Volume 41, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



There is a consensus nowadays that the best way to develop students’ academic literacy abilities is within the context of their studies in the disciplines, an approach known as ‘curriculum embedding’. But despite the demonstrable value of this approach, surveys of the field in Australia suggest there has been only limited success over the years in integrating embedding pedagogies into university courses. In the light of this halting progress, there is a need to constantly document initiatives in this area, both to affirm the principles upon which embedding is founded, as well as to show how these principles can be given practical effect on programs. This paper provides an account of one such initiative – a collaborative project between Sociology academics and an academic literacy specialist. The key motif on the project was how the notions of ‘theory’ and ‘critique’ could be made comprehensible to students in the particular disciplinary context they were working in. We also show that an essential element of such programs is developing a common language by which pertinent issues can be explored, both among academics and with students.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Atkinson, D.
    (1997) A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 71–94. 10.2307/3587975
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587975 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ball, S. J.
    (1995) Intellectuals or technicians? The urgent role of theory in educational studies 1. British Journal of Educational Studies, 43(3), 255–271.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J.
    (1988) ‘Literacy in the University: An Anthropological Approach’. InG. Taylor, B. Ballard, V. Beasley, H. Bock, J. Clanchy, and P. Nightingale (Eds.), Literacy by Degrees (pp.7–23). Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernstein, B.
    (1964) Elaborated and restricted codes: Their social origins and some consequences. American anthropologist, 66(6), 55–69. 10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00030
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  5. Black, M., & Rechter, S.
    (2013) A critical reflection on the use of an embedded academic literacy program for teaching sociology. Journal of Sociology, 49(4), 456–470. 10.1177/1440783313504056
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783313504056 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bruce, I.
    (2010) Textual and discoursal resources used in the essay genre in sociology and English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(3), 153–66. 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.011 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bruner, J. S., Wood, D., & Ross, G.
    (1976) The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. 10.1111/j.1469‑7610.1976.tb00381.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Candlin, C., Bhatia, V., & Hyland, K.
    (1997) Academic communication in disciplinary communities. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Carr, E. H.
    (1961) What is history?Penguin Books: Harmondsworth UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Ciabattari, T.
    (2013) Creating a culture of good writing: A cumulative model for teaching writing in the sociology major. Teaching Sociology, 41(1), 60–69. 10.1177/0092055X12462415
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X12462415 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chanock, K.
    (2011) A historical literature review of Australian publications in the field of academic language and learning in the 1980s: Themes, schemes, and schisms: Part two. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 5(1), A59–A87.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2013) Teaching subject literacies through blended learning: Reflections on a collaboration between academic learning staff and teachers in the disciplines. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 7(2), A106–A119.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Coffin, C.
    (1997) Constructing and giving value to the past: An investigation into secondary school history. InF. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp.196–230). London: Cassell.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Coffin, C.
    (2004) Arguing about how the world is or how the world should be: The role of argument in IELTS tests. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(3), 229–246. 10.1016/j.jeap.2003.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2003.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  15. Connell, R.
    (2012) Threshold Learning Outcomes for Sociology + Feedback ReceivedRetrieved fromhttps://www.tasa.org.au/what-is-sociology/threashold-learning-outcomes-for-sociology/
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M.
    (1993) Introduction: How a genre approach to literacy can transform the way writing is taught. InCope, B., & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing (pp.1–21). London: The Falmer Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Darvin, R., & Norton, B.
    (2015) Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 36–56. 10.1017/S0267190514000191
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000191 [Google Scholar]
  18. Davies, A., Hamp-Lyons, L., & Kemp, C.
    (2003) Whose norms? International proficiency tests in English. World Englishes, 22(4), 571–584. 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.2003.00324.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2003.00324.x [Google Scholar]
  19. Davies, M.
    (2013) Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(4), 529–544. 10.1080/07294360.2012.697878
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.697878 [Google Scholar]
  20. Donohue, J. P.
    (2012) Using systemic functional linguistics in academic writing development: An example from film studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 4–16. 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  21. Drake, R.
    (2001) The principles of social policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑12189‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-12189-9 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dunworth, K., Drury, H., Kralik, C., & Moore, T.
    (2014) Rhetoric and realities: On the development of university-wide strategies to promote student English language growth. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(5), 520–532. 10.1080/1360080X.2014.936088
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2014.936088 [Google Scholar]
  23. Edwards, M.
    (2014) Writing in sociology. Los Angeles: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Ennis, R.
    (1992) The degree to which critical thinking is subject specific: Clarification and needed research. InS. Norris (Ed.), The generalizability of critical thinking: Multiple perspectives on an educational ideal (pp.21–37). NY: Teachers College Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Freedman, A., & Medway, P.
    (1994) Introduction. InA. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Learning and teaching genre (pp.1–22). Portsmouth NH: Heineman.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Giddens, A.
    (2009) Sociology (6th ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Gilbert, R.
    (2004) Studies of society and environment as a field of learning. InR. Gilbert (Ed.), Studying society and environment: A guide for teachers (3rd ed.) (pp.4–21) Thomson Learning, Southbank, Melbourne.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1994) An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (1989) Some grammatical problems in scientific English. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics. Supplement Series, 6(1), 13–37. 10.1075/aralss.6.02hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aralss.6.02hal [Google Scholar]
  30. Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P.
    (2005) Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in articulating education. Prospect, 20(1), 6–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hyland, K.
    (2000) Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (2002) Specificity revisited: How far should we go now?’English for Specific Purposes, 21, 385–395. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(01)00028‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00028-X [Google Scholar]
  33. Jordan, R. R.
    (1997) English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511733062
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733062 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K.
    (2008) Feedback on assessment: Students’ perceptions of quality and effectiveness. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 33(3), 263–275. 10.1080/02602930701292548
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701292548 [Google Scholar]
  35. MacDonald, S. P.
    (1994) Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Marx, K.
    (1998) The German Ideology, including Theses on Feuerbach, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books (Original work published 1848).
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Meyer, J. H. F. & Land, R.
    (2003) Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge (1): linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. InC. Rust, (Ed.) Improving Student Learning: Improving Student Learning Theory and Practice – Ten Years On, (pp.412–424). Oxford: OCSLD.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Mills, C. W.
    (1967) The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Mooney, L., Knox, D., & Schacht, C.
    (2014) Understanding social problems (5th ed.). Scarborough: Nelson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Moore, T.
    (2007) The ‘processes’ of learning: On the use of Halliday’s transitivity in academic skills advising. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 6(1), 50–73. 10.1177/1474022207072199
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022207072199 [Google Scholar]
  41. Moore, T., & Morton, J.
    (2005) Dimensions of difference: A comparison of university writing and IELTS writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(1), 43–66. 10.1016/j.jeap.2004.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  42. Moore, T. J.
    (2011) Critical thinking and language: The challenge of generic skills and disciplinary discourses. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Nesi, H., & Gardner, S.
    (2012) Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Poulos, A., & Mahony, J.
    (2008) Effectiveness of feedback: The students’ perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(2), 143–154. 10.1080/02602930601127869
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930601127869 [Google Scholar]
  45. Ramsden, P.
    (2003) Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203507711
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203507711 [Google Scholar]
  46. Rayner, J.
    (2016) Generation less: How Australia is cheating the young. Melbourne: Black Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Simon, M. K., & Goes, J.
    (2011) Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success. Dissertation Success, LLC.
  48. Standing, G.
    (2011) The Precariat. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Stoddart, K.
    (1991) Writing sociologically: A note on teaching the construction of a qualitative report. Teaching Sociology, 19, 243–248. 10.2307/1317857
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1317857 [Google Scholar]
  50. Taylor, G., B. Ballard, V. Beasley, H. Bock, J. Clanchy, and P. Nightingale
    (Eds.) (1988) Literacy by Degrees (pp.7–23). Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Taylor, G.
    (1988) ‘Foreword’. InG. Taylor, B. Ballard, V. Beasley, H. Bock, J. Clanchy, and P. Nightingale (Eds.), Literacy by Degrees (pp.7–23). Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Thill, C.
    (2012) Threshold learning outcomes for Sociology + Feedback Received. Retrieved fromhttps://www.tasa.org.au/what-is-sociology/threashold-learning-outcomes-for-sociology/
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Thompson, G., & Yiyun, Y.
    (1991) Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied linguistics, 12(4), 365–382. 10.1093/applin/12.4.365
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/12.4.365 [Google Scholar]
  54. Toulmin, S.
    (1972) Human Understanding (Vol.1). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. van Krieken, R., Habibis, D., Smith, P., Hutchins, B., Martin, G., & Maton, K.
    (2013) Sociology. Sydney: Pearson Higher Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Vygotsky, L. S.
    (1962) Thought and Language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans., Eds.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934). 10.1037/11193‑000
    https://doi.org/10.1037/11193-000 [Google Scholar]
  57. Willis, E.
    (2004) The Sociological Quest: An introduction to the study of social life. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Wingate, U.
    (2006) Doing away with ‘study skills’. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4) 457–469. 10.1080/13562510600874268
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600874268 [Google Scholar]
  59. Wrigglesworth, J., & McKeever, M.
    (2010) Writing history: A genre-based, interdisciplinary approach linking disciplines, language and academic skills. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 9(1), 107–126. 10.1177/1474022209349987
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022209349987 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error