348 Book reviews / System 37 (2009) 343–352

vocabulary and testing aspects, for instance, the need for multiple assessment of the different features of lexical
knowledge in order to obtain reliable pictures of both individual lexical development and lexical richness of
texts. Secondly, in the search for validity of the measures under scrutiny, the book also presents new ways
of data description and analysis, such as the use of the graph theory. Thirdly, valuable information is provided
that backs up findings in previous research. For example, the test proposed by Hilde Hacquebord and Berend
Stellingwerf in Chapter 11 seems to confirm the existence of reader typologies, in a similar way that Milton’s
analysis of profiles seems to corroborate the existence of two different learning styles that influence the foreign
language vocabulary learned in class. Fourthly, work to find more fine-tuned measures is shown to be well
under way, as the research reported shows. A good example is Eyckmans et al.’s Recognition Based Vocab-
ulary Test as an alternative to Yes/No tests, while van Hout and Vermeer recommend the MLR (Measure of
Lexical Richness), which takes the frequency of types in the daily input into account and is consistent with the
results of their computer simulations, which show how sampling a lexicon works. Further evidence is also gi-
ven in different chapters to include AG (Advanced Guiraud) and D in the lexical measures repertoire of any
study. Fifth and last, obvious pedagogical implications arise from most chapters (especially those by Lorenzo-
Dus and Daller and Phelan), not only because the reader has to consider different learner strategies, abilities
and profiles, but also because many of the authors comment on evaluation issues that have not been previ-
ously considered or that may have often gone unheard.
Another strong point of the book is that the empirical data analysed in the chapters come from a wide vari-
ety of backgrounds – indispensable when evaluations of measures are carried out. Many variables may influ-
ence the results of a test and what can be applicable to one particular context may not hold in another.
Evidence found for different types of data will always be more robust and any particularity that may affect
results more easily spotted. The data gathered in this volume is representative of different proficiency levels
in learners of English and also of languages other than English. It comes from learners with the same or with
different first languages as well as from native speakers and it has been obtained across a variety of tasks.
In brief, then, there is a need for the type of research presented in this book and for the quality of discussion
that the authors provide on fundamental issues concerning measurement of vocabulary and lexical richness in
oral and written data. Evaluation studies of the kind found in this collection will greatly assist in selecting the
appropriate measures we should include in our research designs. At the same time, the authors make us aware
of the limitations involved in common methodologies, which may in turn lead to more valid interpretations of
research findings. ‘Modelling and Assessing Vocabulary Knowledge’ does not provide ‘the’ model or ‘the’
assessment, it is not a book on ‘getting things right’, but it reports extremely valuable information that shows
many sound ways of collectively ‘getting them less wrong’.

Imma Miralpeix
Departament de Filologia Anglesa i Alemanya,
Universitat de Barcelona,
Spain
E-mail address: imiralpeix@ub.edu

doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.02.006

Teaching Academic Writing, Patricia Friedrich (Ed.), Continuum, London and New York (2008). xiv+246 pp

This volume is a collection of papers aimed at a readership of teachers, particularly those who work part-
time and/or are less experienced such as ‘adjunct faculty, teaching assistants and graduate students who teach
academic writing’. The purpose is to ‘establish a dialogue. . .especially [with] those who may feel they have lim-
ited access to academic discussions or yet who believe they are only partially ready to face the challenges ahead
of them’ (p. 1). This review is written with this purpose and reader in mind.
Eleven of the 14 contributors are based in the United States, two in the United Kingdom and one in Sweden.
Thus the volume deals primarily with issues and practices that are of particular concern within the United
 Book reviews / System 37 (2009) 343–352 349

States rather than the wider international context. There are 10 chapters, plus the Introduction, each dealing
with a specific area: History, Disciplines, Pedagogy, Tasks, Feedback, Support, Technology, Diversity, Com-
munity and Academic Integrity. As this list shows, the book covers a wide range of important topics. However,
the organisation and sequencing of the chapters is less convincing. For example, while it makes sense to begin
with History, we might expect issues of Pedagogy to be dealt with before Disciplines, and Academic Integrity
also to merit a much earlier position. Furthermore, there is little attempt to establish connections between the
chapters, to the extent that there is considerable repetition and overlap, particularly in relation to the chapter on
‘assignments and activities’. Indeed, since all tasks have specific aims connected to particular aspects of aca-
demic writing, it might perhaps have been preferable to include the relevant tasks within each chapter.
As a whole, the volume also seems to lack a clear sense of audience. Some papers, notably those by Ferris
and Pecorari, are successful in addressing the intended reader, achieving a good balance between surveying the
field, presenting research and introducing practical activities. Others, however, vary widely in both approach
and tone, from highly personal descriptions of individual courses (Anokye, Friedrich) to theoretical discus-
sions relying on specialist concepts and terminology (Casey and Selfe). One could, of course, argue that this
diversity accurately reflects the current situation in academic writing studies, but given that the volume is tar-
geted at inexperienced teachers, it would have benefited from more editorial context and explanation.
The book opens with an overview of first-year composition in 20th-century American higher education by
Knoblauch and Matsuda, which is intended to provide the historical background to the issues treated in sub-
sequent chapters. Within the limitations of its topic, the chapter succeeds in introducing some of the major
strands in academic writing pedagogy, although rather too much time is spent on the early history of writing
instruction. The chapter becomes most relevant when it discusses late twentieth century developments. It is
surprising, though, that no mention is made of genre or corpus-based approaches. Etherington’s chapter
on ‘Academic Writing and the Disciplines’ gives a good account of the justification for discipline-specific
teaching and provides a useful selection of resources, although certain books she refers to (Swales and Feak,
2000, 2004; Weissberg and Buker, 1990) are genre rather than discipline-based.
It is unfortunate that in a book targeted at inexperienced teachers, the chapter on pedagogy has little to
recommend it. Anokye gives a personal account of her approach, which could be useful if it led to specific
insights applicable in other contexts. Unfortunately, the chapter fails to address the reader’s need for this
wider view. Moreover, the organisation of ideas is unclear, with lengthy digressions and extensive lists given
without explanation or comment. The following example occurs on the second page of the chapter: ‘In
preparation for orientation and workshops for faculty teaching academic writing, over the years, I have read
everyone from Paolo Freire to P.J. Corbett, Geneva Smitherman to Mina Shaugnessy, Brian Street to Victor
Villanueva, Wendy Bishop to Elaine Richardson’. The next sentence lists a further nineteen authors, only one
of which is included in the very scant bibliography. Such lists of names are of little help to the teacher who is
not already familiar with the work of these authors.
I have already noted that the chapter by Tardy and Courtney dealing with assignments and activities over-
laps with some of the topics addressed in other chapters. Nevertheless, it provides a valuable resource of prac-
tical tasks that are well presented and explained with an appropriate level of detail. Ferris’ chapter on feedback
is also excellent. It introduces and discusses the issues clearly, presents useful examples of different types of
feedback and concludes with extensive references.
Chapter 6 by Morley offers a complete contrast in approach, presenting a case study of writing support at a
single university (Manchester, UK). He describes three different types of provision: general and discipline-spe-
cific courses for international students, communicative skills courses for undergraduates, and on-line resources
which have been found most appropriate for postgraduates. The chapter provides a wealth of information,
although I am unsure how much of it would be relevant to the needs of the target reader. I have a similar con-
cern with regard to the following chapter on emergent technologies by Casey and Selfe. The first two sections
are mainly theoretical and contain terminology that might not be familiar to the less-expert teacher. The second
half of the paper is more accessible, providing extensive excerpts from a rhetorical design matrix and showing
how it is used to shed light on the composing technologies, media and modalities of written assignments.
Friedrich’s chapter deals with an issue that is less often addressed in academic writing studies: raising
awareness of bilingualism and second language writing among monolingual users of English. Like Morley,
she takes a case study approach, but is more successful in relating the topic to the needs of her readers.
350 Book reviews / System 37 (2009) 343–352

The paper would have had even wider relevance if it had incorporated a discussion of the notion of English as
a lingua franca. Chapter 9 by Stancliff deals with community-based writing and, in its concern with rhetorical
invention, overlaps with Chapter 7. After a rather unfocused introductory section, it becomes more useful
when it discusses specific examples of community-based assignments. The final chapter, by Pecorari, deals with
the pressing problem of plagiarism. She provides a clear analysis of the issues associated with this emotive
topic and stresses the necessity for distinguishing between intentional and unintentional plagiarism. She makes
a convincing case for treating the latter as a developmental stage in writing, which should be tackled through
teaching good source use rather than through punishment (see the review of Pecorari (2008) in System, 36(4)
(December, 2008), pp. 673–675).
To summarise, this is not a volume to read from cover to cover, but it contains three chapters (by Ferris,
Pecorari and Tardy and Courtney) that can certainly be recommended to the less-experienced teacher.
There is, however, one further criticism to make. The text is very poorly edited and contains many inaccu-
racies. I list below just a few examples which give an idea of the scope of the problem.

Page 17 ‘while the principles of rhetorical pedagogy is important. . .’

Page 48 ‘Hirvela (1997) required her students. . .’ Should be his.
Page 62 Punctuation: ‘Who do I think I am?; What makes me suitable for teaching composition?;’
Page 152 Citations of New London Group and Cope and Kalantzis without dates.
Page 183 ‘. . .the total number in students in class was 35.’
Page 184 ‘These new players will (it they have not already) question. . .’
Page 206 ‘Students find ingenious means of public intervention and thus demonstrating their ability to align
intention, invention in the context of audience and a myriad of rhetorical constraints.’
Page 213 ‘. . .to address a student audience as opposed to administrator’s in the Campus Life or Student
Affairs office.’
Page 213 ‘I regularly have education students whose project work is to develop field-specific curriculum for
their project. . .’
Page 219 ‘. . .do we not bracket second language English users or users of ‘‘other” varieties of English (for
example, regionally inflected English dialectics or international ‘‘world Englishes”) as diminished
speech?’ Dialects, not dialectics. ‘Users’ cannot be bracketed as ‘speech’.

As Anokye points out (p. 68), ‘Good writing also requires a certain amount of accuracy’. It is a pity that
this volume does not achieve it.

References

Pecorari, D., 2008. Academic Writing and Plagiarism: A Linguistic Analysis. Continuum, London.
Swales, J.M., Feak, C.B., 2000. English in Today’s Research World: A Writing Guide. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Swales, J.M., Feak, C.B., 2004. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills, second ed. University of Michigan
Press, Ann Arbor.
Weissberg, R., Buker, S., 1990. Writing up Research: Experimental Research Report Writing for Students of English. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Maggie Charles
Language Centre,
University of Oxford,
12 Woodstock Road,
Oxford OX2 6HT,
United Kingdom
E-mail address: maggie.charles@lang.ox.ac.uk

doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.02.007