This paper argues that a student’s motivation level is a personal intake factor that might significantly influence their success when they study using English as a Foreign Language (EFL) at post-secondary institutes. Other fixed and variable factors peculiar to the language tutor, the scholar and the teaching and learning environment are also major drivers that may determine how non-native English language pupils fare when they study in this context.

1. Assessing the motivation levels of students who speak English as a Second
Language
Jericho, J. (2015), Assessing the motivation levels of students who speak English as a
Second Language, Sydney, Australia: The Free School Occasional paper series No. 1,
April 2015.
Jay Jericho ​D.Soc.Sc ​Syd
jay@thefreeschool.education
Introduction
This paper argues that a student’s motivation level is a personal intake factor that might
significantly influence their success when they study using English as a Foreign Language
(EFL) at post-secondary institutes. Other fixed and variable factors peculiar to the language
tutor, the scholar and the teaching and learning environment are also major drivers that may
determine how non-native English language pupils fare when they study in this context.
This paper focuses on adult students who work one-on-one, face-to-face with what I term a
‘Multi-disciplinary Study Skills Unit’ (MSSU) tutor at Australian universities. I refer to
primary evidence and empirical studies and use critical discourse analysis to synthesise
research findings published in applied linguistics sub-fields such as Teaching English to
Speakers of other Languages (TESOL). This framework enables me to identify suitable
pedagogical approaches for tutors who teach English for Academic Purposes (EAP).
1

2. This essay aims to contribute to epistemological knowledge by showing how there are more
than a dozen teaching approaches that may be suitable for the MSSU tutor to use in this
context. The breadth of approaches in the TESOL literature is a major factor that legitimises
the growing support among educators who argue that this sub-field has transitioned into a
‘post-methods’ era. I advocate that career language educators should trust their judgement
and adapt their teaching approaches, methods and techniques to suit each peculiar learning
encounter. This may occur in real-time and as part of a long-term pedagogical strategy.
MSSU context
There is scant research that measures the learning outcomes of non-native English speaking
students, who work alongside MSSU tutors at Australian universities (Baik & Greig, 2009,
pp. 402). Only a handful of studies explore best pedagogical practices in this newly
developing area of TESOL (Harris & Ashton, 2011). This gap in the literature is worthy of
further investigation. Empirical research shows that the ‘one student, one tutor’ model may
provide the best learning outcomes in numerous educational settings, including contexts
where EFL students use EAP. This structure may replicate the master–apprentice setup,
whereby the pupil receives expert instruction from a dedicated teacher (Cumming & So,
1996, p. 198).
A MSSU that provides the same tutoring service to students from all faculties exist in most
Australian universities (Baik & Greig, 2009, pp. 402–403; ​e.g. Australian Catholic
University, 2015; CQ University, 2012, p. 6; The University of Newcastle Australia, 2015).
Most MSSUs focus their resources on guiding students how to write using EAP. Educational
leaders widely regard EAP as a foundation skill that pupils need to master in order to succeed
at post-secondary institutions where English is the sole/dominant language of instruction.
Most tertiary institutes require students to complete written assessments as a criterion to
receiving a graduate award (​e.g. Curry, 2003; Wingate, 2006, pp. 461–463).
2

3. Educators widely regard writing as the language skill that is the most challenging for EFL
students to master. Empirical research reports that the majority of EFL students who consult
MSSU tutors request the instructor to proofread a draft of their assessment in order to provide
corrective feedback (​e.g. Cumming & So, 1996; Williams, 2004). A disproportionate number
of EFL students struggle to master the basic EAP skills taught by Australian MSSUs (​e.g.
McLean & Ransom, 2004).
The policies and service-delivery of most MSSUs rarely provide an ideal environment for
language tutors to employ the pedagogical principles that they have studied in courses
designed for qualified TESOL educators. For example, language instruction and learning
does not occur in a classroom, alongside a cohort who studies an identical curriculum and
syllabus, delivered by the same teacher/s according to a predetermined timetable (​e.g.
Williams, 2004). Contrary to popular misconception, the number of teacher–learner factors
may be high in the one-on-one teaching and learning context. For example, writing practices
may vary among tutors trained in the same sub-field (Wingate, 2006, p. 464).
It is rarely feasible for the MSSU tutor to prepare a customised lesson plan or a student
needs-analysis as there is no guarantee that they can forge an ongoing working relationship
with any individual pupil (​c.f. Mynard & Almarzouki, 2006, p. 15). Students normally book
an appointment with a MSSU tutor online or via a receptionist. In most cases, university
policy dictates that students may not specify which tutor they prefer to consult. A pupil may
make an appointment to see a MSSU tutor at short notice or without notice if an instructor on
duty is available. In many instances, tutors have never met the student they are teaching or
they may not recall key details of past consultations due to the high volume of pupils that
they teach. There is no guarantee that any student will return to the MSSU or work with the
same tutor to discuss the same assessment or learning problem (​e.g. Australian Catholic
University, 2015; CQ University, 2012, p. 6; The University of Newcastle Australia, 2015).
3

4. These limitations of the MSSUs service-delivery are a cause of major concern for language
educators. Most MSSUs do not provide customised services for pupils who study using EFL
in EAP contexts. Empirical evidence shows that adult learners who study at the tertiary level
using EFL tend to have lesser language abilities when using EAP compared to native English
speakers. This disadvantage is a major factor that causes a disproportionate number of EFL
students to struggle to succeed at post-secondary education institutions in Australia (​e.g.
Sawir, 2005) and other Western countries (​e.g. Dewaele, 2012).
Most university educators who teach in MSSUs in Australia and other Western nations do not
hold a degree or postgraduate qualifications in TESOL and many have minimal experience
teaching EFL students prior to entering this field. This reality causes language scholars to
question whether most MSSU educators are qualified to teach EAP to non-native English
speaking students (​e.g. Akbari & Tajik, 2009; Curry, 2003, p. 11; Liyanagea, 2015). The
wide diversity of the experience and qualifications of MSSU tutors is rarely the fault of
university management as study skills instructors cannot be ‘all things to all people’ ​(Baik &
Greig, 2009, p. 404; ​Lewis & Bleistein, 2014, p. 17​)​. For example, in some contexts, most
business studies students may automatically favour working with the MSSU tutor who is a
certified accountant but has never undertaken formal pedagogical training. However, working
with this tutor may be imperfect in most contexts where EFL students prepare extended
writing assessments. Instructors with a TESOL qualification tend to perform better at
developing the cognitive activity writing skills of non-native English speakers because of
their specialist training (Harris & Silva, 1993, p. 525).
Other contexts
In the TESOL context, an ‘approach’ refers to a generic overarching pedagogical framework
that guides the way an instructor aims to develop their students’ language skills
4

5. (Celce-Murcia, 2001, p. 9). Silva (1990, p. 11) argues that “controlled composition,
current-traditional rhetoric, the process approach, and English for academic purposes” were
the most dominant approaches to teaching EFL during the post-Second war era.
My critical literature review of TESOL scholarly works published after 1990 identifies
dozens of approaches that conceptualise the ways in which an instructor may teach EFL
pupils. For illustration purposes, Table 1.0 lists 15 dominant approaches that recur in this
material.
Table 1.0
Selected dominant approaches to teaching ESL
Approach Sample reference
1. Grammar translation (Celce-Murcia, 2001, p. 5)
2. Direct (Celce-Murcia, 2001, p. 5)
3. Reading (Celce-Murcia, 2001, p. 5)
4. Audio-lingualism (Celce-Murcia, 2001, p. 5)
5. Oral-situational (Celce-Murcia, 2001, p. 5)
6. Cognitive (Celce-Murcia, 2001, p. 5)
7. Comprehension based (Celce-Murcia, 2001, p. 5)
8. Affective-humanistic (Freeman & Richards, 1993, p. 204)
9. Operationalizing (Freeman & Richards, 1995, p. 211)
10. Natural (Freeman & Richards, 1993, p. 211)
11. Learning styles (Freeman & Richards, 1993, p. 205)
12. Eclectic (Freeman & Richards, 1993, p. 206)
13. Communicative (Sawir, 2005, p. 567)
14. Scholastic (Sawir, 2005, p. 567)
15. Diagnostic (Sawir, 2005, p. 578)
Using the ‘one student, one tutor’ model does not automatically simplify or enhance the
tutor–student encounter as multiple variants of this structure exist in this context (Lewis &
Bleistein, 2014, p. 16). The sample methods listed in Table 1.0 are primary evidence that
partially explains why it is difficult for full-time EFL teachers to achieve mastery of the
theoretical approaches that dominate their field. Frontline tutors who do not conduct research
on an ongoing basis often struggle to keep abreast of new developments, such as scholarly
publications that report evidence-based practices to communicate innovative pedagogical
designs (Finlay, 2008).
5

6. The breadth and sophistication of the TESOL literature amplifies the complexities faced by
the diligent tutor who aims to master this sub-field. Furthermore, in a similar vein to the data
shown in Table 1.0, numerous sub-approaches likewise recur in the TESOL literature (​e.g.
Borg and Burns, 2008 ​c.f. Celce-Murcia, 1993). Borg and Burns (2008, pp. 456–457) list
“lexical approaches”, “systematic-functional linguistics” and “discourse approaches” as three
examples among other alternative frameworks that the EFL tutor may choose from when
teaching English language grammar to adult students.
The MSSU tutor may legitimately adopt different approaches when tutoring EFL students
with different needs and abilities, even in cases where a cohort of their tutees complete the
same assessment. Language instructors may likewise alternate their approach when
developing an EFL student’s writing skills within the same lesson or over multiple sessions.
This is because the contextual factors that influence interactions between the language
teacher and student are fluid and these may alternate at short notice (Celce-Murcia, 2001, p.
6).
Some tutors may personally favour the cognitive approach in cases where an EFL student is
not aware that rules govern the ways in which English is standardised. The “academic
literacies” sub-approach may complement this overarching framework (Turner, 2012, p. 18).
Writing using EAP is a skill that requires the student to organise the ways that they articulate
their ideas using text to write cohesively (Bruce, 2013). Once the student comprehends the
basic rules of English grammar, some tutors may choose to switch to the communicative
approach and seek to develop this student’s communicative competence. This might occur if
the instructor discovers that a pupil’s written skills develop faster when they use a
pedagogical framework and materials that are ‘authentic’, i.e., they reflect real-life situations
that occur outside of the tutor’s office and off campus (​e.g. Celce-Murcia, 2001, pp. 7–8).
Most pedagogical frameworks are essentially a “top down approach” (Kumaravadivelu, 2001,
p. 552). The competent instructor offers suggestions that they customise to produce the best
6

7. outcomes for the individual student’s needs. This principle aligns with the pedagogical
practices known as the “postmethod pedagogy” (Kumaravadivelu, 2001, pp. 537 & 541).
Supporters of the postmethod framework advocate that there is no best method, technique or
approach for teaching any language skills to a student in the general context. Numerous
variables and factors may shape the dynamics of each individual tutoring environment and
these may change constantly. Essentially, the skilled teacher may draw on their own
experience, strengths and judgement to determine what approach, method and techniques will
maximise teaching and learning outcomes (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). They may achieve this
by constantly reflecting on their student’s unique intake factors and the peculiar
socio-educational environmental factors of each encounter. The instructor should adapt their
teaching practices to accommodate each unique context (Kumaravadivelu, 2001, p. 552).
Environment
Empirical evidence consistently shows how institutional factors affect EFL students’
satisfaction levels and academic progress ​vis-à-vis to those pupils who receive tuition from
MSSU staff. Funding and resource levels are a major organisational determinant that may
influence the outcomes of non-native English language students in this context. For example,
MSSU’s that have relatively high budgets often can afford to hire and retain motivated
instructors with the best teaching qualifications and experience (Cumming ​et al., 2006, p. 41).
In most MSSUs, training materials, such as academic referencing guides, are classifiable as a
‘one-size-fits-all’ design. A visible number of EFL students with intermediate English
speaking skills tend to struggle to understand these materials as they may contain local jargon
or because they use large or complex words unnecessarily. Creating simplified training
resources is invariably beneficial for most EFL students. However, modifying standardised
7

8. instructional materials is not always feasible due to time and budget constraints imposed on
MSSU units and staff (Comings ​et al., 2006, pp. 41 & 56–57).
In certain contexts, teaching EFL students one-on-one online can enhance learning outcomes.
Research shows that some students and teachers prefer the online environment for a raft of
reasons. For example, some people have an affinity for using Skype or email to engage with
others. The blended learning option is advantageous for students who enjoy using interactive,
collaborative features such as the group discussion board to complement dedicated tutoring
(Compton, 2009, pp. 76–77). Establishing a computer assisted language learning environment
and/or a mobile assisted language learning environment requires the MSSU to purchase
expensive hardware and software and staff training is usually an additional expense
(Compton, 2009, p. 96; Kukulska-Hulme & Shield, 2008, p. 282). Students who prefer online
tuition and study at an institution that can afford to establish/maintain this service have a
comparative advantage over other pupils who likewise prefer online tuition, but cannot access
this service via their educational provider.
Motivation
EFL students who use EAP cannot always attribute their successes and failures to the policies
and financial capacity of their host institution. A scholar’s motivation levels towards
developing their EAP skills are usually core factors that determine how EFL students fare at
post-secondary institutes generally (Andrade, 2006) and when they engage one-on-one with a
dedicated tutor (​e.g. Weigle & Nelson, 2004). There is no consensus in the TESOL literature
about how to define a pupil’s motivation level. Language scholars attribute numerous core
variables and factors to this personal attribute and these are mostly psychological (Crandall,
2001, pp. 10–12; Dewaele, 2012, pp. 161–162). A second language learner’s “attitude” is one
aspect of their motivation towards learning EFL (Dewaele, 2012, p. 161).
8

9. Some EFL student’s language development progress stalls, because they are unable to
overcome their fear of enhancing their EAP skills. A student’s mindset towards second
language learning may be stable or volatile over the short-term and the long-term (Dewaele,
2012, p. 161). Voluntary actions taken by the language scholar to improve their linguistic
competencies offers to best framework to assess a student’s motivation. In most cases, a
student’s motivation levels correlate positively to the number of times they persist when
confronted with obstacles that hinder their ability to develop their English language skills,
such as using EAP (Dewaele, 2012, p. 161).
To gauge a second language student’s motivation levels, teachers should take less notice of
what the pupil states that they plan to do, and focus more on their positive, repetitious actions
and behaviours. As most MSSUs offer face-to-face tuition on a voluntary basis, a pupil’s
attendance record at the learning skills unit may provide evidence that this individual is
proactive and has a positive attitude towards developing their EAP skills (​e.g. Durkin &
Main, 2002, p. 25). Contrary to popular belief, motivated students tend to be
disproportionately overrepresented among the population of those who consult a study skills
centre. Unmotivated students either do not make appointments with the MSSU and/or they
repeatedly fail to attend their allotted tutorial session (Dickinson, 1995, p. 167).
Conclusion
The diligent MSSU tutor should aim to comprehend how a student’s personal intake factors
and the socio-environmental context may shape an EFL student’s experiences when they use
EAP at tertiary level. It is rare for a study skills tutor the hold qualifications that match the
unique needs of each student who consults the MSSU. The EFL teacher should therefore be
adaptive in order to maximise student outcomes. I call for further research to examine how a
student’s attitude and ​aptitude may also affect learner outcomes in the MSSU context.
9

10. References
Akbari, R. & Tajik, L. (2009), L2 teachers’ pedagogic knowledge base: A comparison
between experienced and less experienced practitioners, ​Australian Journal of
Teacher Education, 34, 52–73.
Andrade, M.S. (2006), International students in English speaking universities, ​Journal of
Research in International Education, 5(2), 131–154.
Australian Catholic University, (2015), ​About and appointment,
<​https://students.acu.edu.au/office_of_student_success/academic_skills_unit_asu/mak
e_an_appointment/consultation​>. Accessed 22 May 2015.
Baik, C. and Greig, J. (2009), Improving the academic outcomes of undergraduate ESL
students: The case for discipline-based academic skills programs, ​Higher Education
Research & Development, 28(4), 401–416.
Borg, S. and Burns, A. (2008), Integrating TESOL in Adult classrooms, ​Applied Linguistics,
29(3), 456–482.
Bruce, I. (2013), A role for genre-based pedagogy in academic writing instruction? An EAP
perspective, ​TEXT Special Issue: Scores from Another Ground, 21, 1–15.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1993), Grammar pedagogy in foreign and second language teaching, in
Silberstein, S. (Ed) ​State of the art: TESOL essays (pp. 288–309), Virginia, USA:
TESOL.
––––– (2001), Language teaching approaches: An overview, in Celce-Murcia, M. (ed)
Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd
edition) (pp. 3–11),
Massachusetts, USA: Heinle.
CQ University (2012), ​Brisbane campus English language centre student orientation guide
term 2 2012, Brisbane, Australia: CQ University Brisbane International Campus.
Comings, J. ​et al. (2006), ​An evidence-based adult education program model appropriate for
research, NCSALL occasional research paper, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy.
Compton, L. (2009), Preparing language teachers to teach online: A look at skills, roles and
responsibilities​, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 73–99.
10

11. Crandall, J. (2001), Rethinking classroom management: Creating an effective learning
community, ​ESL Magazine, May/June 2001, 10–13.
Cumming, A. and So, S. (1996), Tutoring second language text revision: Does the approach
to instruction of the language of communication make a difference?, ​Journal of
Second Language Writing, 5(3), 197–226.
Curry, M. J. (2003), Skills access and basic writing: A community college case study from
the United States, ​Studies in the Education of Adults, 35(1), 5–18.
Dewaele, J. (2012), Learner internal psychological factors, in Herschensohn, J. &
Young-Scholten, M. (eds), ​The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition ​(pp. 159–179), Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Dickinson, L. (1995), Autonomy and motivation: A literature review, ​System, 23(2),
165–174.
Durkin, K. and Main, A. (2002), Discipline based study skills support for undergraduate
students, ​Active Learning in Higher Education, 3,(1), 24–39.
Finlay, L. (2008), Reflecting on reflective practice, ​Practice Based Professional Practice
Paper Number 52, London, England: The Open University.
Freeman, D. and Richards, J. (1993), Conceptions of Teaching and the Education of Second
Language Teachers, ​TESOL Quarterly, 27(2), 193–216.
Harris, A. and Ashton, J. (2011), Integrating academic and language skills within
management units, Proceedings of the 20th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 1-2
February 2011, Edith Cowan University, Perth Australia.
Harris, M. and Silva, M. (1993), Tutoring ESL Students: Issues and Options, ​College
Composition and Communication, 44(4), 525–537.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. and Shield, L. (2008), An overview of mobile assisted language
learning: From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction, ​European
Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(3), 271–289.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001), Toward a postmethod pedagogy, ​TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 537–
560.
–––––– (2006), TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends, ​TESOL Quarterly,
40(1), 59–81.
Lewis, M. and Bleistein, T, (2014), ​One-on-one language teaching: Theory and practice,
London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
11

12. Liyanagea, I. (2015), TESOL professional standards in the “Asian century”: dilemmas facing
Australian TESOL teacher education, ​Asia Pacific Journal of Education
(forthcoming),
<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02188791.2013.876388>. Accessed
20 May 2015.
McLean, P. and Ransom, L. (2004), ​Building intercultural competencies: Implications for
academic skills development, International Education Inc. (ISANA) conference
refereed proceedings, 30 November to 3 December 2004, Melbourne, Australia.
Mynard, J. and Almarzouki, I. (2006), Investigating peer tutoring, ​ELT Journal, 60(1),
13–22.
Sawir, E. (2005), Language difficulties of international students in Australia: The effects of
prior learning experience, ​International Education Journal, 6(5), 567–580.
Silva, T. (1990), Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues and
directions in ESL, In Droll, B. (Ed.), ​Second Language Writing ​(pp. 11–23),
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
The University of Newcastle Australia, (2015), ​Centre for teaching and learning,
<​https://careerhub.newcastle.edu.au/workgroups/centre-for-teaching-and-learning​>.
Last accessed 18 May 2015.
Turner, J. (2012), Academic literacies: Providing a space for the socio-political dynamics of
EAP, ​Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 17–25.
Weigle, S. and Nelson, G. (2004), Novice tutors and their ESL tutees: Three case studies of
tutor roles and perceptions of tutorial success, ​Journal of Second Language Writing,
13, 203–225.
Williams, J. (2004), Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing center,
Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 173–201.
Wingate, U. (2006), Doing away with ‘study skills’, ​Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4),
457–469.
Online citation
Jericho, J. (2015), Assessing the motivation levels of students who speak English as a
Second Language, Sydney, Australia: The Free School Occasional paper series No. 1,
April 2015.
<​http://www.thefreeschool.education/publish.html​>.
12