I present my ideological stance in content area instruction by first providing background information about the students and their goals and challenges regarding attaining proficiency in academic literacy practices. I then briefly summarize my ideological stance regarding teaching students in content area instruction, followed by describing three pedagogical approaches to integrate academic literacy into my instruction so as to provide equity and access for all students to succeed in content understanding.

1. Only Connect
My Ideological Stance in Content
Area Instruction
Sherrie Lee, MAT@USC
EDUC 505T Integrating Literacy in Secondary
Content Instruction, Dr Evelyn Monat

2. Background of Students
~
Goal: Academic Literacy
~
Challenge: Coercive Power
Introduction Relations

3. Background of Students
 Technical college in Singapore
 17-18 years old studying Business subjects
 Heterogeneous: wide ranging abilities in
academic reading and writing; different
socioeconomic backgrounds.
 Passive learners: passive reception of
information and knowledge; students tend to
be quiet in class.
 Not confident of their ability to respond to
questions in class; wait for teacher to provide
answers.

4. Goal: Academic Literacy
 Academic literacy = reading and writing;
success in content understanding and
assessments; required in higher education
 Literacy = Mastery of a secondary Discourse
(Gee, 2012, p. 173)
 Academic literacy = mastering distinctive ways
of writing/reading coupled with distinctive ways
of acting, interacting, valuing, feeling, dressing,
thinking, believing with other people and
various objects, tools and technologies” (Gee,
2012, p. 152)
 Mastery of a Discourse = acquisition through
models + learning through meta-knowledge
(Gee, 2012, p. 174).

5. Challenge: Coercive Power
Relations
 Students’ past test scores in English language
determine teachers’ attitude toward students’
ability to excel in academic reading and writing.
 Students’ use of primary Discourse of non-
standard, colloquial language in the classroom
seen as a reflection of students’ lack of
academic abilities.
 Coercive power relations between teachers
and students where teachers indirectly prepare
students to accept the status quo regarding
their academic abilities (Cummins, 2003, p.
25).

6. Promote active learning
~
Teach Acquisition and
Learning
My Ideological ~
Stance Empower students

7. Cooperative Learning
~
Modeling
~
Pedagogical Using Primary Discourse
Approaches

8. Cooperative Learning
 Cooperative learning encourages positive
interdependence, individual accountability,
equal participation and simultaneous
interaction (Kagan, 1998, p. 108).
 Complex mental processes begin as social
activities and evolve into internal mental
activities which students can use independently
in the future (Ormrod, 2011, p. 40).
 Use of pair and group work in cooperative
learning allows a student’s learning to be
scaffolded by both capable and similar ability
peers (Ormrod, 2011, p. 45).

9. Modeling
 Teaching that leads to acquisition means to
apprentice students in a master-apprentice
relationship through exposure to models “in
natural, meaningful, and functional settings
(Gee, 2012, p. 174-175).
 Use content-based instruction where the
teaching of academic skills is done through
“exposure to content that is interesting and
relevant to learners” (Brinton, 2003, p. 201).
 Use think-alouds: make thinking explicit by
verbalizing thoughts while completing a task
(Vacca, Vacca, & Mraz, 2011, p. 197).
 Modeling not only teaches students new
behaviors and skills, it also boosts their self-
confidence (Ormrod, 2011, p. 334).

10. Using Primary Discourse
 Use students’ primary Discourse to mediate
their learning of a secondary Discourse.
 A person’s primary Discourse is acquired as a
result of family socialization (Gee, 2012) and
for many students, their primary Discourse
includes oral literacy in non-standard colloquial
speech.
 Students’ oral literacy, however informal and
deemed unacceptable, is the carrier for their
personal perspectives that needs to addressed
before teachers can move on less familiar
literacies of reading and writing (Kern &
Schultz, 2005, p. 384).

11. Using Primary Discourse (cont’d)
 Narrow definition of academic literacy = strict
adherence to standard forms and conventions
= students who do not meet the standards are
viewed as deficient (Kern & Schultz, 2005, p.
389).
 Expand the notion of literacy = link students’
primary Discourse to the secondary Discourse
of academic skills
 Encourage students to use informal language
to talk or write about their reactions to a
reading passage to address their unique or
even culturally-specific ways of thinking.
 Validate their worldview, motivate them to
connect with the academic ways of thinking
that I seek to teach (Delpit, 2002, p. 45).

12. Conclusion
 Use the three pedagogical approaches of
cooperative learning, modeling and using
students’ primary Discourse to combat the
coercive power relations that exist between
teachers and students.
 Collaborative relations of power = affirm my
students’ sense of identity by allowing them to
be confident participants during lessons, as
well as in all other interactions with me
(Cummins, 2003, p. 19).
 We must reconnect them to their own brilliance
and gain their trust so that they will learn from
us (Delpit, 2002, p. 48).

13. References
Brinton, D. M. (2003). Content-based instruction. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English language teaching (pp.
199-224). New York: McGraw Hill.
Cummins, J. (2005). Teaching the language of academic success: A framework for school-based language
policies. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (3rd ed., pp. 3-32). Sacramento,
CA: LBD Publishers.
Delpit, L. (2002). No kinda sense. In L. Delpit, (Ed.), The skin that we speak: Thoughts on language and culture
in the classroom (pp. 34-48). NY: The New York Press.
Gee, J. (2012). Discourses and literacies. Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (4th ed.) (pp.
147-178). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kagan, S. (1998). New cooperative learning, multiple intelligences, and inclusion. In J. W. Putnam and R. W.
Slavin (Eds.), Cooperative learning and strategies for inclusion: Celebrating diversity in the classroom (pp.
105-136). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
Kern, R. & Schultz, J. M. (2005). Beyond orality: investigating literacy and the literary in second and foreign
language instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), pp. 381-392.
Ormrod, J.E. (2011). Educational psychology: Developing learners (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Vacca, R. T., Vacca, J. L., & Mraz, M. (2011). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the
curriculum (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson.