Since interesting explorations and theorizing by Swales (1990), Berkenkotter and Huckin (1995), Bhatia (1993), Johns (2002b), and Hyland (2000) among others, genre has become “a central concept determining how discourse is organized and used for various purposes” (Grabe, 2002, 250). Applied concerns contribute to the centrality of genre: “by structuring rhetorical problems, genres do a part of the writer’s work” (O’Neill, 2001, 226). Therefore, a genre will serve as a common ground for those who are familiar with it, in Pea’s (1992, 89) words it is “distributed intelligence” that is shaped by the collective accomplishment of the particular discourse community and their practices. Therefore, the notion of genre provides several opportunities for increasing teaching and learning efficiency (see, for example, Sazdovska (2009) for a recent study that builds on a genre analysis background and shows how explicit instruction of a genre improves teaching and learning efficiency). While there is no question about the usefulness of the notion of genre, it seems to divide theorists and practitioners. Johns (2002b) argues that theories of genre are difficult to apply, as on the one hand, “there is direct contradiction between what the theoreticians and researchers continue to discover about the nature of genres and the everyday requirements of the classroom” (237), and on the other hand, “student theories of academic texts are often in direct opposition to the genre theorists’ complex ideas” (239). Consequently, if researchers of genre are to contribute to the efficiency of teaching writing, then it is their responsibility to translate their findings into easily digestible information and tangible teaching resources.