Halliday's position is distinct from Martin's. A colleague contacted me as someone had made the claim on Halliday's Wikipedia page that while he was at Sydney University he founded the Sydney School of genre pedagogy, adding a link to a Reading to Learn page. See screenshot.
This is completely false. Martin is responsible for the 'Sydney School', and for genre pedagogy.I've now removed that sentence.
Annabelle, I agree that this Wikipedia edit was inappropriate. Can you see when it was done?It is a widely held misconception that MAKH was directly responsible for genre pedagogy. One factor has been its dissemination without acknowledgement to JRM, while functional grammar is strongly associated with MAKH.On the other hand, it is a major part of the careers of many in the SFL community, who teach and research both genre and grammar. It is by far the most widely known of SFL’s applications, bringing many 1000s of teachers to the grammar. So the terms genre pedagogy and Sydney school could bring readers to the Halliday page.Would it be worth disambiguating this issue by saying that Halliday’s research provided the basis for the later development of the genre-based literacy pedagogy of the Sydney School, led by his student JR Martin?I checked why a Sydney School link might lead to the Reading to Learn site. There have been several papers downloadable on the site, but gooogle scholar now directs mainly to researchgate.
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, in her email, Annabelle Lukin alerted the Sys-Func community that the Wikipedia page of Michæl Halliday had been deceptively edited so as to use Halliday's high status to advertise Jim Martin's 'Sydney School' of Genre Pedagogy and David Rose's Reading To Learn program, neither of which is the work of Halliday.
Clearly, the person most likely to have carried out this deception is David Rose, since his Reading To Learn program is a mixture of Martin's Genre Pedagogy and Brian Gray's Accelerated Literacy.
The only person to respond to Lukin's message was David Rose, who played down the deception as merely 'inappropriate', and went on to provide spurious reasons to excuse it, thereby unwittingly identifying himself as the person responsible for the deception.
