we talk with students about genres and technology, we must also evoke issues of textual and visual hegemony; we must assist students to understand and resist society’s inequities, initially by encouraging them to question academic faculty and negotiate assignments in their classrooms, and later by questioning authority in general (see also Penny cook 2000).
Our ESL/EFL students are often fully aware of the inequities that surround them, and critical pedagogy assists them to develop effective critique and resistance. Particularly interesting to us as EAP teachers may be the growing work of L2 scholars who are voicing their resistance (see CanagArjah 1999; Sasaki 2003) while writing within the English language community.

4. Conclusion
What the six topics discussed in section 3 here have in common, of course, is the necessity for not separating one feature of academic literacy (e.g., vocabulary, grammar, or the text) from another within an activity system, for not removing genres from their linguistic and visual elements or from their contexts. The research here points to our responsibility for being more thoroughly rhetorical and analytical in our teaching, taking into consideration the immediate activity systems within which texts operate, the knowledge that texts are purposeful and that “speakers and writers have intentions or designs on readers and hearers” (Fahnestock and Secor, 2002: 177). Many years ago, Widdowson (1981) reminded teachers that we should not confuse “authenticity” of texts (and now, literacy sites) with “relevance.” Widdowson (1981: 5) said, quite wisely, that
...the language content of a course is selected not because it is representative of what the learner will have to deal with after the course is over but because it is likely to activate strategies for learning while the course is in progress.

His advice is fully as relevant today. Our EAP students need to develop strategies for researching texts and rhetorical contexts, for adapting their reading and writing processes and voices to a variety of purposes and the rhetorical situation. And we, of course, need to continue our research. In conclusion, what can we say about recent trends in EAP writing research and influences upon future curricula? Several things:
1. Writing is integrated: We cannot separate linguistic elements such as vocabulary, grammar, or discourse from writer purposes or rhetorical contexts.
2. Genres are social; they are used purposefully by individuals to get something done – even if that something is only to attain a good grade in a classroom.
3. Genres are inter textual and interactive; they are integral to the activity systems in which they are situated.
4. Texts from genres vary: the situation and writer’s purposes, in addition to the conventions of the genres, determine the resulting text.

Because the activity systems in which our students find themselves are highly complex, they need to develop their abilities to be researchers: to use corpus and other research methods to investigate genres and the activity systems in which they are found. They also need to use both investigation and critique to examine the visual and auditory influences upon their lives – and the technologies that influence thought and discourses. We must conclude, then, that our responsibilities as EAP teachers and researchers are both comprehensive and complex as we attempt to prepare students for the demands of the 21st Century

Suggested Activities
 Activity 1
In a recent publication called Genre and the invention of the writer, Bawarshi (2003) shows literacy teachers how they can enhance student writing processes while assisting them researching those factors that determine the success of a text within any activity system. I will not discuss Bawarshi at length, for he needs to be read in the original; however, I demonstrate below how I have translated Bawarshi (2003), Widdowson (1981), and my own 30+ years of teaching and research into a first year composition curriculum. Here is what happens in my classroom as students prepare to write:
Step 1: Students begin with what the Australians suggest (Feez 2002 and Macken-Horarik 2002): several textual models from a genre which they analyze, asking these questions:
- Name: What is this genre called by those who value and use it? Who values these texts?
- Purpose(s): What purpose(s) does this genre serve? [And there may be several purposes.]
- Site(s): Where do texts from this genre appear? What systems operate in this context? [A little simple activity theory is presented here, using Russell’s classroom example.]
- Conventions: How do people recognize this genre? What are the features that seem to be repeated across texts? For example, does it have a recognizable discourse structure such as Introduction, Methodology, Results, Discussion (IMRD)? Are there repeated uses of visual information? Fonts? Are certain types of language common? [This is a good place to work with a simple corpus activity.]
- Inter textuality: What do the texts you are studying draw from? What are the sources for these texts? [Here, students might interview a text writer for how s/he integrated visual, auditory, textual – and discussions in the hall – into the text.]
- Situational variation: How has this genre been revised for different contexts? What writer, context, or other factors caused these changes to occur? [Here, we talk about the characteristics of a specific context that may lead to situational variation.]
- Writer’s voice: Who is the writer in this text? What does the language tell you about this writer? In what ways is the writer conforming to the genre and community, in your view? In what ways does the writer, as individual, shine through the text?

Step 2:Then, students discuss how they might read one of the texts studied for a number of academic or other purposes within a variety of contexts, e.g., for enjoyment, to summarize, to use as a source, to take notes. The students practice one, or several, approaches to exploiting the text for their purposes.
Step 3: Students then move to drafting a text from this genre for a known context, using an invention grid which becomes their guide throughout the writing process. Figure 2 below shows one example of such an invention grid:
Genre features What I know What I don’t know How I’ll find out
Name
Conventions:
- visual appearance,
- form/structure
Language
Writer’s role (e.g., student), voice and stance
Writer’s purpose(s)
Audience or community (values and assessment practices)
Immediate context/situation

Figure 2: Invention grid for writing
The topics in the last column are sometimes particularly puzzling. I talk with the students about how we conduct research into academic situations: using writing mentors in the disciplines, finding sample texts and discussing them with experts, using sources for intertextuality and other approaches. It soon becomes very clear to students that all elements of a text in a genre must be carefully thought through as writing and revising takes place. Since the most common type of academic writing for undergraduates in many countries is the in-class examination essay (Melzer 2002), we devote considerably more time in class using the grid to deconstruct different types of essay examination prompts and discussing how writers produce
effective texts under pressure (see Kroll this volume, for a more complete discussion of tasks and assignments). Then, our students’ in-class process (peer editing