Coffin, Caroline; Curry, Mary Jane; Goodman, Sharon; Hewings, Ann; Lillis, Theresa M.; and Swann, Joan. (2003). Teaching Academic Writing: A Toolkit for Higher Education. Lillian Biermann Wehmeyer, Azusa Pacific University

	Coffin, Caroline; Curry, Mary Jane; Goodman, Sharon; Hewings, Ann; Lillis, Theresa M.; and Swann, Joan. (2003). Teaching Academic Writing: A Toolkit for Higher Education. London and New York: Routledge. Pp. xii + 175 $80 (Cloth)     ISBN 0-415-26135-X $25.95 (Paper)     ISBN 0-415-26136-8 Lillian Biermann Wehmeyer Azusa Pacific University March 18, 2004 Teaching Academic Writing, directed to an audience of lecturers (that is, course instructors) and writing tutors, is the work of a team of six authors associated with the Centre for Language and Communications of the Open University, United Kingdom. Together, the authors draw upon an impressive range of research and teaching in a global array of settings with secondary to postgraduate, including adult, learners. They write from the perspectives of “writing as social practice, process writing approaches, and systemic functional linguistics” (p. 15). The authors offer a toolkit in two senses. The first of these stems from their view of language as “a culturally shaped resource for making meaning” (p. 11). Thus, following Wertsch, they provide a set of tools—thought processes and writing conventions—to scaffold (now drawing from Vygotsky) the writing of higher education students. Second, moving to the instructional level, they provide a rich array of ideas with which teachers and writing coaches may develop students’ awareness of and skill in applying these processes and conventions. Their ideas include both heuristics, or questions to lead readers to examine their own teaching techniques, and activities, practical examples for teaching and assessment. The latter draw from the authors’ own experience, as well as from published sources. Each chapter is written by two members of the author team. The overview, entitled “Issues in Academic Writing in Higher Education,” sets forth the authors’ goals: to bring to the reader’s attention the characteristics of academic writing, to suggest strategies that address the needs of students with diverse backgrounds, including English language learners, to suggest means by which to adapt writing instruction to a range of academic purposes, and “to combine a practical orientation to teaching writing with a grounding in current theories of writing instruction” (p. 2). It should be noted that, although this toolkit is directed primarily toward instructors and tutors of undergraduate students, the authors aver—and as one who teaches at the doctoral level, I agree—that many of their suggestions are readily adaptable to graduate settings. To clarify their fourfold goal, Coffin et al. enumerate the purposes for which college and university students are required to write, as well as changes in the higher education setting that raise new challenges. These appear to be essentially the same in the U.K. as in the United States. As purposes, they list students’ own learning, assessment of student learning, and induction into the community of a discipline. The changes they identify are more students, more diverse students (gender, culture, and language), new types of students (especially part-time), changes in curriculum (modularization—i.e., short courses—and interdisciplinary content), distance education, and large class sizes that limit the time one can give to providing feedback to students about their work (pp. 3-5). The authors move forward to discuss approaches to the teaching of writing (chapter 2). Here, readers are made aware of the confusion they may inadvertently create with the words they choose to present writing assignments to students. This gentle prodding to anticipate and forestall confusion is woven throughout the book. At this stage, instructors are encouraged to recognize that faculty and students may bring implicit, but different, understandings to a given writing task. Consequently, teachers must be explicit in describing writing processes and products. A useful concept is that of text types, a term the authors prefer to the multi-definitioned genres. For example, one genre is the essay. What, precisely, is an essay? Essays include several text types, the authors maintain. However, they postpone a discussion of types of essays, focusing first on the difference between the argument essay and a non-essay text type, the investigative project report. A helpful chart lays out the functional stages that produce the thesis and argumentative stance of the former versus the (more or less) objective reporting of the latter. The authors extend the discussion of argument, including a list of signposting conjunctions (e.g., when, because, however,similarly—selected from Love) that show the relationships among ideas. The numerous charts of this nature that appear throughout the book are particularly helpful because they enable us to anticipate likely sources of error. Equipped with our explanations, students have a better chance of practicing effective, rather than ineffective, writing techniques. Another helpful concept is register, which addresses formality vs. informality, first vs. second vs. third person, nouns and noun phrases vs. verbs, indirect (“It is,” “There are”) vs. direct constructions, and hedging (with words like may and probably). The topic of linguistic accuracy, including lists of common student errors in spelling and grammar, concludes this section. The writing process occupies the remainder of chapter 2. Here are described prewriting (brainstorming and freewriting), journaling, drafting, peer review, reflection, editing/ proofreading, and collaborative writing. The authors suggest guidelines for students engaged in peer review. Additional resources include two organizational tools applied to the same topic: a cluster diagram and an outline. As at several points in their discussion, the authors encourage us to develop parallel examples for the text types and disciplines with which our students are involved. A valuable chapter now follows, addressing writing in various disciplines. These insights are helpful in adapting the more generalized material in earlier pages of the book to a particular course one might teach and in which a student may be having difficulty. They also assist an instructor to appreciate the diverse understandings of purposes, register, and structure that students may bring to a discipline. Thus equipped, I can identify and explain the adaptations that students may need as they move into the field in which I teach, whether at the undergraduate or graduate level. Academic knowledge, hence academic writing, is here presented on a continuum from the sciences to the humanities. The social sciences, a hybrid, sit at the center. Written products across this continuum must necessarily vary as to text type (predominantly reports to predominantly essays), use of statistics and visuals (typical to rare), and register (objective to argumentative). Here both the investigative project report and argument essay, looked at previously, are analyzed as to sub-types and structures. In addition, an essay in history and a case study in business administration provide concrete examples of both writing process and textual structure At this point the authors turn from teaching specific aspects of writing process and format to outcomes: assessment (chapter 4) and feedback (chapter 5). The title of chapter 4, “Planning the Assessment of Student Writing,” alerts the reader to the necessity of planning the assessment even as the assignment is prepared. The authors point out that innovative forms of assessment, even though they represent technical advances, often create difficulties for students, who may not understand what is expected. Therefore, “assessment practices require explicit discussion with students” (p. 75). We are reminded to consider the purpose of an assessment; not only teaching (formative) versus grading (summative), but whether the assessment is to address, for example, course-related knowledge, subject-specific skills, thinking abilities, or writing conventions themselves (p. 75). Separating these conventions—that is, the expression—from that which is being expressed may require practice on the instructor’s part. Of particular interest in light of accreditation demands for student outcome measures are three examples of assessment criteria. These criteria are to be made available to students, then applied by the instructor. One example establishes a rubric for a grade of A or B by evaluating “knowledge of texts, . . . presentation and scholarly methods, . . . argument and response to assignment, . . . and understanding of the issues” (p. 79). The authors demonstrate that students’ likelihood of success is limited by the extent to which an assignment clearly describes the writing task in relation to assessment criteria. They adapt from Allen a list of verbs often used in assignments (account for, analyze, apply, etc.,) defining each so as to differentiate their meaning. We see again that the way an assignment is phrased—as well as omissions—may create ambiguity for students. Suggestions are made to broaden the nature of writing tasks and, consequently, modes of assessment. Personal writing, e.g. journals, and collaborative writing are given attention. With regard to assessment, portfolios—reportedly less used in Britain than in the United States—come in for praise (students can “preserve, build upon and improve their writing over time,” p. 88) and concern (instructor time and resources required). Self- and peer assessment are touched upon. Although the section on plagiarism includes a useful comparison of a paraphrase that is with one that is not plagiarism, the teacher of writing will no doubt seek other, more comprehensive resources on this subject. Given cursory mention, yet important in working with students from other educational systems, is the possibility that some cultures may teach very different attitudes toward acknowledging sources. For instance, Chinese students in one study indicated that listing all one’s references might be construed as demeaning by readers who should already have been familiar with the sources (Buranan, cited in Coffin et al., p. 99). A full chapter is devoted to that mode of assessment called feedback. Of course, feedback and assessment are similar in that both attempt to communicate strengths and areas in need of growth. This chapter, however, focuses on setting criteria. The authors remind us that feedback (like assignments and assessments) may only engender confusion in students. They find typical among instructors a belief that feedback consists of a positive statement, a criticism, and a suggestion for improvement. The authors regard such feedback as inadequate. To support this contention, they quote standards from Britain’s Quality Assurance Agency (pp. 102-103), then draw from nine research studies to illustrate the pedagogical challenges of providing effective feedback. Of these findings, one introduced a new note in this otherwise primarily cognitive guide: “giving and receiving feedback is an emotional, as well as a rational activity” (p. 103). As in other chapters, the opening theme is the importance of identifying the purpose of each assignment. Then, in one of the heuristics promised in the opening chapter, readers are invited to list what they deem important when commenting on student writing—and then to compare that list with papers they have already graded. Going beyond criteria, the authors raise additional issues for instructors to consider. We are told that sometimes specific alternative words or phrases may be suggested; at other times, however, we would be wiser to avoid giving direction, instead asking questions like “Why did you [whatever was done]?” or “What do you mean?” or “Is there a better way to say this?” (pp. 108-109). We are invited to consider the effect of face-to-face versus written feedback. Even such details as choosing to write comments with pencil rather than red ink are brought to our attention. These choices have implications for the emotional dimension of feedback, noted earlier. Particularly creative are ideas for having students follow up on feedback. One form (pp. 123-124) leads students to report to the instructor how they sought to improve their work (analyzed their own writing, consulted printed resources, turned to peers); another (p. 125) asks students to jot comments on a half dozen criteria (quality of argument, use of sources, etc.), to which the instructor responds in an adjoining column. Finally comes the point called handover, when students take responsibility for their own work. A metacognitive strategy proposed at this juncture is that students write about the challenges of identifying and resolving their own difficulties with academic writing. The closing chapter, “Academic Writing in an Electronic Environment,” mentions online teaching tools with an emphasis on conferences, including both synchronous and asynchronous interaction. Online resources are described, with particular acknowledgement of Purdue University’s Online Writing Lab (OWL). Brief mention is made of approaches to evaluating Internet resources, the role of technology in facilitating plagiarism, and options for multimedia assignments. Although teachers’ interest in conferences (chat rooms) currently outdistances the capacity of technology, synchronous communication holds great promise for the future. Coffin et al. are already there, offering hints for creating an online community, for setting norms in a conference group, and for activities appropriate to that setting. Omitted are strategies for editing electronic documents. Specialized software has been developed for this purpose, but a word processor can accomplish much the same purpose if, for example, an instructor places editing comments in marginal notes and inserts more substantive observations within the text in a colored font. The book concludes with an annotated, but brief, bibliography of useful books, articles, and online sources; a reference list; and an index. Of the bibliography items, one promising resource for faculty moving into distance or distributed learning is Salmon’s E-Moderating (London: Kogan Page, 2000). Where does this guide fit into the array of published materials on the same subject? First, the topic academic writing is, in this case, a carefully bounded field. It does not deal simply with writing undergraduate term papers or integrating writing instruction within academic courses. Rather, academic writing in this toolkit includes attention to specific modes of discourse (text types) and register. It relates these to the disciplines across a continuum, then compares and contrasts the extremes of the continuum. Although not pervasive, the needs of second-language learners also appear. To consider the position of this book within the field, a search of Books in Print and WorldCat (a union catalog developed by the Online Computer Library Center and holding records from 9,000 universities) yielded nine likely books. All but two of these are narrow in scope: one type of writing or one type of learner (usually ESL). The two titles, English for Academic Purposes by Robert R. Jordan and Teaching Academic Writing in European Higher Education, a collection of academic papers, are the closest matches to Coffin et al. Both, like the book discussed in this review, emerge from a European context. English for Academic Purposes (EAP) has as its subtitle A Guide and Resource Book for Teachers. Whereas Coffin et al. is addressed primarily to practitioners, however, Jordan’s book would work well as a textbook for prospective teachers of EAP. It includes reflection and discussion questions at the end of each chapter. The book considers course development, not tutoring. It takes a broad approach in that—in addition to academic writing—study skills, library use, examinations, and public speaking are examined. This book is more formal than that of the Coffin group, with an emphasis on carefully articulated outcomes and formal needs analysis. However, like Coffin, Jordan provides numerous examples and a rich array of additional sources. Björk, Bräuer, Rienecker, and Jörgensen, the editors of Teaching Academic Writing in European Higher Education, represent universities in Sweden, Germany, and Denmark; their contributors add four more European nations, Canada, Japan, and the U.S. The United States is seen by these writers as a forerunner in teaching writing and particularly in developing writing centers at universities. Moreover, the editors remark that “the teaching of writing is further integrated into the educational institutions” (p. 1) in the U.S. as compared with Europe. For the most part, the 14 chapters, each by a different author or author team, are devoted to describing particular programs. Thus, Björk et al. would be more useful for designing programs than for planning units of instruction. In contrast to Jordan (1997) but like Coffin, this volume restricts itself to writing. However, like most compilations of articles, the book, while broad, is not comprehensive. It addresses various settings and multiple levels, including the doctoral thesis. It lacks specific teaching and assessment ideas such as those included in both Coffin and Jordan. In conclusion, Teaching Academic Writing should be recognized as a succinct, yet valuable, contribution. Those instructors who would like to know more about Wertsch, Vygotsky, and other theoreticians will need to turn to the reference list, but for instructors in the crucible of daily teaching, Coffin et al. provide a wealth of useful and thoughtful ideas. References Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Björk, L., Bräuer, G., Rienecker, L., & Jörgebsen, P. S. (Eds.). Teaching academic writing in European higher education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. About the Reviewer Lillian Biermann Wehmeyer, Ph.D., graduated from the University of California at Berkeley and was a professor at Azusa Pacific University, Azusa, California. Author of books and journal articles, she opened and directed APU’s Doctor of Education program and chaired 25 dissertations.