The first two volumes reviewed here – one a monograph and the second an edited collection – are the latest in a long line of publications about our universities and the troubled state they find the...

The research is complete, the article written, there's just one last job - think of a great title, one that not only elegantly summarises your research, but that is also going to grab the attention of a fickle and perpetually time-poor readership.

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.

AbstractThere 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.

The teaching of critical thinking is seen as a key component of many English for Academic Purposes programmes. There is a degree of uncertainty and confusion, however, first about how critical thinking is best understood, and then how our conceptualizations of it might translate into coherent programmes for students. The chapter identifies three distinct strands of thinking about critical thinking in the literature: a skills approach, an ethics approach, and a "language of evaluation" approach. A critical discussion of these approaches is provided, alongside some recent empirical research into critical practices across a range of discipline areas. It is suggested that the framing of critical thinking curricula needs to be guided by a number of broad principles arising from this research, namely: that critical thinking typically takes in a variety of discursive practices; that the types of critical judgements students need to make are subject to a good deal of variation; that the quality of these critical judgements is strongly related to the degree of knowledge students have of the entities they need to consider. The chapter concludes with some practical advice about how these principles might be given effect in the design of English for Academic Purposes programmes, both in pre-sessional and concurrent contexts.

Globalization, most sociologists agree, is not a new phenomenon.Its phase in the late 20 th century and early 21 st century, however, is recognized now as one of the more transformative periods in human history-what Anthony Giddens (2011) has characterized as a "runaway world."In the last few decades, there has scarcely been a domain of human activity untouched by these forces-economic systems, mass media and communication, cultural flows, the movement of people.A global site as intensive as any has of course been our universities; indeed, it is these "runaway" forces that have been responsible for so many of the changes witnessed on our campuses in recent decades.They are evident, for example, in the considerably more diverse student cohorts who now participate in university education, along with the rich variety of languages and cultures they bring to their studies.Dramatic changes have also been seen in what is taught on programs, including the push within many disciplines to systematically "internationalize curricula."Along with new content are radically new ways of delivering programs, as digital communications become more and more sophisticated at replicating-and also reconfiguring-the learning experiences of the traditional classroom.Finally, these forces have also brought about new types of collegial relationships as institutions and academics reach out across borders to connect and collaborate on a great variety of educational and research enterprises.Versions of these changes have been experienced in many parts of the world.In my home country, Australia, for example, such has been the scale of these developments that international education has emerged in recent times as one the nation's largest export industries.But while global forces have reshaped university education in all sorts of interesting and dynamic ways, it is not to say that there are not issues and challenges associated with these developments.Frederic Jameson (2000) has suggested that globalization is in many respects a euphemism for "anglocization."The dominance of the anglosphere, according to this view, has meant that global capital-whether this be of an economic, cultural or educational kind-is unavoidably spread in highly uneven ways.Within higher education, this raises issues of power, privilege and potential inequity in the ways that different cultural groups engage with their studies, and in the rewards and successes they get to enjoy.Arguably, nowhere is this more evident than on the less-thanlevel playing field where first and second language students must compete in the assessment and evaluation of their academic abilities.So, while global forces have provided students with unprecedented access to what were once largely exclusive and culturally homogenous institutions, the view of many is that considerable work still needs to be done to address these "asymmetries" and to truly value the diversity that is now such a part of our institutions (Rizvi, 2000).A related critique is the view that globalization, in tandem with its ideological bedfellow neo-liberalism, has led sadly to an increasing commodification of higher education, so that students, especially our

The study investigated the literacy practices required of graduates in professional work across a range of occupational areas. It considered how these corresponded to the types of reading and writing required of candidates on the IELTS test - both in the Academic and General Training modules.