Shahrul Basari Thesis

Academic Writing in an EAP Course:
A Pragmatic and Critical Approach to Needs Analysis
Shahrul Nizam Bin Mohd Basari
A thesis submitted to satisfy the requirements of the University of

Sheffield for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
August 2018
1
Abstract
Academic writing in higher education has been the subject of increasing attention by
many researchers. The importance of writing has driven many studies in the area of
teaching and learning, including English for Academic Purposes (EAP). This thesis
reports the findings of a case study investigating academic writing in the context of
EAP with regard to student writing needs in an academic writing course, namely
English for Academic Writing (EAW), at a language centre in IIUM, a public university
in Malaysia. The study juxtaposes the needs analysis and rights analysis approaches.
The participants in the study were lecturers from a language centre, lecturers from the
engineering and human science faculties, and students from those faculties who were
doing an English for academic writing course at the language centre. The research
design for the study is the complementarity mixed-method design. Questionnaires and
interviews were used to obtain the data. The findings from the needs analysis on
academic writing in EAW reveal that the majority of the EAW lecturers and students
have a positive view towards the EAW course. The EAW lecturers, the faculty lecturers
and the students felt that writing research reports was important in the faculties, as
indicated by the target situation analysis (TSA). Most of the EAW lecturers,
engineering lecturers, engineering students and human sciences students perceived
research writing skills as their present situation needs (PSA). In addition, there was a
consistency between their present needs (PSA) and their target needs (TSA). However,
human sciences lecturers believed that students needed more improvement in their basic
language skills due to their current writing problems (PSA) to achieve a higher level of
language proficiency (TSA). Finally, evidence of power relations was discovered from
the perceptions of the stakeholders in the study. They are divided into two main themes:
power struggles and power relationships.
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, all praise to Allah the Almighty for giving me the strength and
blessing to complete this study.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my sponsor, the Ministry of Higher

Education Malaysia and my university, the International Islamic University Malaysia
for giving me the opportunity to pursue my doctoral degree. I would also like to thank
the Dean of the language centre (CELPAD), the Dean of the Engineering faculty, and
the Dean of the Islamic Revealed Knowledge and Human Sciences faculty, IIUM for
their full cooperation while I was conducting this study. I am especially indebted to the
course coordinator of EAW as well as the EAW, engineering and human sciences
lecturers and students for their great help in the administrative and technical aspects of
the study.
I would like to extend my special appreciation and thanks to Dr. Valerie Hobbs and Dr.
Oksana Afitska of the School of English, University of Sheffield for their advice and
supervision throughout my whole project.
Finally, to my parents and individuals who have contributed directly or indirectly

towards the completion of this study, my loving wife – Nur Zaiti Zainal Abidin, and
children, Muhammad Shameyl Haikal, Muhammad Shahed Naufal and Zahra Jazmyne
– this study could have never been completed without their patience, encouragement,
and prayers.
Thank you
3
Author’s Declaration
I declare that the work contained within this document is my own,
unless otherwise stated in the body of the text.
August 2018
Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................. 1
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... 2
Author’s Declaration ........................................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................. 12
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 12
1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 12
1.2 The Contextual Background ................................................................................ 13
1.2.1 IIUM and English language. ......................................................................... 13
1.2.2 The EAW course. ......................................................................................... 14
1.3 Statement of the Problem .................................................................................... 16
1.3.1 Direction and motivation. ............................................................................. 17
1.4 Significance of the Study ..................................................................................... 22
1.5 Thesis Organisation ............................................................................................. 24
CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................ 25
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................... 25
2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 25
2.2 From ESP to EAP ................................................................................................ 26
2.3 Academic Writing in EAP ................................................................................... 33
2.4 EAP: EGAP and ESAP........................................................................................ 36
2.5 EAP: Study Skills, Academic Socialisation and Academic Literacies ............... 41
2.5.1 The study skills model. ................................................................................. 42
2.5.2 The academic socialisation model. ............................................................... 44
2.5.3 The academic literacies model. .................................................................... 47
2.6 EAP: Pragmatic and Critical Perspectives........................................................... 54
2.6.1 Critical EAP: From theories to practice. ...................................................... 61
2.7 EAP and Needs Analysis ..................................................................................... 67
2.7.1 Origins and importance. ............................................................................... 68
2.7.2 Definitions/concepts. .................................................................................... 69
2.7.3 Prominent models of needs analysis. ............................................................ 76
2.7.3.1 Communication Needs Processor (CNP) - Munby (1978). ....................... 77
2.7.3.2 Target needs and learning needs - Hutchinson and Waters (1987). ......... 78
2.7.3.3 TSA and PSA - Robinson (1991)................................................................ 81
2.7.4 Critical needs analysis: Rights analysis - Benesch (2001a). ........................ 82
5
2.7.4.1 Rights analysis. .......................................................................................... 86

2.7.5 Studies employing needs analysis. ............................................................... 89
2.7.5.1 Studies employing the pragmatic approach. ............................................. 90
2.7.5.2 Studies employing the critical approach. ................................................ 103
2.8 Aim of the Research .......................................................................................... 109
2.9 Research Questions............................................................................................ 109
2.10 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 110
CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................... 112
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 112
3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 112
3.2 Theoretical and Philosophical Underpinnings ................................................... 112
3.3 Research Design ................................................................................................ 117
3.3.1 Introduction. ............................................................................................... 117
3.3.2 Needs analysis in case studies. ................................................................... 119
3.3.3 The purpose statement. ............................................................................... 123
3.3.4 The mixed-method design. ......................................................................... 123
3.3.4.1 Definitions of the mixed-method design. ................................................. 123
3.3.4.2 The complementarity mixed-method design. ........................................... 126
3.4 The Case ............................................................................................................ 130
3.5 The Research Site .............................................................................................. 133
3.5.1 The language centre (CELPAD)................................................................. 133
3.5.2 The engineering faculty (ENGIN). ............................................................. 133
3.5.3 The human sciences faculty (HS). .............................................................. 134
3.5.4 Doing research at the site............................................................................ 135
3.6 The Research Process ........................................................................................ 136
3.6.1 Identifying the issue.................................................................................... 137
3.6.2 Determining the case. ................................................................................. 138
3.6.3 Conducting review of literature. ................................................................. 138
3.6.4 Planning the research. ................................................................................. 139
3.6.4.1 Questionnaire. ......................................................................................... 140
3.6.4.1.1 The demographic data. ......................................................................... 144
3.6.4.2 Interview. ................................................................................................. 148
3.6.5 Seeking ethics approval. ............................................................................. 155
3.6.6 Contacting relevant authorities. .................................................................. 156
3.6.7 Preparing for data collection....................................................................... 156
3.6.8 Conducting the research. ............................................................................ 157
3.6.9 Analysing the data. ..................................................................................... 158
3.6.9.1 Analysing the questionnaires. .................................................................. 158
3.6.9.2 Analysing the interviews. ......................................................................... 160
3.6.9.2.1 Transcribing. ........................................................................................ 160
3.6.9.2.2 Coding and assigning themes. .............................................................. 163
3.6.10 Determining reliability and validity ......................................................... 165
3.7 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 167
CHAPTER FOUR ........................................................................................................ 167
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................... 167
4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 168
4.2 Survey Demographic Data................................................................................. 169
4.2.1 Age.............................................................................................................. 169
4.2.2 Respondents’ gender................................................................................... 171
4.2.3 Nationality. ................................................................................................. 172
4.2.4 Highest academic qualifications. ................................................................ 174
4.2.5 Year of study. ............................................................................................. 174
4.2.6 Years of teaching experience. ..................................................................... 175
4.2.7 Linguistic backgrounds............................................................................... 176
4.3 Analysis of Data from Interviews and Questionnaires. ..................................... 177
4.4 Research Question 1 .......................................................................................... 178
4.4.1 Present Situation Analysis (PSA). .............................................................. 179
4.4.1.1 Theme 1: Student needs for research writing skills. ................................ 179
4.4.1.2 Conclusion. .............................................................................................. 183
4.4.1.3 Theme 2: Student needs for basic language skills. .................................. 183
4.4.1.4 Conclusion. .............................................................................................. 185
4.4.1.5 Theme 3: Students have needs which were unmet by EAW. .................... 186
4.4.1.6 Conclusion. .............................................................................................. 187
4.4.2 Target Situation Analysis (TSA). ............................................................... 187
4.4.2.1 Theme 1: Applying research writing skills upon graduation. ................. 188
4.4.2.2 Conclusion. .............................................................................................. 188
4.4.2.3 Theme 2: Writing good research reports. ............................................... 189
4.4.2.4 Conclusion. .............................................................................................. 189
7
4.4.2.5 Theme 3: Having a higher level of proficiency in language. .................. 189

4.4.2.6 Conclusion. .............................................................................................. 190
4.4.3 Questionnaire results on EAW lecturers’, faculty lecturers’ and ............... 190
students’ perceptions of academic writing. .......................................................... 190
4.5 Conclusion to Research Question 1 ................................................................... 198
4.6.1 EAW lecturers’ perceptions of EAW, EGAP and ESAP. .......................... 200
4.6.1.1 Theme 1: EAW is an EGAP course and should be changed to focus on . 201
ESAP. .................................................................................................................... 201
4.6.1.2 Theme 2: EAW is an EGAP course and should remain as it is. .............. 201
4.6.1.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 202
4.6.2 EAW lecturers’, EAW/ENGIN students’ and EAW/HS students’ ............ 202
perceptions of EAW and student needs. ............................................................... 202
4.6.2.1 Theme 1: The student need for EAW is due to the need to do research. . 203
4.6.2.2 Theme 2: EAW could meet student needs but only in some ways............ 205
4.6.2.3 Theme 3: EAW caters to student needs only for some faculties. ............. 206
4.6.2.4 Theme 4: Students need an EAW course that focuses more on language.
.............................................................................................................................. 206
4.6.2.5 Conclusion. .............................................................................................. 207
4.6.3 Questionnaire results on EAW lecturers and students’ perceptions of ...... 208
the EAW course. ................................................................................................... 208
4.8.1 Theme 1: Power struggles. ......................................................................... 216
4.8.1.1 EAW lecturers’ power struggles. ............................................................. 217
4.8.1.2 Students’ power struggles. ....................................................................... 223
4.8.2 Theme 2: Power relationships. ................................................................... 230
4.8.2.1 Power relationships: the management. ................................................... 230
4.8.2.2 Power relationships: the language centre and the faculties. .................. 233
4.10 Discussion ........................................................................................................ 237
4.10.1 Student academic writing needs at the university. ................................... 242
4.10.2 Power relations at the university. ............................................................. 245
4.10.3 Situating academic writing. ...................................................................... 249
4.10.4 Implications of the study. ......................................................................... 252
CHAPTER FIVE .......................................................................................................... 255
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 255
5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 255
5.2 Summary of the Study ....................................................................................... 255
5.3 Limitations of the Study .................................................................................... 257
5.4 Suggestions for Future Research ....................................................................... 259
5.5 Concluding Remarks ......................................................................................... 259
References .................................................................................................................... 261
Appendices ................................................................................................................... 275
Appendix A EAP Course Outline ........................................................................ 276
Appendix B EAW Course Outline (Semester 1, 2011/2012) .............................. 278
Appendix C EAW Student Questionnaire ........................................................... 282
Appendix D EAW Lecturer Questionnaire .......................................................... 294
Appendix E Faculty Lecturer Questionnaire ....................................................... 307
Appendix F Student Interview Questions ........................................................... 317
Appendix G EAW Lecturer Interview Questions ................................................ 317
Appendix H Faculty Lecturer Interview Questions ............................................. 319
Appendix I Consent Form .................................................................................. 321
Appendix J Participant Information Sheet.......................................................... 323
Appendix K EAW Student’s Term Paper (LEAW5) ........................................... 325
Appendix L EAW Student’s Term Paper (LEAW3) ........................................... 326
Appendix M EAW Student’s Term Paper (LEAW8) ........................................... 327
Appendix N ENGIN Student’s Project Paper (LENG1)...................................... 328
Appendix O ENGIN Student’s Project Paper (LENG2)...................................... 329
Appendix P HS Student’s Project Paper (LHS1) ................................................ 330
Appendix Q Interview Transcript: Student .......................................................... 331
Appendix R Interview Transcript: Faculty Lecturer ........................................... 338
Appendix S Interview Transcript: EAW Lecturer .............................................. 348
9
List of Tables
Table 1. The Objectives and the Learning Outcomes of the EAW Course ................. 18
Table 2. An Excerpt of the Weekly Lesson in the EAW Course Outline..................... 18
Table 3. Questions for Critical EAP and Actions to Address the Questions.............. 64
Table 4. Four Viewpoints on Needs ........................................................................... 72
Table 5. Mixed-method Evaluation Designs ............................................................ 127
Table 6. Questionnaire Sections ............................................................................... 143
Table 7. Interview Participants: EAW Lecturers ..................................................... 151
Table 8. Interview Participants: ENGIN Lecturers ................................................. 153
Table 9. Interview Participants: HS Lecturers ........................................................ 153
Table 10. Interview Participants: EAW/ENGIN Students ...................................... 154
Table 11. Interview Participants: EAW/HS Students ............................................. 154
Table 12. Assigning Codes/Nodes and Themes to Data Extracts ........................... 164
Table 13. Age of EAW Lecturers (N=26) ............................................................... 169
Table 14. Age of Faculty Lecturers (N=39) ........................................................... 170
Table 15. Age of EAW Students (N=92) ................................................................. 170
Table 16. Gender of EAW Lecturers (N=26) ......................................................... 171
Table 17. Gender of Faculty Lecturers (N=39) ..................................................... 171
Table 18. Gender of EAW Students (N=92) ........................................................... 171
Table 19. Nationality of EAW Lecturers (N=26) ................................................... 172
Table 20. Nationality of Faculty Lecturers (N=39) ............................................... 172
Table 21. Nationality of EAW Students (N=92) ..................................................... 173
Table 22. Highest Academic Qualifications of EAW Lecturers (N=26) ................ 174
Table 23. Highest Academic Qualifications of Faculty Lecturers (N=39) ............ 174
Table 24. Year of Study of EAW Students (N=92) .................................................. 175
Table 25. Years of Teaching Experience of EAW Lecturers (N=26) ..................... 175
Table 26. Years of Teaching Experience of Faculty Lecturers .............................. 176
Table 27. Linguistic Backgrounds of EAW Students (N=92) ................................. 176
Table 28. Stimulated Recall Data indicating Needs for Research Writing Skills .. 181
Table 29. Stimulated Recall Data indicating Needs for Basic Language Skills ..... 184
Table 30. Importance of Writing to Students: EAW Lecturers’, Faculty Lecturers’
and EAW Students’ Perceptions ................................................................................... 191
Table 31. Importance of Writing Skills in EAW to Students: EAW Lecturers’,
Faculty Lecturers’ and EAW Students’ Perceptions .................................................... 194
Table 32. The EAW Course: EAW Lecturers’ and EAW Students’ Perceptions .... 208
Table 33. Summary of Findings .............................................................................. 238
Table 34. Transferable Skills in the EAW Course Outline ..................................... 249
List of Figures
Figure 1. The tree of ELT. (Hutchinson & Waters,1987) ........................................ 29

Figure 2. The perception on the relationship between ESP and EAP ...................... 30
Figure 3. Models of student writing in higher education. (Lea & Street,1998, p. ... 42
Figure 4. The embedded, single-case design of the study. .................................... 132
Figure 5. The research process. .............................................................................. 137
Figure 6. Students’ age........................................................................................... 145
Figure 7. Students’ gender ..................................................................................... 145
Figure 8. Students’ nationality ............................................................................... 146
Figure 9. Students’ ethnicity .................................................................................. 146
Figure 10. Students’ faculty ..................................................................................... 147
Figure 11. Students’ year of study ........................................................................... 147
Figure 12. Students’ English qualifications ............................................................. 148
Figure 13. The data collection process..................................................................... 157
Figure 14. Student academic writing needs ............................................................. 239
Figure 15. Perceptions of the EAW course and student needs ................................ 240
Figure 16. Power relations among stakeholders ...................................................... 241
List of Abbreviations
CDA Critical Discourse Analysis

CEAP Critical English for Academic Purposes
CELPAD Centre for Languages and Pre-University Academic Development
EAP English for Academic Purposes
EAW English for Academic Writing
EGAP English for General Academic Purposes
ENGIN Engineering
EPT English Proficiency Test
ESL English as a Second Language
ESOL English for Speakers of other Languages
ESP English for Specific Purposes
ESAP English for Specific Academic Purposes
EST English for Science and Technology
FYP Final Year Project
HS Human Sciences
IELTS International English Language Testing System
L1 First language; native language
L2 Second language; foreign language
LAP Language for Academic Programme
LNA Learning Needs Analysis
MUET Malaysian University English Test
NA Needs Analysis
NLS New Literacy Studies
11
NNS Non-native Speakers

PSA Present Situation Analysis
RA Rights Analysis
RQ Research Questions
TSA Target Situation Analysis
SFL Systemic Functional Linguistics
SRI Stimulated Recall Interview
TESOL Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages
TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Academic writing in higher education has been a subject of attention especially
in the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) field and composition studies at least for
the last three decades (e.g., Armstrong, Dannat, & Evans, 2012; Casanave & Hubbard,
1992; Coxhead, 2012; Hansen, 2000; Harwood & Hadley, 2004; Herrington, 1985;
Huang, 2010; Hyland, 2013a, 2013b; Jenkins, Jordan, & Weiland, 1993; Paltridge,
2004; Thesen, 2001; Yildirim & Ilin, 2009; Zhu, 2004). The topic of academic writing
has been discussed and debated in a number of articles in different contexts such as
EAP (e.g., Armstrong et al., 2012; Coxhead, 2012; Harwood & Hadley, 2004; Huang,
2010; Zhu, 2004), academic literacies (e.g., Hyland, 2013b; Lea & Street, 2006, 1998;
Lillis & Scott, 2007; Lillis, 2003; Wingate, 2012; Wingate & Tribble, 2012), and
writing across the curriculum (WAC) and writing in the disciplines (WID) (e.g., Buzzi,
Grimes, & Rolls, 2012; Monroe, 2008). This shows the importance of academic writing
especially in relation to education at higher learning institutions. Thesen (2001) regards
writing as a dominant practice in universities, and Baik and Greig (2009) point out that
most of the international students in their study believed that writing is the most
important language skill for academic success in the university.
As a writing teacher at a public university in Malaysia, I view writing as one of
the most important academic skills that students need to have. They need writing skills
as one of the ways to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of the subjects
that they learn. Elander, Herrington, Norton, Robinson and Reddy (2006) point out that
essays and written work “provide opportunities for students to demonstrate some of the
most demanding learning outcomes” (p. 72). At the tertiary level, writing has been
foregrounded in many university courses (Lillis & Scott, 2007; Wingate & Tribble,
2012) and offered as a specific subject to help students cope with writing in their
respective disciplines. Nonetheless, a number of studies have suggested that writing is a
major problem for students (Huang, 2010; Ibrahim & Nambiar, 2012). In addition to
13
students’ problems with their writing proficiency, some students are confused regarding
the criteria of a good essay in a writing assessment (Elander et al., 2006). Moreover,
some academic writing courses are not able to address the issues pertaining to students’
writing problems. For example, Wingate and Tribble (2012) note that academic writing
courses provided especially to non-native speakers of English in the UK are remedial in
nature and neglect some fundamental issues involving writing in the disciplines and the
problems among the native and non-native speakers.
Looking at the importance of writing for students, there is a need for more
research to examine the subject of academic writing in various contexts. Hence, the
present study was undertaken to investigate the academic writing of undergraduate
students at a public university in Malaysia. The following sections will provide the
contextual background of the study, the statement of the problem and the significance of
the study.
1.2 The Contextual Background

There are two parts in this section. First, the setting will be described in terms of
the university where the study took place and English as the official language at the
university (1.2.1). The following subsection will explain about English for Academic
Writing (EAW) as an EAP course, which provides the context of the issues in the study
(1.2.2).
1.2.1 IIUM and English language.

The university where the study took place is the International Islamic University
Malaysia or IIUM. It is a public university established in 1983 in Malaysia. The main
campus is located in the district of Gombak, near the capital city of Kuala Lumpur.
Most of its students are non-native speakers of English, comprising Malaysians and
international students from 125 countries around the world. IIUM offers various
bachelor, master’s degrees and PhD courses at 14 faculties, also known as ‘kulliyyahs’.
IIUM has four campuses across the country, and the Gombak campus is the main
campus where the centre of administration and eight out of 14 faculties are located. Five
other faculties are located in Kuantan, Pahang, and one faculty is in Pagoh, Johor.
For more than 30 years, the university has been using English as its main
medium of instruction. In fact, it is the only public university in Malaysia that uses
English as the official language for teaching and learning, and also for all its other
official functions. Hence, the university administration places importance on students’
English language proficiency even before they are accepted into any of its faculties and
programmes. It sets a mandatory requirement for students to have either achieved a
required level of English in any standard international test of English proficiency (e.g.,
IELTS, TOEFL) or sat and fulfilled the requirements in its English Proficiency Test
(EPT) before entering the university.
Furthermore, IIUM also requires its undergraduate students to take an English
for Academic Purposes (EAP) course called English for Academic Writing (EAW).
This is to ensure the quality of its future graduates in terms of their proficiency in
English. This course is provided by a language centre which was established in 1983 as
the Centre for Languages. The centre was later renamed the Centre for Languages and
Pre-University Academic Development (CELPAD) in 1993, and has been responsible
for providing language courses for the students, especially courses on English and
Arabic, which are the two main languages of instruction and communication in the
university. The next subsection will describe the EAW course in detail.
1.2.2 The EAW course.

English for Academic Writing or EAW is a course that focuses on writing for
academic purposes. It is offered by the university’s language centre (CELPAD) for
students as one of the university required courses bearing three credit hours. Students
usually take it in the final year of their undergraduate studies, since they have the
priority to do courses offered by their respective faculties (fundamental and core
courses) first. The course code for the course is LE4000 and it is required for all
undergraduate students registering for a particular programme of the university. In the
beginning, EAW was established as a course called Language for Academic Purposes
(LAP) in 1999. The course was piloted with the undergraduate students in the
Economics faculty for them to improve their academic writing skills. In 2000, its name
changed from LAP to English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and it was offered to
15
undergraduate students from all faculties as a university required course. The course
outline stated that the course was for students to experience a step-by-step approach in
writing an academic research paper (see Appendix A). The students’ main task was to
produce a 2500-word argumentative research essay. In the essay, they had to present a
stance related to an issue in their area of studies and, using relevant support from
secondary research or library research, they had to discuss their arguments and present
the counter-arguments as well as refutations.
However, in the first semester of the academic session 2011/2012, the name of
the EAP course was changed to EAW, or English for Academic Writing. EAW is still
offered to students from all faculties in the university. With a change of name, EAW
also went through a significant change in its content. According to a former EAP/EAW
course coordinator, the change was made by the university senate to promote a research
culture among the students. In contrast to the previous EAP course which required
students to conduct secondary research, the new EAW course requires students to
conduct primary research. However, even though the method of research was changed,
the general aim of the course is similar to the previous one. Its main focus is for
students to be able to use appropriate language for writing a research paper. The course
outline states that the course is designed for students to experience a step-by-step
approach in writing an academic research paper through critical reading and thinking
(see Appendix B).
Students meet twice a week in a one-and-half-an-hour class and are provided
with notes via an online learning platform. There is no particular textbook used for the
course; the lecturers use the notes provided by the course coordinator and are allowed to
use any books that they think helpful to achieve the course objectives. Due to the
duration of the course (one semester or 14 weeks), students are not encouraged to do a
qualitative study but rather a quantitative one, as the general perception is that
qualitative research usually takes longer (Dörnyei, 2007). In terms of the writing tasks,
the students have to identify issues in their area of studies, formulate research questions
based on the statement of the problem that derives from the issues, review related
literature, describe the methodology of conducting the research, present the analysis and
discussion of findings, and write a conclusion to the study. In terms of the research, they
are required to conduct a survey using questionnaires to get people’s perceptions on an
identified topic, and do an analysis of the questionnaires using descriptive statistics,
which involves describing frequencies and percentages of answers (Brown, 2001).
Most of the time, the course coordinator groups the students according to their
faculties in the same class. For example, one class may consist of 25 law students.
However, to balance the number of students in a class, many classes end up being
heterogeneous in nature. When this happens, students from more than one faculty are
mixed in a class. For example, it is common to find 10 law students, 10 human sciences
students and five architecture students in a class. This, however, is not seen as an issue
by the language centre, probably because the course materials are the same for all
classes regardless of the students’ disciplines.
1.3 Statement of the Problem

In Malaysia, research shows that generally, university students have issues with
their proficiency in English, especially in writing (Ibrahim & Nambiar, 2012; Ismail,
Hussin, & Darus, 2012; Sarudin, Zubairi, Nordin, & Omar, 2009; Shah, Ismail, Esa, &
Muhamad, 2013). Some of the studies done to address these issues have identified the
types of the problems mostly faced by students. Consequently, universities have taken
steps to deal with the students’ writing problems. It is either the faculties that will tackle
writing problems among their students, or the governing body of the university that will
set up a language course to help the students through a third party, such as a language
centre. However, David, Thang and Azman (2012) reveal that undergraduate students in
Malaysia have not been responding well to English language courses organised by their
universities to improve their standard of English. They state that this is mainly because
students found it hard to find time to attend language courses, and they prioritised their
faculty classes if there was a clash with the language course in their timetable.
Notwithstanding the issues with time, I believe that the content of the language
courses and the language instructors can also be an issue to the students. It has been a
concern of some EAP practitioners when ESL teachers teach discipline-specific
discourse (Hansen, 2000). One of the ways to investigate a language course is by
investigating the needs for the course, or in other words, by conducting a needs analysis.
17
Needs analysis has taken a central role in ESP/EAP especially in the literature on course
design and materials development (Benesch, 2001a; Flowerdew, 2013; Jordan, 1997;
Long, 2005; Robinson, 1991). In Malaysia, however, studies that focus on writing needs
among university students have been lacking (Kassim & Ali, 2010). Hence, the use of
needs analysis was considered for the present study after relating its appropriateness in
investigating the pertinent issues which will be described below.
1.3.1 Direction and motivation.

My interest to address writing needs was initially prompted by my own
experience and problems in teaching English for Academic Writing (EAW) in
CELPAD, IIUM. The first problem related to the tasks that students had to do (see
section 1.2.2). The nature of the tasks was rather too complex to be done in 14 weeks.
Writing was one issue, but having to design a quantitative research study – from
reviewing the literature, developing a questionnaire and collecting the data, to analysing
the data and presenting them – was another set of complex issues altogether.
Quantitative research involves “systematic, rigorous, focused, and tightly controlled”
(Dörnyei, 2007, p. 34) procedures, which require a great amount of time for students to
learn.
Secondly, the fact that the course only covered the language aspects of research
(see Appendix B) means that students were not supposed to be ‘explicitly’ taught how
to do other important components of research, for example, how to write questionnaire
items. The language aspects of research are reflected in the course objectives, the
learning outcomes and the weekly lessons in the EAW course outline, as presented in
Table 1 and Table 2 (the full course outline is in Appendix B).
Table 1. The Objectives and the Learning Outcomes of the EAW Course
The objectives of this course are to produce students who can:

Course 1. use the language for research writing
Objectives 2. apply critical reading skills when reading academic texts
3. use appropriate techniques in citing sources
By the end of the course, students should be able to:
1. use appropriate language to review the literature
2. apply appropriate language to write a research paper
Learning
3. demonstrate appropriate language register to write an
Outcomes
academic piece of writing
4. apply appropriate register to present research findings or
an academic paper
Note: From The International Islamic University Malaysia (2011)
Table 2. An Excerpt of the Weekly Lesson in the EAW Course Outline
Weeks Tasks Learning Hours

Describing procedures and methods
• Expressing reasons and explanation

o Cause and effect
4 o Subordinators 3
o Conjunctions
• Expressing development and changes

Transition
Table 1 shows that all the items for the course objectives and learning outcomes
are related to language, with a specific focus on its use for research paper writing (e.g.,
use appropriate language to review the literature). In addition, a look at an excerpt from
the weekly lesson in the course outline as shown in Table 2 reveals that students are
taught only the language to write the research. It can be seen clearly in Table 2 that only
the language aspects of research are stated (e.g., expressing reasons and explanation,
19
expressing development and changes). In fact, there is no mention of the

methodological aspects throughout the course outline (see Appendix B). It seems that
students were only taught how to write up a specific kind of research, with the
assumption that they would either already have the skills to conduct the research or they
would have to pick up the skills as they conducted the research. Even though it was
argued that students who took the EAW course were already in their third or fourth
(final) year and so they must have had learned or been exposed to research, this was still
an assumption. There were some notes on the research techniques or methodology
together with the notes on language provided via the online learning platform for
reference, but the lecturers’ main focus was supposed to be on language rather than the
research techniques.
Another important point is that students who took the EAW course came from
various disciplines. This may cause a problem for the students as shown in Hansen’s
(2000) study. Drawing on the concerns of non-discipline specialists teaching discipline-
specific discourse, Hansen conducted a case study of an ESL student to understand how
students acquire academic literacy within the context of EAP and content courses. The
focus of Hansen’s study was on the student’s development of academic writing skills in
ESL courses where she learned to write for mathematics, and her struggles with
conflicting demands between the ESL course and her content course (mathematics). The
student struggled because she believed that the context of the mathematics text was not
authentic. Her struggle shows that the ESL course did not attend to her need to write in
her discipline. Therefore, it is important for an EAP course to use a suitable approach
that considers the students’ disciplinary background.
It is generally known that different disciplines have different approaches to
academic writing. Therefore, students may find the kind of writing in their disciplines
different from how and what they write before they enter university. The notion of
academic writing in higher education can have different meanings, which may cause
problems for new learners (Irvin, 2010). New students are expected to be independent at
university and write different kinds of writing – something that most of them are not
prepared for (Hyland, 2013a). They have to be aware of the types of genres, especially
the distinguishing features of different texts in their disciplines, and be able to
understand and then produce them. Failure to do so may result in difficulties for the
students to write their academic work using an acceptable form (Paltridge, 2004).
IIUM students have to get used to disciplinary writing in their faculties. It is
important for them to be aware of disciplinary discourses to know what is considered as
good writing in their field of studies. According to Hyland (2013a), disciplinary
discourses are “systematic expressions of institutional meanings and values which are
communicated to students along with the texts they are asked to read and write” (p.
241). This shows that reading and writing in the disciplines come with a specific
purpose, which may not be achieved if not done in the right context. Even for students
who have spent more than one semester at the university, they may continue to regard
academic writing as a problem, especially for non-native speakers who may still
struggle with English as their second or foreign language. As pointed out by Ibrahim
and Nambiar (2012), academic writing is a difficult task for international students. For
students who already have good writing skills, writing for their course assignments and
projects may not be a serious problem although they may still have to learn how to write
effectively in their disciplines. Nevertheless, others who are struggling with their
writing skills have to work harder to write effectively for their courses and at same time
adhere to the writing conventions. Even though some of the students manage to improve
their writing skills as they learn their subjects, there are still some who are not doing
well in writing.
The importance of disciplinary discourse is reflected by the great amount of
studies and discussions by scholars such as John Swales and Ken Hyland, among others,
which involve discussions on writing in the disciplines. According to Zhu (2004),
research on writing in specific disciplinary courses reveals that writing in different
courses has different purposes. Moreover, Hyland asserts that learning to write in
community-specific ways is important to students. Therefore, disciplinary discourses
are important to be taken into consideration when dealing with academic writing in
higher learning institutions. With regard to the EAW course, it is possible that not all
disciplines practised the kind of research that EAW required of the students. Hence,
issues might arise if the language centre provides the same writing course for students
from different faculties or disciplines, as academic writing practices “vary from
21
discipline to discipline, from department to department, and even from lecturer to

lecturer” (Harwood & Hadley, 2004, p. 366). It is difficult to determine that the kind of
academic writing taught in CELPAD appropriately suits the kind of academic writing
practised in the students’ faculties. This is because determining the most proper
academic writing itself is hard. According to Horowitz (1986), if a journal research
article is considered proper academic writing, then most undergraduate writing tasks are
not proper academic writing (as cited in Harwood & Hadley, 2004). This suggests that
what makes good academic writing may differ in different writing tasks. In addition, it
has been discovered that journal articles in analytic philosophy differ greatly from
journal articles in continental philosophy in terms of the use of self-mention, vocabulary
variation, average sentence length, and use of directives (Hobbs, 2014). This evidence
shows that disciplinary writing does not have one particular form, but varies according
to the disciplines.
The issues with the students’ academic writing and the EAW course are related
to the roles of the language centre and the faculties. In my view, when an EAP course is
offered by a third party (e.g., a language centre), there are possible issues that might
arise such as the suitability of the course with the faculties’ requirements, and the
understanding that the course provider has with the faculties. It is important that the
course provider understands the academic writing needs of the faculties and provides an
effective writing course to meet the needs. At the same time, the faculties also have an
important role in making sure their students’ needs are addressed by the course
provider. Good relationships and communication between the stakeholders can
contribute to the success of an EAP programme. Thus, possible issues among them also
need to be identified and addressed to achieve that purpose.
Looking at these issues, the use of needs analysis was deemed appropriate to
elicit the students’ academic writing needs and investigate how EAW had catered to
these needs. I then began researching and developing a research framework focusing on
the needs analysis. Initially, the framework was based on the needs analysis models
proposed by Hutchinson and Waters (1987) and Robinson (1991). The questionnaires
and interviews were designed to answer two research questions on students’ present and
target needs at their faculties and the role of EAW to cater to those needs. At this point,
my research direction was just strictly to investigate the student needs. On the other
hand, I discovered several issues during the research process. The interview data had
given another dimension which I found more crucial to understand – understanding
academic writing at my institution and the existence of power relations among the
stakeholders. Further reading on power relations and needs analysis led me to include a
critical lens in my needs analysis. In this context of needs analysis, power relations are
one of the things that can be investigated, as power is something that always exists
(Foucault, 1980, as cited in Benesch, 1999, p. 315).
According to Benesch (2001a), the use of the critical needs analysis may
uncover underlying elements related to power relations that could have been addressed
other than the student needs. A review of the literature revealed that the critical
approach has not been adopted by many EAP practitioners, particularly in conducting
needs analyses (Crookes, 2013; Noori & Mazdayasna, 2015), and this signalled a gap in
research employing needs analyses. Consequently, this had prompted the third research
question of this study which focuses on power relations. Hence, my initial research
journey to investigate student needs using the traditional (or pragmatic) needs analysis
had shifted its direction to focus on power relations and their manifestation among the
stakeholders. In conclusion, understanding the student needs in the case of EAW was
crucial; nevertheless, addressing needs can be done using two approaches – the
pragmatic approach and the critical approach – and in my case, the use of the critical
lens helped me to understand the phenomenon of writing needs more with regard to the
academic culture of the university.
1.4 Significance of the Study

According to Casanave and Hubbard (1992), knowing the students’ needs and
their writing problems is important so that “more adequate curricula, support service
classes, and writing tests can be developed to help students meet academic demands,
and so that content course faculty can become involved in helping solve students’
writing problems” (p. 33). In light of this, this study was conducted to investigate the
students’ academic writing needs in the context of academic writing in EAP.
23
In the context of IIUM, the significance of this study is threefold. First, the study
is significant for the writing lecturers. It informs them of how faculty lecturers
perceived academic writing and student needs. This is deemed crucial most importantly
to the lecturers teaching academic writing, as the knowledge of what faculty lecturers
require of their students’ writing can be translated into the delivery of the writing
course. Students’ perceptions of academic writing and the EAW course are also
important since they can provide useful insights for the lecturers to help them teach
academic writing effectively. Secondly, the study is also significant for the writing
course provider – CELPAD. As different faculties may have different views with regard
to academic writing, investigating the use of academic writing in IIUM was deemed
significant as the findings from the faculty lecturers’ perspectives can be used by
CELPAD to design the appropriate course content to better suit the academic writing
needs of the students from different faculties. CELPAD can also use this study to
promote collaborations with the faculties, as some researchers note that the content and
writing instructors should have a mutual role (Armstrong et al., 2012; Hyland, 2013a;
Turner, 2012) and make collaborations (Jenkins et al., 1993; Zhu, 2004). Finally, this
study is significant for the university management. The findings can be useful for the
people in the management to make decisions on language courses offered by CELPAD.
In a bigger context, this study employed both pragmatic and critical approaches
in needs analysis. The findings from both approaches can contribute to the subject of
needs analysis in EAP. However, compared to pragmatic EAP which has seen a great
amount of needs analyses, this study makes a greater contribution to the field of critical
EAP. It demonstrates how the data from a needs analysis could be analysed using a
critical lens to provide the underlying meanings of the findings. To date, a review of the
literature shows that studies in EAP that employed needs analysis mostly used a
pragmatic approach compared to the ones that employed a critical approach, especially
among the non-native speakers of English (see section 2.7 for fuller discussion).
Notwithstanding, pragmatic EAP has its setbacks (see section 2.6 for fuller discussion).
Therefore, this study fills the gap particularly in research that applies a critical approach
in EAP – a field which has been commonly associated with pragmatism.
1.5 Thesis Organisation
This thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter One is the introduction of the
thesis. It provides the contextual background of the study. The statement of the problem
and the significance of the study are presented in this chapter. Chapter Two presents a
review of the literature. It consists of discussions of the key ideas, concepts, approaches,
and reviews of past studies. The research questions are also presented here. Chapter
Three is the chapter on methodology, consisting the theoretical underpinnings of the
methodology, the research design and the research process. The next chapter, Chapter
Four, presents the findings and the discussion of the findings. The implications of the
study is also presented here. The last chapter is Chapter Five. This is where the
summary, the limitations, and the suggestions for future research are presented. The
chapter ends with concluding remarks.
25
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Generally, this chapter presents a conceptual framework that encapsulates the
philosophical aspects that pave the way to the foundation of the study. The chapter
consists of discussions of the key ideas, concepts, approaches, and reviews of past
studies. Since this study involved non-native speakers (NNS) who used English in their
second language writing (L2 writing), all the reviewed studies shared the same context
so that links can be made. The framework of the study comprises the subject of needs
analysis, encapsulated in the main frame of academic writing in EAP. The subject of
needs analysis will be discussed with reference to the pragmatic and critical approaches
in EAP.
The chapter begins by introducing the definitions and history of EAP since its
emergence from ESP, followed by a discussion focusing on academic writing in EAP.
Next, three subjects of controversies and debates that have expanded the field of EAP
will be discussed. The subjects of controversies are: (1) EGAP and ESAP; (2) study
skills, academic socialisation and academic literacies; and (3) pragmatic and critical
perspectives on EAP (Hyland, 2006). According to Hyland (2006), EAP has raised
“interesting issues and controversies in conceptualizing and determining its nature and
role” (p. 8). These subjects are discussed as they are interconnected and are related to
the subjects of academic writing and needs analysis. It is important to note that to date,
the EGAP, study skills and pragmatic models have been the dominant approaches in the
field of ESP/EAP. An understanding of these models or approaches was deemed vital to
rationalise the need for the critical approach in this present study. The last section will
be on needs analysis in EAP. The discussion on needs analysis is placed in the last
section to relate it to the context of pragmatic and critical perspectives on EAP.
2.2 From ESP to EAP
Understanding the field of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) requires one to
know English for Specific Purposes (ESP). To begin with, it is impossible to arrive at a
universally applicable definition of ESP (Robinson, 1991). ESP is difficult to define, as
definitions worked out by various scholars in the field vary. Munby (1978) defines ESP
as courses in which the syllabus and materials are outlined by first analysing the
communication needs of the learner. Hutchinson and Waters (1987), instead of giving a
direct definition of ESP, prefer to arrive at the definition by discussing the factors that
gave birth to ESP, beginning with a simple question: ‘Why ESP?’, and try to describe
ESP as an approach instead of a product (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998).
In another approach to define ESP, Dudley-Evans and St John (1998) begin by
comparing the validity and weaknesses of the definitions in the previous literature, and
coming up with their own definition which uses ‘absolute’ and ‘variable’
characteristics. Absolute characteristics are:
ESP is designed to meet specific needs of the learners; ESP makes use of the
underlying methodology and activities of the disciplines it serves; ESP is centred
on the language (grammar, lexis, register), skills, discourse and genres
appropriate to these activities. (p. 4)
Variable characteristics include the following:
ESP may be related to or designed for specific disciplines; ESP may use, in
specific teaching situations, a different methodology from that of general
English; ESP is likely to be designed for adult learners, either at a tertiary level
institution or in a professional work situation. It could, however, be used for
learners at secondary school level; ESP is generally designed for intermediate or
advanced students. Most ESP courses assume basic knowledge of the language
system, but it can be used with beginners. (p. 5)
A more recent definition of ESP is given by Paltridge and Starfield (2013). They define
ESP as the teaching and learning of English as a second or foreign language when the
learners' goal is to use English in a particular field. To simplify, some commonalities
which can be derived from the various definitions of ESP are the idea of needs and
pedagogical concepts that follow. In addition, Brown (2016) states that one alternative
27
way of defining ESP is to consider what ESP is not. He says, “ESP is not what has been
snidely called TENOR (Teaching English for No Obvious Reason, after Abbott, 1981)
or ENOP (English with No Obvious Purpose)” (p. 5). For example, Brown describes
international students who have just arrived in an English speaking country, who
previously studied English as ENOP which focused on the language in terms of its
grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation. However, when they begin their university
studies, they realise that they have problems understanding lectures and communicating
with lecturers. They might have been able to deal with this kind of situation better if
they had studied English for academic purposes.
Even though there is no clear historical starting point to ESP (Johns, 2013;
Swales, 1985), one of the main reasons which contributed to the emergence of English
for Specific Purposes (ESP) was general developments in the world economy in the
1950s and 1960s (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998). According to Hutchinson and
Waters (1987), following the demands of a ‘Brave New World’ (post-second world war
era, where scientific, technical and economic activities expanded to an international
level in a larger scale), English became a highly sought after asset deemed crucial for
the next generation’s survival in the new world of technology and commerce. Since
gaining its status as the international language of technology and commerce, English
has been widely used and taught to meet a growing demand for international
communication. The United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) had increased
the funding for science and technology, which included subsidies for English language
teaching and teacher training (Benesch, 2001a). Along with the development of the use
of English as a medium of teaching and learning in many learning institutions in various
parts of the world, it has not just been taught as a subject for learners to learn the
language, but it also had an important impact on the teaching and learning of other
subjects as well.
As pointed out by Barber (1962), English was particularly important for the
teaching and learning of subjects which relied greatly on textbooks written in English,
especially scientific and technical subjects at university level. John Swales in his
seminal work, Episodes in ESP (1985) has chosen Barber’s (1962) article entitled Some
Measureable Characteristics of Modern Scientific Prose as the beginning of the history
of ESP. Swales also claims that the findings in Barber’s studies are important in English
for Science and Technology (EST), as they presented the descriptive techniques of
modern linguistics which could be successfully used in EST. In succeeding years, more
work has been done and published on linguistics and teaching, and one of the most
prominent contributions is The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching by Halliday,
McIntosh and Strevens (1964), which acknowledges the development of applied
linguistics as a bridge between linguistics and language teaching. John Swales and Ken
Hyland are two key figures in ESP, among others, who acknowledge Halliday,
McIntosh and Strevens’ contributions in ESP. Swales (2000) describes the publication
of the book as paving the way to a solid tradition of work that has continued the
‘descriptive textual tradition’, a category in which many of the articles in the leading
journal English for Specific Purposes fall into. Meanwhile, Hyland (2002) highlights
their book as contributing to the idea of specificity, a concept fundamental to most
definitions of ESP. Even though neither publication (Barber’s nor Halliday, McIntosh
and Strevens’) uses the term ESP, their contributions towards the further development
of English for specific or academic purposes have been substantial.
Johns (2013) has presented the history of ESP by first highlighting a few
prominent works such as Tarone et al. (1981) which, instead of looking at features of
scientific language across genres, focused on a “specific grammatical feature as it
influenced rhetorical decisions among a narrow range of research articles in
astrophysics” (p. 8). Tarone et al. examines the frequency of the active and passive verb
forms in astrophysics journals and consults an informant (an expert in astrophysics)
before presenting four rhetorical functions of the passive instead of just giving the
frequencies. This is significant as it moves away from works that were just concerned
with figures of linguistic or syntactic items in ESP. More recently, ESP scholarship has
focused on other concerns, such as the evolution of international authorship, research
roles, varied methodologies and triangulation, multimodalities, varied locales, and a
research topic that has been getting vast attention, genre studies (Johns, 2013), with
leading scholars like John Swales, Vijay Bhatia and Charles Bazerman.
29
Figure 1. The tree of ELT. (Hutchinson & Waters,1987)
In addition, it is also important to note the role that English for Science and
Technology (EST) has played in the development of ESP. Interestingly, Swales (1985)
mentions that ESP was first preceded by EST. In the tree of ELT by Hutchinson and
Waters (1987) (see Figure 1), EST was one of three large categories that distinguished
ESP courses by the general nature of the learners’ specialism. However, in the same
book Hutchinson and Waters acknowledge the preeminent position of EST in ESP.
Within the development of ESP, there was an emergence of a few further categories:
English for Academic Purposes (EAP), English for Occupational or Vocational
Purposes (EOP or EVP), and English for Professional Purposes (Robinson, 1991;
Swales, 1985); and English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP) and English for
Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP) (Blue, 1988 in Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998).
With regard to EAP, Jordan (1989) describes two ways in which the relationship
between EAP and ESP is perceived (see Figure 2). The description that is favoured by
most English Language Teaching publishers is the first one, which sees EAP as a
branch of ESP, alongside EOP/EVP. The second description of how the relationship is
perceived, on the other hand, sees ESP as a branch of EAP, together with study skills.
As EAP is gaining more attention, the description has been further distinguished, with
EAP being either EGAP or ESAP (see section 2.4 for fuller discussion). In summary,
EAP and ESP have been seen as having such a very close relationship that it is possible
to sometimes place them in the same group. In fact, EAP is sometimes regarded as a
movement within ESP. For example, if the EAP course is subject-specific, which
focuses on language features in particular academic disciplines, those who perceive
EAP using the second description may regard that EAP course as an ESP course
(Jordan, 1989).
ESP EAP
EOP/EVP EAP Study skills ESP

(1) (2)
Figure 2. The perception on the relationship between ESP and EAP
(Jordan, 1989, p. 150)
EAP has been in demand not only to enhance educational abilities in English-
speaking countries, but also for use in the higher education sector in many other
countries (Jordan, 1997). There are four different types of situation that characterise
EAP:
• EAP in English-speaking countries, where foreign students come to study in a
system that uses English (e.g., UK, USA, Australia);
• EAP in countries where English is used as a second language (L2) mostly at all
levels of education; but in everyday situations, people use their first language
(L1) (e.g., Zimbabwe);
• EAP in countries where only certain subjects like medicine, engineering, science
subjects are taught in English (e.g., Jordan);
• EAP in countries where all subjects are taught in L1 and English is an auxiliary
language (e.g., Brazil).
(Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998, p. 34)
31
Jordan (1997) refers to the definition given by the English Teaching Information
Centre (ETIC) in 1975 as a working definition of EAP, that EAP is concerned with
those communication skills in English which are required for study purposes in formal
education systems. He also identifies that the first recorded use of the term ‘English for
Academic Purposes’ was in 1974. Other than for study purposes (Dudley-Evans & St
John, 1998), EAP also aims to assist research in English (Hyland, 2006; Hyland &
Hamp-Lyons, 2002). It refers to “language research and instruction that focuses on the
specific communicative needs and practices of particular groups in academic contexts”
(Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002, p. 2). EAP covers wide areas of academic
communicative practice such as:
• Pre-tertiary, undergraduate and postgraduate teaching (from the design of
materials to lectures and classroom tasks);
• Classroom interactions (from teacher feedback to tutorials and seminar
discussions);
• Research genres (from journal articles to conference papers and grant
proposals);
• Student writing (from essays to exam papers and graduate theses);
• Administrative practice (from course documents to doctoral oral defences).
(Hyland, 2006, p. 1)
Hyland (2006) notes that apart from being recognised for its characteristics and
purposes, EAP has expanded to be a theoretically grounded and research informed
enterprise. EAP practitioners have taken a more reflective and research-oriented
perspective as a response to changes in tertiary education. Other than looking at
syllabus design, needs analysis and materials development, EAP also aims at “capturing
‘thicker’ descriptions of language use in the academy at all age and proficiency levels,
incorporating and often going beyond immediate communicative contexts to understand
the nature of disciplinary knowledge itself” (Hyland, 2006, p. 2). EAP’s concerns
nowadays are not only on the use of proper language or style in academic contexts, but
along with globalisation and internalisation, EAP practitioners are dealing with
challenges caused by more diverse student populations, disciplinary-specific studies and
changing communicative practices, and multimodalities in academic communication
(Hyland, 2006; Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002). There is a rise in the number of non-
native speakers of English in EAP classrooms, and lecturers are faced with the
challenges to accommodate them in their discourse community and also meet the
institutional expectations.
The notion of discourse community has been applied in the earlier ESP work
(Swales, 1990, as cited in Starfield, 2013). According to Hyland and Hamp-Lyons
(2002) the concept of discourse community, which is closely related to specificity (see
section 2.4), has become central in EAP. Discourse community refers to members of a
group who “acquire and deploy the specialized discourse competencies that allow them
to legitimate their professional identities and to effectively participate as group
members”; each group is different “along both social and cognitive dimensions, offering
contrasts not just in their fields of knowledge, but also in their ways of talking, their
argument structures, aims, social behaviours, power relations, and political interests”
(Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002, p. 6). In brief, a discourse community consists of a
group of people who use the same communicative practices to achieve common goals.
With the increase in the number of non-native speakers in a discourse community,
teaching and learning in EAP have been facing with social and political challenges,
demanding more research to be done to address these issues.
EAP has aligned itself with the development of ESP in the sense that it focuses
on accommodating students’ academic needs and determining effective pedagogies.
Nonetheless, the recent developments have witnessed increased attention on the “socio-
political implications of an ‘accommodationist’ view of language learning which seeks
to induct learners into uncritical acceptance of disciplinary and course norms, values
and discourses” (Hyland, 2006, p. 5). Elements of power and authority in
communication practices have complicated teaching and learning, and have either
favoured or marginalised different groups across academic disciplines (see section 2.6
for fuller discussion). These are some of the main issues in the social, cultural and
ideological contexts of language use that have become central in EAP. In summary,
EAP has developed from being a platform to address the use of English communication
skills for study purposes and research (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998, Jordan, 1997,
Hyland, 2006) to taking a role to address the dilemma of being accommodationist or
33
critical to ideologies and politics in education (Hyland, 2006; Hyland & Hamp-Lyons,
2002). I view this recent development with a positive attitude, as the emergence of
critical approach has provided an alternative for practitioners to relook at their existing
practice and have a fresh new perspective on EAP.
This section has given a brief history of ESP and EAP, with a discussion of their
recent developments. In the context of this study, both terms, ESP and EAP, are used
interchangeably as they can be used to refer to the same framework. The next section
will discuss academic writing in EAP.
2.3 Academic Writing in EAP

There have been numerous discussions and studies on academic writing at the
tertiary level for various purposes (Hewings, 2004; Drury, 2004). Many of them are
done in the context of EAP, with some of the purposes being to identify writing
problems and needs (e.g., Casanave & Hubbard, 1992; Huang, 2010; Jenkins et al.
1993; Yildirim & Ilin, 2009: Zhu, 2004), address faculty feedback (Hyland, 2013a),
evaluate writing programs (e.g., Armstrong et al., 2012), and study the use of academic
writing conventions (e.g., Coxhead, 2012). There have also been discussions on the
development and the role of academic writing in EAP (e.g., Benesch, 2001a, 2001b;
Canagarajah, 2002; Hamp-Lyons, 2011; Hyland, 2013c; Grabe, 2001; Paltridge, 2004).
Grabe (2001), Paltridge (2004), Hamp-Lyons (2011) and Hyland (2013c) are
among the scholars who have written articles that shed light on the development of
academic writing. Their writing encompasses topics of academic writing and ESP/EAP,
first and second language learners of English (L1 and L2) in academic writing,
descriptions of academic writing, and the development of approaches to the teaching of
academic writing. Among the highlighted areas are theories of writing, the new rhetoric
and the academic literacies approach to writing, and issues like critical thinking in
student writing, plagiarism and writer identity and reader/writer power relations.
Paltridge has noted that the examination of academic writing began in the 1960s and
early 1970s. It was based on register analysis, which looked at patterns of grammar and
vocabulary in registers. During that time, the key figures were M.A.K Halliday, Angus
Macintosh and Peter Strevens. Next, the focus was on the examination of rhetorical
functions in academic texts, which looked at organisational patterns such as compare
and contrast, and problem-solution. It also analysed the linguistic means used in the
patterns. The key figure in this approach was Louis Trimble.
In the development of theories of writing, Grabe (2001) explains that the
development of L2 theories of writing in the 1970s and 1980s was based closely on L1
theories of the writing process. L1 theories of writing in the modern context focused on
writing processes before the exploration of the role of genre knowledge in writing.
According to Paltridge (2004), an important work by Tarone et al. (1981), which looked
at the use of passive in astrophysics articles in terms of rhetorical or communicative
purpose, became the first research that added genre to its analysis. Subsequesntly, the
study of genre was advanced in the 1990s by researchers like John Swales and Vijay K.
Bhatia. The focus of their genre analysis was on text specific analyses. Swales’ 1990
seminal book, Genre Analysis, not only describes the complexity in defining a genre,
but also offers the concept of a discourse community (Hyland, 2013c). After Swales’
early work with academic genres (prominently known for his move analysis in 1990),
more work has been done by researchers such as Basturkmen, Giannoni, Motta-Roth,
Precht, Connor and Mauranen (Hamp-Lyons, 2011). According to Paltridge, more
recent developments have involved computational linguistics or corpus linguistics with
key figures like Ken Hyland and Douglas Biber. Later, new areas of studies such as
contrastive rhetoric and disciplinary discourses received much attention in the study of
academic writing. Grabe mentions that these areas of studies have contributed to the
development of L2 theories of writing. Ken Hyland is also one of the key figures in
disciplinary discourses, and his research looked at “the relationship between the cultures
of academic communities and their discoursal practices” (Paltridge, 2004, p. 93).
In the teaching of academic writing, Paltridge (2004) explains that from the
1940s to the 1960s, the teaching of second language writing was based on the idea of
‘controlled composition’, which looked at language as “a set of fixed patterns that a
writer manipulates in order to produce new sentences” (p. 94). In the mid-1960s, a new
movement called current-traditional rhetoric emerged, and focused on the teaching of
rhetorical functions that moved from the sentence level to the discourse level. The
1970s witnessed another new approach to teaching writing. It was called the process
35
approach, or the writer-focused approach (Canagarajah, 2002), where the aims were to
“guide rather than control learners and to let content, ideas and the need to communicate
determine form, rather than commence with the form of a text” (p. 95). The process
approach was however not favoured by some. One of the criticisms was that it does not
give the right impression of what academic writing is in university settings, as students
tend to be obsessed with personal meaning instead of the requirements of academic
writing. This led to the shift from the writing process to the focus on the needs of
learners in the 1980s. The 1980s also witnessed the development of another approach
that is content driven. It was called content-based instruction, and it focused on
“incidental and instructed learning, with written texts being central” (p. 95). This
approach also continues to be influential.
The development of academic writing recently has taken a significant turn, with
the emergence of critical perspectives on EAP (e.g., Benesch, 2001a, 2001b;
Canagarajah, 2002). Although they can be considered as relatively new, their existence
has impacted academic writing in ESL and EAP. I strongly believe that the dominant
theoretical and pedagogical approaches in EAP have put too much focus on the
technical aspects of academic writing (e.g., identifying writing patterns and learners’
needs, conducting textual analysis, etc.), rather than the socio-political aspects involving
the learners and other stakeholders. Benesch’s (2001a, 2001b) responses to the
traditional L2 practitioners’ concerns over the shift from the focus on target situation
demands to political concerns such as power relations and social inequities have led to
the emergence of a new strand in EAP – critical EAP or CEAP (see section 2.6 for
fuller discussion). The opponents of CEAP felt that the critical thinking in L2 is
uniquely Western and has a colonising effect (Benesch, 2001b). Canagarajah (2002)
shares a similar view to Benesch’s with regard to the critical approach in EAP. He
discusses academic writing in English by raising the issue of linguistic imperialism. He
stresses the importance of focusing on the attitudes and approaches towards English
language rather than the issues of its domination and colonisation over other languages
and values. Taking a critical stance, he criticises the dominant pedagogical approaches
in academic writing: (1) the form-focused or the product approach; (2) the writer-
focused or the process approach; (3) the content-focused approach; and (4) the reader-
focused approach. Similar to Grabe (2001), Canagarajah also notes that these four
approaches are based on the development of L1 writing, and are drawn from the
Western philosophies and traditions. Even though he acknowledges their significance,
he believes that they have to be “situated in a clearly defined sociopolitical context” (p.
41). He proposes a critical writing approach that requires “a fundamental shift of
emphasis” (p. 41), which focuses on the social context.
The next section discusses a subject of controversy which has impacted the
development of EAP – the subject of EGAP and ESAP.
2.4 EAP: EGAP and ESAP

According to Hyland (2006), one key issue in EAP is related to the notion of
specificity, which has been discussed via the terms ‘English for General Academic
Purposes’ (EGAP) and ‘English for Specific Purposes’ (ESAP). The notion of EGAP
and ESAP has been much debated in EAP and has been addressed by many in
discussing the best approach for EAP (e.g., Basturkmen, 2003, 2006; Hutchinson &
Waters, 1987; Hyland, 2006; Jordan, 1997; Spack, 1988; Widdowson, 1983). In relation
to this study, it is important to know the difference between EGAP and ESAP to
understand the kind of approach adopted by EAW.
According to Dudley-Evans and St John (1998), EGAP refers to “the teaching of
the skills and language that are common to all disciplines” (p. 41). It is based on an idea
that EAP should not be seen as a course to fulfill specific purposes (Widdowson, 1983),
but that EAP is an approach to language teaching in which the learning process should
not differ from general English (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). Jordan (1997), while
discussing EGAP in the context of integrated study skills, states that by having EGAP,
students are able to see the relationship between skills and can utilise them in their
studies and projects. However, he also points out the disadvantages of it, that tutors will
have limited choice and control of materials and methods, and that students may not
need all the skills. He describes EGAP by giving six main study skills areas deemed
important in an EGAP approach. The study skills areas are: academic reading and
writing; vocabulary development; lectures and note taking; speaking for academic
purposes; reference or research skills; and examination skills. Overall, the main idea
37
behind an EGAP approach is that EAP courses should not be designed to cater to one
specific discipline, but should be built around a general approach that is concerned with
a common core of universal skills or language forms which can cater to various
disciplines in an institution (Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002).
On the other hand, ESAP is a view that is concerned more with the needs of
particular groups in academic contexts; in other words, ESAP implements disciplinary
specificity in an EAP course (Hyland, 2013b). To understand disciplinary specificity in
EAP, it is important to understand the concept of an academic discipline, which is not
straightforward (Becher & Trowler, 2001). Becher and Trowler (2001), in their attempt
to define academic discipline, explain how statistics is known as a discipline after
originally being in the discipline of mathematics. This situation can happen when
academic institutions recognise the formation of the discipline in terms of their
organisational structures alongside the emergence of an international community,
consisting of professional associations and specialist journals. In summary, disciplines
are “in part identified by the existence of relevant departments; but it does not follow
that every department represents a discipline” (Becher & Trowler, 2001, p. 41).
However, the term ‘disciplinary specificity’ conveys a different meaning, as it adds the
notion of specialism. According to Becher and Trowler, “Specialisms, by contrast, are
less formally recognizable in terms of organized professional groupings, dedicated
journals and bibliographical categories” (p. 67). They explain that the characters of
disciplines are multi-dimensional, that the objects of study vary and may change over
time (e.g., anthropology), and may be more or less contentious (e.g, the disagreement
whether the object of study in English literature is the body of literature or pertinent
sociological issues associated with the literature). Other dimensions include disciplinary
stance (concerned with whether a discipline is focusing on ‘knowing’ or ‘doing),
disciplinary mode (normal or reflexive), classification (the extent of ‘boundedness’
from other disciplinary areas) and frame (the extent of agreement and control over
content among specialists). These dimensions create recognitions of specialisms, and
even sub-specialisms, in a discipline.
With regard to disciplinary specificity in EAP, it refers to “the teaching of the
features that distinguish one discipline from others” (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998,
p.41). As an example, EAP courses that distinguish the course by disciplines such as
English for Law or English for Medicine are considered ESAP. Hyland (2002) asserts
that EAP must involve teaching literacy skills suitable to the purposes and
understandings of particular academic communities. In this view, it is important to note
that students’ disciplinary activities are an essential part of their engagement in their
disciplines. One of his main arguments against EGAP concerns the notion of the
common core hypothesis – transferable general skills and forms across contexts and
purposes. Hyland claims that the main problem lies in defining what a common core is.
Although some topics like ‘business writing’ and ‘persuasive language’ as well as
features of academic writing like ‘explicitness’ can be categorised as a common core, he
argues that they are “only ‘core’ in a very general sense and give the misleading
impression of uniform disciplinary practices” (p. 389). He further explains that these
core features are insufficient for students to understand disciplinary conventions or
develop academic writing skills.
A case study by James (2010) supports the arguments made by Hyland. He
examines learning transfer from EGAP writing instruction to other academic courses.
As the course is EGAP, discipline specificity was the central issue. Therefore, James
examines the effectiveness of the EGAP course by investigating the extent to which
EGAP writing instruction helped learning transfer to students’ work in their academic
programs. The students in the course were interviewed and asked for writing samples
produced in the writing course and other courses. The findings showed that a wide
range of learning outcomes (e.g., ‘describing visually’, ‘narrating’, ‘using
similes/metaphors’, and ‘using past perfect tense accurately’) did transfer from the
writing course across task types and disciplines, although some were more frequent
(e.g., ‘avoiding fused sentences’; ‘framing’) than others (e.g., ‘using past perfect
accurately’; ‘using similes/metaphors’). On the other hand, even though the results
suggest that EGAP writing instruction could lead to transfer, James argues that it was
inappropriate to draw a conclusion about the relative efficacy of EGAP versus ESAP
writing instruction. His argument shows that skills transfer does not necessarily indicate
the success of EGAP instructions in providing the students with disciplinary
conventions.
39
Basturkmen (2003) extends the use of the terms ‘wide-angle’ and ‘narrow-
angle’ by Widdowson to reflect her notion of EGAP and ESAP respectively in her
paper discussing the advantages and disadvantages of both types of course designs in
ESP. According to Widdowson (1983), wide angle courses are similar to English for
general purposes courses that provide learners with “a general capacity to enable them
to cope with undefined eventualities in the future” (p. 6), while narrow angle courses
provide learners with “a restricted competence to enable them to cope with clearly
defined tasks” (p. 6). Basturkmen argues that although narrow-angled course designs
can be theoretically attractive, they are impractical in terms of preparation time and can
cause students to have insufficient experience of language if they end up not being in
the group for which the courses are intended. Furthermore, Basturkmen (2006)
questions the existence of ‘specific elements’ in ESP. She introduces the idea of
‘specifiable elements’ which are more critical for ESP learners but are not exclusive to
certain disciplines. Moreover, some other issues raised by Jordan (1997) with regard to
ESAP are students’ inadequacy in the specialist subject and tutors’ teaching
ineffectiveness in the specialist subject. He explains that some students may have
difficulties coping with the subjects in the disciplines even before coping with the
language of the subjects. The EAP tutors may also not be able to cope with the
technicality of the specialist subjects and this in turn may affect their teaching. In
addition, Spack (1988) even refutes a claim that teaching a course focusing on writing
in a particular discipline is possible if the teachers learn how a discipline creates and
transmits knowledge. She argues that it would take a great level of commitment on the
teachers’ part and it “involves even more specialized knowledge and skills than does the
teaching of the subject matter itself” (p. 99).
Nevertheless, Hyland (2013a & 2013b), although admitting that the notion of
specificity remains controversial and may be logistically challenging and not cost
effective, claims that EAP is not about improving generic language ability, but helping
students to develop communicative skills in specific academic and professional settings.
Hyland and Hamp-Lyons (2002) argue that various research shows that different
communities have different purposes and “successful communication depends on the
projection of a shared context” (p. 5). This notion is further supported by the findings of
some studies on ESP/EAP. For example, Zhu (2004) in her study of members of
business and engineering faculties to investigate the faculty role in academic writing
instruction, concluded that there is a need for teaching specificity in the EAP context.
She added that academic writing research that studied writing in specific disciplinary
courses has shown that writing serves different purposes in different courses and
demands students to play different social roles, and that “communicative conventions
are intricately intertwined with the content for, the aims of, and student roles in writing”
(p. 30). In addition, the finding in a study by Leopold (2010) opposed the claim by
Spack (1988) that instructors require specialised training in the subject matters to teach
writing in a particular discipline. He argues that EAP instructors can “exploit their
strengths and training in genre analysis” (p. 177). Language instructors do not
necessarily need special training in the subject matter if they can learn about the genres
used in the disciplines. In summary, ESAP seems appealing in its approach to develop
academic writing skills specific to the students’ discipline.
On a different note, Widdowson (1983) argues that work on ESP “has suffered
through too rigid an adherence to the principle of specificity of eventual purpose as a
determining criterion for course design” (p. 15). Perhaps that is why EGAP has become
a popular approach (Basturkmen, 2006). Having taught and been involved in the
development of an EAP course in a public institution of higher learning in Malaysia, it
appears to me that there are various factors that contribute to the success of an EAP
course. EAP course design requires a complex process (Tajino, James & Kijima, 2005).
One of the most important things to consider when designing an EAP course is, it has to
be a course that serves the needs of the students and also addresses the socio-political
aspects beyond the communicative contexts (Hyland, 2006). Since students’ academic
contexts may differ greatly, it is imperative that constant research is done involving
different academic disciplines to really understand the differences, and also see whether
the differences are significant for the stakeholders. In terms of practicality, the EGAP
model appears to accommodate course designers in managing the stakeholders and
preparing the course materials. However, although the ESAP model requires more work
in designing the course, I believe it is a better step towards providing students with the
41
right form of English for their academic purposes, that the students will be able to
benefit when learning in their disciplines.
With regard to the EAW course (see 1.2.2), the lecturers teaching the course are
writing instructors from the language centre (CELPAD), with no specialisations in the
disciplines where the students are from. EAW is taught to students from different
faculties, where they may be in the same class, learn the same content, do the same
tasks and produce the same product (a research paper). One of EAW’s learning
objectives (Table 1) is to produce students who can use the language for research
writing. This can be compared to the notion that the course does not cater to one
specific discipline, but builds around a general approach associated with a common core
of universal skills which can cater to various disciplines (Hyland & Hamp-Lyons,
2002). In other words, the course employs a one-size-fits-all approach in teaching
academic writing to all faculties in IIUM. Therefore, EAW can be closely associated
with EGAP.
The second controversy in EAP (study skills, academic socialisation and
academic literacies) is discussed in the following section.
2.5 EAP: Study Skills, Academic Socialisation and Academic Literacies

Besides the issue of specificity in EAP, Hyland (2006) regards another issue
comprising three conceptions – study skills, academic socialisation and academic
literacies – which have been the approaches in the teaching of student writing, as
representing “a movement towards a more context-sensitive perspective” (p. 16). This
section will touch on the three approaches to discuss their orientation and relate them to
the previous subject of controversies – EGAP and ESAP.
To begin with, Mary R. Lea and Brian V. Street in their seminal articles, Student
Writing in Higher Education: An Academic Literacies Approach in 1998 and The
“Academic Literacies” Model: Theory and Applications in 2006, have discussed the
issues of student writing in higher education. In both articles, they compared three
models of educational research on student writing in higher education, which are ‘study
skills’, ‘academic socialisation’ and ‘academic literacies’. The descriptions of the three
models can be seen in Figure 3. They adopted the concept of academic literacies as a
framework in a study to explore the perceptions of academic staff and students, to
understand students’ writing practices.
Study Skills:
Student deficit
• ‘Fix it’; atomised skills; surface language, grammar, spelling.
• Sources: behavioral and experimental psychology; programmed learning.
Student Writing as technical and instrumental skill.
Academic socialisation:
Acculturation of students into academic discourse
• Inducting students into new ‘culture’; focus on orientation to learning and
interpretation of learning task, e.g. ‘deep’, ‘surface’, ‘strategic’ learning;
homogeneous ‘culture’, lack of focus on institutional practices, change and
power.
• Sources: social psychology; anthropology; constructivism.
Student writing as transparent medium of representation.
Academic literacies
Student’s negotiation of conflicting literacy practices
• Literacies as social practices at level of epistemology and identities;
institutions as sites of/constituted in discourses and power; variety of
communicative repertoire, e.g. genres, fields, disciplines; switching with
regard to linguistic practices, social meanings and identities.
• Sources: ‘new literacy studies’; critical discourse analysis; systemic functional
linguistics; cultural anthropology.
Student writing as meaning-making and contested.
Figure 3. Models of student writing in higher education. (Lea & Street,1998, p.

172)
2.5.1 The study skills model.

A summary of the study skills model can be seen in Figure 3. The study skills
model or approach looks at literacy as a “set of atomised skills which students have to
43
learn and which are transferable to other contexts” (Lea & Street, 1998, p. 158). Its
emphasis is on fixing students’ problems in the areas of surface structures, grammar and
spelling. Student deficit is the main focus, and according to Lea and Street (2006), it
gives “little attention to context and is implicitly informed by autonomous and additive
theories of learning, such as behaviorism, which are concerned with the transmission of
knowledge” (p. 369). More recent definitions of study skills range from involving
specific aspects such as referencing and dissertation formatting, to a broader inclusion
of abilities, techniques and strategies that students need more than linguistic knowledge
to succeed in their studies (Hyland, 2006).
Hyland (2002) has been critical of the idea of a study skills approach in ESP,
which has been adopted by many universities due to its convenience for administrators,
logistics and cheaper costs. He rejects the idea that ESP is a service to provide remedial
exercises to students who come to universities with a deficit of literacy skills. He
believes that such a move is a backward step from ESP to general English teaching. The
assumption here is that the study skills model may only work under certain
circumstances in which there is a need to teach general English but not anything that
encompasses writing in specific disciplines.
The study skills approach remains as a common approach in many universities.
Gettinger and Seibert (2002) suggest that good study skills can contribute to academic
competence. They state that study skills, which include competencies related to
acquiring, recording, organising, synthesising, remembering and using information,
contribute to success not just in academic settings but in non-academic settings as well.
Gustafsson (2011), in his paper discussing academic literacies as frameworks for
facilitating language for specific purposes (LSP), highlights the need to design
interventions that are skills-oriented in some situations to add the skills level to the
students’ development of LSP. His view is more flexible compared to how Hyland
(2002) sees the study skills approach in addressing a specific purpose in teaching
English. In addition, Durkin and Main (2002) reveal the effectiveness of a discipline-
based study skills course compared to a generic study skills course for undergraduate
students. However, even though they have come up with an effective approach to a
study skills course, they also note “a gap between lecturers’ expectations and the
assessment criteria, and the students’ awareness and understanding of these” (p. 37) –
something that the academic literacies approach addresses in its model.
In the context of EAP, the study skills model is associated with the EGAP
approach, where the focus of the course is to enable students to see the relationship
between skills and their studies. I see this as possibly limiting the students’
opportunities for optimum learning, as the model does not directly address students’
disciplinary writing (Hyland, 2002). Students are provided with skills that are supposed
to be transferable to other contexts and contribute to their communicative competence.
The nature of the skills is general and common to all disciplines.
2.5.2 The academic socialisation model.

As shown in Figure 3, the academic socialisation model or approach brings the
cultural context into perspective. It is different from the study skills model as it
integrates language, user and context (Hyland, 2006). In anthropology, socialisation is
also known as enculturation, and it refers to “the process by which an individual
acquires the norms, values, and behaviours of the group. In other words, socialization is
the development of an initial worldview” (Reynolds, 1992, pp. 637-638). The
worldview of people involves interpreting and relating reality and events to the world
around them (Peoples & Bailey, 2012). Reynolds (1992) explains that this worldview
consists of seven integrated cognitive categories: self; other; relationship of self to
other; time; space; causality; and classification. She states that once initial socialisation
begins in a group of people, “succeeding socialization experiences assume a congruence
between the individual’s world view and that of the new group” (p. 638).
While acknowledging study skills, the academic socialisation approach mainly
focuses on student orientation to learning and how they interpret learning tasks and
acculturation into academic discourse. Acculturation is an important key idea in the
academic socialisation model. Acculturation, according to Reynolds (1992), is “a
process that assumes initial differences in worldview between the individual and the
group” (p. 638). She further explains that acculturation involves individuals’ strategies
to cope with minority status in a new culture. Winthrop (1991) defines acculturation as
the change of culture resulting from contact between members of societies. In the
45
context of academic socialisation, students are introduced to the culture of the academy
or the institution.
In the context of ESP, Basturkmen (2006) discusses Schumann’s (1986) idea of
the correlation between acculturation and successful second-language learning.
According to Schumann, there are four factors which can impact on acculturation and
successful learning. The first one is power relations between two groups. A learner is
likely to acquire the language of a group that he or she sees as dominant, for example in
terms of the economic status. The second factor is the desire to assimilate. A learner is
likely to acquire the language of a group he or she wishes to integrate with. The third
one is the extent of shared facilities. A learner is likely to acquire the language of a
group they share facilities with. The last factor is psychological. A learner is likely to
acquire a language if he or she is familiar with the language and the culture of the
language speakers. Thus, socialisation is a key idea here for students to succeed in
second-language learning.
According to Lea and Street (1998), from the academic socialisation
perspective, the tutor is expected to “induct students into a new ‘culture’, that of the
academy” (p. 159). By interacting with the members in the new community of the
institution, the students immerse themselves in the new culture and acquire the cultural
knowledge of the community. Furthermore, the academic socialisation approach also
recognises the use of different genres and discourses by different disciplines to
construct knowledge. On the other hand, even though the approach involves culture as
part of the students’ learning process, Lea and Street (1998) criticise this as the
academic socialisation approach “appears to assume that the academy is a relatively
homogeneous culture, whose norms and practices have simply to be learnt to provide
access to the whole institution” (p. 159). This is one of the notions that they took on
when they distinguished the academic socialisation model from the academic literacies
model.
Duff (2010) discusses academic socialisation in the context of socialisation in

academic discourse. Seeing academic discourse as the same as academic language or
academic literacies, she refers to it as “forms of oral and written language and
communication – genres, registers, graphics, linguistic structures, interactional patterns
– that are privileged, expected, cultivated, conventionalized, or ritualized, and,
therefore, usually evaluated by instructors, institutions, editors, and others in
educational and professional contexts” (p. 175). In her explanation of socialisation in
academic discourse, she states that socialisation in academic discourse addresses the
following questions:
• How do newcomers to an academic culture learn how to participate successfully
in the oral and written discourse and related practices of that discourse
community?
• How are they socialized, explicitly or implicitly, into these local discursive
practices?
• How does interaction with their peers, instructors, tutors, and others facilitate the
process of gaining expertise, confidence, and a sense of authority over those
practices over time?
(p. 169)
From a language socialisation perspective, new learners in an academic discourse
community gain cultural knowledge about ideologies, identities and practices of the
community members. This happens through interactions between the new learners with
other community members. Duff (2010) mentions that:
The core theoretical premise of language socialization is that language is learned
through interactions with others who are more proficient in the language and its
cultural practices and who provide novices explicit and (or) implicit mentoring
or evidence about normative, appropriate uses of the language, and of the
worldviews, ideologies, values, and identities of community members. (p. 172)
According to Morita (2004) and Yang and Badger (2015), there are two
orientations used by scholars to study how second language learners are socialised into
academic discourse. The first one is a product-oriented approach. In this approach, the
focus is on identifying the learners’ needs according to the language events or situations
in which students participate for the related skills or knowledge. Needs analysis and
genre analysis are common types of a product-oriented research (Morita, 2004). The
second approach is a process-oriented approach. It focuses on interactions and how the
47
students understand these interactions (Yang & Badger, 2015). In other words, it “asks
how students are socialized” (Morita, 2004, p. 574). Yang and Badger (2015) in their
comparison of product and process approaches conclude that “product approaches
provide useful descriptions of what students need to be able to do but we need to draw
on process approaches to understand how students might become members of a new
community” (p. 442). They explain that the students negotiate their identities during the
interactions, and this later leads to the process of acculturation. The process-oriented
approach presented by Morita and Yang and Badger is the essence of the language
socialisation perspective in Duff (2010), where the focus is on the acculturation process.
In addition, Lea and Street (2006) relate academic socialisation to “students’
acculturation into disciplinary and subject-based discourses and genres” (p. 369).
However, according to Lea (2004), the assumption that students can acculturate
“unproblematically into the academic culture through engaging with the discourses and
practices of established practitioners” (p. 741) is not shared by the academic literacies
approach. She argues that the relationship of students and the discourses and literacy
practices is more complex. In addition, it also takes into account the contested nature of
writing practices.
2.5.3 The academic literacies model.

Upon comparing the study skills and the academic socialisation models to the
academic literacies model, Lea and Street (2006) mention that the study skills and the
academic socialisation models have been the common guide for universities and schools
in their curriculum, instructions and research. However, despite believing that all three
models overlap each other, they claim that the third model, the academic literacies
model, not only draws on the skills and academic socialisation approaches, but pays
more attention to the “relationships of power, authority, meaning making, and identity
that are implicit in the use of literacy practices within specific institutional settings”
(Lea & Street, 2006, p. 370). This is because the academic literacies model does not see
literacy practices in just a disciplinary community; it also looks at how literacy practices
of the student’s institution are connected to what students need to learn and do. In the
academic literacies model, the institutions where learning takes place are sites of
discourse and power (Lea & Street, 1998). According to Lea and Street (2006):
The third model, academic literacies, is concerned with meaning making,
identity, power, and authority, and foregrounds the institutional nature of what
counts as knowledge in any particular academic context. It is similar in many
ways to the academic socialization model, except that it views the processes
involved in acquiring appropriate and effective uses of literacy as more
complex, dynamic, nuanced, situated, and involving both epistemological issues
and social processes, including power relations among people, institutions, and
social identities. (p. 369)
Hyland (2006) notes that the academic socialisation model and the academic
literacies model are similar in the sense that they both see language as discourse
practices – they see how language is used in particular contexts. However, the
difference is that, the academic literacies model “sees one of the most important
dimensions of these contexts as the participants’ experiences of them, and, more
critically, of the unequal power relations which help structure them” (p. 21).
The origins of the academic literacies approach have been presented by Russell,
Lea, Parker, Street and Donahue (2009). Before the 1990s, little attention was paid by
researchers to issues of student writing in the UK. However, by the early 1990s, an
increase in the number of students in higher learning institutions prompted the
establishment of study skills and ‘learning support’ centres to accommodate student
writing. The practitioners at that time were frustrated by the limitations of “simplistic
surface- and skill-based models of student writing” (p. 398), and they began looking for
more feasible and theorised explanations of the problems. This situation led to academic
literacies research in the last decade. During that time, work by Norman Fairclough on
critical linguistics and critical language awareness and the academic literacies approach
was also influential in the new higher education context.
In 1996, Brian Street’s publication on academic literacies associated his
perspectives with the New Literacy Studies (NLS). Earlier in 1984, Street had already
contributed to NLS when he distinguished between the autonomous and ideological
models of literacy. His argument was that,
49
whereas an autonomous model of literacy suggests that literacy is a

decontextualised skill, which once learned can be transferred with ease from one
context to another, the ideological model highlights the contextual and social
nature of literacy practices, and the relationship of power and authority which
are implicit in any literacy event. (Russell et al., 2009, p. 399)
According to NLS, writing and reading are contextualised social practices. However,
although there was some work at that time that conceptualised writing as contextualised
social practice, none of it made any reference to NLS or academic literacies. Only
gradually, the term ‘literacies’ came into use when the focus of the work was on student
writing as social practice and there was a recognition of a multiplicity of practices. Even
so, the use of the term ‘literacies’ was not to associate the work with the NLS
theoretical framework, but rather to show the focus on student writing rather than
spoken language (spoken language was associated with the term ‘discourse’ at that
time). Later in 1998, an article on a research by Mary R. Lea and Brian V. Street which
adopted the NLS methodological approach to examine students’ and tutors’
expectations of student writing proposed that the academic literacies model was able to
reveal the gaps between students’ and tutors’ expectations with regard to institutional
practices, power relations and identities. This was the trigger for the academic literacies
model to get more attention in higher education.
The academic literacies model recognises the institutions where learning,
discourse and power take place, and it acknowledges the “literacy demands of the
curriculum as involving a variety of communicative practices, including genres, fields
and disciplines” (Lea & Street, 1998, p. 159). Theoretically, the model is associated
with critical discourse analysis, systemic functional linguistics and cultural
anthropology. Critical discourse analysis (CDA) “brings the critical tradition of social
analysis into language studies and contributes to critical social analysis a particular
focus on discourse and on relations between discourse and other social elements (power
relations, ideologies, institutions, social identities, and so forth)” (Fairclough, 2012, p.
9). CDA sees language as social practice, and it also looks at the relationship between
language and power (Wodak & Meyer, 2001). Systemic functional linguistics (SFL) is
concerned with the relationship between language and its functions in social settings.
Generally, systemic linguists are interested in the relationship between language and
context, and the systemic approach is used to provide a useful descriptive and
interpretive framework for viewing language as a strategic, meaning-making resource
(Eggins, 1994). With regard to cultural anthropology, it is “the study of contemporary
and historically recent human societies and cultures” (Bailey & Peoples, 2014, p. 6). In
cultural anthropology, the main focus of study is culture.
Additionally, according to Lea and Street (1998), one of the main features of
academic literacy practices from a student’s perspective is the requirement to switch
practices between settings as well as use appropriate literacy practices to cope with the
social meanings and identities in each setting. They explain that this “emphasis on
identities and social meanings draws attention to deep affective and ideological conflicts
in such switching and use of the linguistic repertoire” (p. 159). In comparison to the
academic socialisation model, the students’ switching practices are one of the key
differences between the two models.
In their seminal article that outlines academic literacies as a framework to study
writing, Lea and Street (1998) described their research carried out to examine the
academic staff and students’ expectations and interpretations of undergraduate students’
written assignments. They used the academic literacies framework to interpret the data.
The research was done at two universities, which they identified as new and traditional
universities. Thirteen academic staff and 26 students were interviewed in the new
university, while ten academic staff and 21 students were interviewed in the older
university. The sample was not representative of the university populations; the research
used case studies to explore theoretical issues and generate questions for further study.
An ‘ethnographic style’ approach was used, and the data was collected from semi-
structured interviews, participant observation, samples of students’ writing, written
feedback on students’ work and handouts on essay writing.
The interviews were done to get the academic staff and students’ interpretations
of the requirements of student writing. The findings from the interview with staff
revealed that although they could describe the criteria for successful writing, they had
difficulties when asked to give explicit explanations of what a well-developed argument
should be in a written assignment. On the other hand, students also had problems
51
understanding what was really required of them in writing. Another area of difference
between tutors and students was their perceptions of the concept of plagiarism. In
addition, students also had problems interpreting feedback on their work, especially
with regard to modality. It was highlighted that the use of modality actually
demonstrated the authority of the tutors.
Three themes were identified from the study: the first one focused on students;
the second one focused on student-tutor interactions; and the third one focused on the
institution. The first theme suggested that students lack basic skills, which could be
addressed by a remedial course. There was an assumption that knowledge could be
transferred, and there was no consideration of the student interaction with institutional
practices. The second one was concerned with issues such as tutor feedback and
identity, which were identified from the interaction of student and tutor. The third theme
was on the implications of the institutional practices such as assessment and procedures
on student writing. In summary, Lea and Street (1998) found that the academic
literacies model from which they viewed the data suggested,
a more complex and contested interpretation in which the process of student
writing and tutor feedback are defined through implicit assumptions about what
constitutes valid knowledge within a particular context, and the relationships of
authority that exist around the communication of these assumptions. The nature
of this authority and the claims associated with it can be identified through both
formal, linguistic features of the writing involved and in the social and
institutional relationships associated with it. (p. 170)
In essence, tutors and students appeared to have different expectations and
interpretations with regard to student writing, and what makes it more complex is that
the tutors have different ways of viewing what constitutes a piece of good writing. The
gaps between academic staff expectations and student interpretations indicated by their
findings might explain problems in student writing, and this has also inspired me to
conduct my research. The fact that lecturers themselves are not sure of or have different
ideas about what a good piece of academic writing is has also been revealed by other
research (Harwood & Hadley, 2004).
Ken Hyland, in his plenary speech given at the Enhancing Learning Experience
in Higher Education international conference in 2010, discusses some aspects of
academic literacy and EAP. He challenges the idea that writing is exclusively related to
the more ‘serious’ aspects of university life like conducting research and teaching
students. He argues that “universities are ABOUT writing and that specialist forms of
academic literacy are at the heart of everything we do…it is central to constructing
knowledge, educating students and negotiating a professional academic career”
(Hyland, 2013b, p. 53). He claims that university writing causes difficulties for students
and that it is important to interview students to uncover their perceptions of writing
before making any overgeneralisations of their culture. Citing a model of writing which
separates language, writer and context, he argues that the implications of such a model
results in a single literacy – that there is only one kind of academic language which is
regarded as a bit more difficult than everyday language. He believes that this, in turn,
leads language centres to design courses that tend to be ‘voluntary’ rather than
‘compulsory’, general and isolated. He says, “English for Academic Purposes (EAP),
the practice of academic literacy instruction, thus becomes a kind of support mechanism
on the margins of academic work” (Hyland, 2013b, p. 58). Secondly, he also adds that if
we only look at academic writing as just an extension of everyday language, any writing
problems will be treated as a deficiency in the students. This will divert attention from
what the students actually need in their course to something ‘remedial’ in nature, which
means that we are not tackling the real problems in student writing. He remains critical
of the study skills model (subsection 2.5).
Therefore, he proposes the concept of ‘literacies as practices’ (‘literacies’ refers
to language use as something we do while interacting with people; ‘practices’ refers to
the notion that language activities are connected to everyday contexts) as a tool to
understand student writing in higher education as this will help us to “see that texts do
not exist in isolation but are part of the communicative routines of social communities”
(Hyland, 2013b, p. 59). Barton and Hamilton (1998) define literacy practices as “the
general cultural ways of utilising written language which people draw upon in their
lives. In the simplest sense literacy practices are what people do with literacy” (p. 6).
Hyland’s concept is in congruence with Lea and Street’s (1998, 2006) academic
53
literacies model which also sees literacies as social practices; a concept drawn from the
‘new literacy studies’ and discussed by Street (1984, 1995). To give a new perspective
to views on literacy practices across different cultures, Street (1984, 1995) argues
against the ‘autonomous’ model of literacy and proposes the ‘ideological’ model that
looks at the social nature of literacy practices. Street (1995) states,
I distinguished between an autonomous model of literacy, whose exponents
studied literacy in its technical aspects, independent of social context, and an
ideological model, employed by recent researchers whose concern has been to
see literacy practices as inextricably linked to cultural and power structures in a
given society. (p. 161)
He uses the term ‘ideological’ to reflect that literacy practices do not only involve
culture but also power structures. According to Lea (2004), the academic literacies
approach is related to the new literacies studies, which challenge the view that literacy
is about acquiring a certain set of cognitive skills that can be used without any problem
in any context. This is one of the main differences between the academic literacies
model and the academic socialisation model. Literacies are social and cultural practices
that vary depending on the context. Lea states that the academic literacies model has
been used in studies in the contexts of higher education and investigating the gaps
between teachers and students’ understanding of written assignments. These studies
have revealed students’ difficulties in writing, and have given information on the
relationship between texts, students, and practices in the writing process.
In the last two decades, the academic literacies approaches have been applied in
research in the UK and other places (Coffin & Donohue, 2012; Lillis, 2003). Wingate
(2012) acknowledges that academic writing “took a new direction when Academic
Literacies researchers begun in the 1990s to reveal the shortcomings of writing
instruction at UK universities” (p. 27). Furthermore, Wingate and Tribble (2012)
highlight the work by Lea and Street (1998) as “the first to expose the inadequacy of
academic writing instruction at UK universities” (p. 483). They also point out that the
academic literacies model or approach to student writing sees student problems in
writing “to be at the epistemological rather than the linguistic level, and often caused by
gaps between academic staff expectations and student interpretations of what is
involved in academic writing” (p. 483). In addition, Coffin and Donohue (2012) discuss
academic literacies as one of the approaches to EAP by comparing it with systemic
functional linguistics (SFL) approaches. Furthermore, Lea’s (2004) case study has
shown the implementation of the principles of course design based on the academic
literacies model. Lea’s study shows how a course design can adopt an academic
literacies model. In addition, Jacobs (2005) explores how academic literacies
practitioners and disciplinary specialists constructed their understandings of an
integrated academic literacy instruction into different disciplines.
On the other hand, Wingate (2012), despite acknowledging the usefulness of the
academic literacies model to move away from a study skills model towards a discipline-
embedded approach, argues that the academic literacies model has not resulted in
significant changes at the institutional level and has not developed any writing
pedagogy, thus limiting its impact on higher education policy. In addition, Wingate and
Tribble (2012) claim that the academic literacies approach has never proposed
pedagogical guidelines. Those who advocate an academic literacies approach have
criticised the focus on discipline-specific texts in EAP, but they only proposed a few
practical alternatives to the models they criticised.
In summary, although studies have been done on the academic literacies model,
the model still has not had a significant impact that could have possibly promoted it to
mainstream EAP. The following section will discuss the third controversy in EAP – the
pragmatic and critical perspectives.
2.6 EAP: Pragmatic and Critical Perspectives

Hyland (2006) has claimed that pragmatic and critical perspectives on EAP is a
central issue following the two controversies discussed earlier (see sections 2.4 and 2.5).
In the last two decades, the field of EAP has witnessed a rising number of debates
between advocates of pragmatic EAP and critical EAP in various contexts such as L2
writing, pedagogies and needs analysis. One of the early debates began after Santos
(1992) claimed that L2 writing should be characterised by pragmatism and should not
be ideological and political. She feels that it is easier and less problematic to be political
at the local level (L1 writing), but not at the international level (L2 writing).
55
This claim has brought about a series of discussions on pragmatism and criticality in
EAP (Allison, 1994, 1996; Belcher, 2006; Benesch, 1993, 2001b, 2009; Hyland, 2006;
Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002; Pennycook, 1997; Swales, 1997; Swales, Barks,
Ostermann, & Simpson, 2001).
Pragmatism is the mainstream movement or approach in EAP, applied
linguistics and L2 writing (Canagarajah, 2002; Santos, 2001). Santos (1992) asserts that
by taking the pragmatic stance, the pedagogic approach to ESL writing especially in
EAP should focus on preparing students to write their assignments. She adds that
“pursuing political goals and/or changing students’ sociopolitical consciousness is not
on the ESL writing agenda” (p. 9). Pragmatic EAP assumes that “students should
accommodate themselves to the demands of academic assignments, behaviours
expected in academic classes, and hierarchical arrangements within academic
institutions” (Benesch, 2001a, p. 41). In a pragmatic approach to EAP, students are
assisted to “fit unquestioningly into subordinate roles in their disciplines and courses”
(Hyland, 2006, p. 30). Teachers take an active role to decide basically on everything
about a course – the syllabus, the students’ tasks and the content delivery. Hyland adds
that one of the main objectives of this approach is “to empower learners by initiating
them into the ways of making meanings that are valued in their target courses and
disciplines” (p. 31). Developing learners’ academic communicative competence is also
emphasised in this approach. Nonetheless, the fact that teachers are the ones playing an
active role compared to students may be seen as limiting the students from exploring
their full role as learners.
Santos disagrees with the notion that L2 writing is ideological and political, a
theory associated with social constructivism and linked to a political ideology which is
Marxist in nature. According to Santos (2001), Marxism is a political ideology
associated with critical theory, which focuses on inequality and social injustice. Critical
theory places its main emphasis on power relations, power structures and
transformation, as stated by Santos (2001):
The aims and methods of critical theory are threefold: (a) To problematize every
dominant site in society (e.g., the legal and educational systems) and every
subject matter (e.g., literature and language studies) by exposing the unequal
power relations operating within them that marginalize and exclude subordinate
groups; (b) to contest the power structures of these sites and subjects through
challenge and resistance; and (c) to subvert and transform them through actions
that will effect a shift in power from the privileged and the powerful to those
groups struggling to gain a measure of control over their lives. (p. 175)
In contrast to pragmatic perspectives, social constructivists reject the view that
writing is an act of an individual mind trying to communicate a message, but see writing
as a social act that relates the individual with the society. This position is related to
critical theory and critical pedagogy (Pennycook, 1989). Santos (2001) states that
critical theory that has turned into practice is known as critical pedagogy, where schools
are regarded as sites of political struggle, educators as transformative agents, and
individual empowerment and social transformation as the education goals. In critical
pedagogy, a critical approach to second language teaching focuses on the relationships
between language learning and social change (Norton & Toohey, 2004). In the context
of EAP, Hyland (2006) mentions that critical EAP is responsible in helping students to
understand the power relations in their disciplines. Canagarajah (2002) shares his
critical perspectives in the context of critical writing. He defines the critical orientation
in writing from the following perspectives: (1) writing as situated – what we write will
not stop at the product but will reach others; (2) writing as social – it involves
unintended audience which shapes the text; (3) writing as material – it is not just a
mental activity but involves resources to write (stationery, access to publication, etc.);
(4) writing as ideological – writing is more than language and structure but it represents
reality and encompasses values; and (5) from writing as spatial to writing as historical –
writing can evolve though time. In brief, critical writing is a shift from “writing as an
object to writing as an activity” (Canagarajah, 2002, p. 6).
In response to Santos (1992), Benesch (1993), advocating a critical stance on
EAP, has argued that all forms of ESL instruction are ideological. Benesch labels
Santos’ view of avoidance of ideology in EAP as ‘accommodationist ideology’. She
remarks that pragmatic EAP does not actually avoid ideology as claimed, but embraces
accommodationist ideology to adapt students to the status quo. EAP is ideological
because education itself is political and never neutral, as there are always people who
57
get to decide what to teach, how to teach, who gets taught, where to teach, and what to
assess (Benesch, 2001b; Pennycook, 1989; Shor, 1992). In other words, absolute
neutrality does not exist; “everything is value ridden and ideological” (Canagarajah,
2002, p. 18). Pennycook asserts that whoever wishes to deny the political struggle at
school is clearly indicating an ideological position favouring the status quo.
Additionally, Benesch (1993) believes that pragmatic EAP that supports the status quo
is as political as critical EAP that questions the status quo.
Allison (1994, 1996) has challenged Benesch’s (1993) perceptions of how
pragmatic EAP views ideology. According to him, pragmatically inclined EAP writers
have not avoided ideological issues, but recognised the importance of value judgements
on ideological matters. EAP pragmatism, according to Allison (1996), is “seeking to fit
ESL students, and perhaps their teachers as well, into approved and unquestioned
subordinate roles in an educational status quo” (p. 85). In his argument, he characterises
pragmatic approaches as capable of achieving diverse educational and ideological goals
that might eventually promote change. On the other hand, Pennycook (1997) responds
to Allison’s (1996) defence of pragmatic EAP by arguing that pragmatism is an
ideology in itself, a view similar to Benesch’s. He claims that pragmatism in EAP is
inclined towards ‘vulgar pragmatism’ instead of ‘critical pragmatism’, the terms
introduced by Cherryholmes which suggest a position concerned with maintaining the
status quo for the former, and objecting to neutrality in EAP for the latter. According to
Cherryholmes (1988), vulgar pragmatism values functional efficiency; it is based on
“unreflective acceptance of explicit and implicit standards, conventions, rules, and
discourses-practices that we find around us” (p. 151). In brief, it accepts existing
institutional practices which have become the standard. Canagarajah (2002), in the
context of academic writing, argues that the pragmatic practitioners “adopt a normative
attitude to the knowledge of academic disciplines” (p. 130). In this attitude, EAP
practitioners encourage students to accept academic knowledge and use it in their
writing, and are not encouraged to question the knowledge with reference to their own
interests and experiences. Cherryholmes asserts that valuing efficiency without criticism
“often promotes the advantage of those who are already advantaged while rhetorically
claiming to aid those who are disadvantaged” (p. 152). On the other hand, critical
pragmatism “results when a sense of crisis is brought to our choices, when it is accepted
that our standards, beliefs, values, guiding texts, and discourses-practices themselves
require evaluation and reappraisal” (p. 151), as opposed to vulgar pragmatism which
keeps to traditional and conventional norms in its practices. Benesch (2001a) too
acknowledges that pragmatism needs to be ‘critical’ rather than ‘vulgar’. She sees that
EAP still has “a pragmatic function to perform” (p. 42) other than for academic and
social transformation.
Benesch (2001a) has further explored the concept of critical EAP in her book,
Critical English for Academic Purposes: Theory, Politics and Practice, by first
presenting the history of EAP that has left the impression that EAP is neutral, that it has
grown because of the demand by learners, and that learners want to learn it
unreservedly. Notwithstanding this traditional assumption, Benesch views this notion of
EAP as upholding the ideology of pragmatism with the interest to expand certain
political and economic interests. She proposes critical EAP to address the limitations of
traditional EAP.
The theoretical foundations of Benesch’s critical EAP have been influenced by
Paulo Freire and Michael Foucault, and also feminist writers such as Kathleen Weiler,
Carmen Luke and Jennifer Gore. Freire’s theory of hope in critical EAP rejects the idea
that “prevailing conditions are fixed and that students must unconditionally accept
requirements if they are to succeed in academic life and in the larger society” (Benesch,
2001a, p. 60). Additionally, critical EAP applies Foucault’s concepts of power to
understand power relations. Benesch explains that Foucault sees power “not as
something that dominant members of society have over subordinant members but,
rather, in terms of the relationship between power and resistance” (p. 54). Foucault
stresses that power and resistance coexist. In addition, Gore and other feminists seek to
create possibilities for equality by addressing power relations in the classroom and
creating awareness among students of the role of power in their lives (Benesch, 1999).
Feminist writers’ proposals of greater attention to multiple identities (e.g., race, gender,
ethnicity) and ‘situatedness’ of students’ and teachers’ subjectivities and histories are
also applied to refine critical pedagogy. ‘Situatedness’ and ‘dialogue’ are important
tenets in critical EAP. ‘Situatedness’ rejects the idea that “teachers should accept and
59
perpetuate externally imposed requirements of the local context” (Benesch, 2001a, p.

52). On the other hand, she states that students need to be taught to question and
challenge the teaching and learning process inside and outside the classroom as well.
She explains,
Education that ignores the condition of students’ lives and simply focuses on
transferring knowledge denies students their humanity. It refuses the challenge
of engaging in a teaching/learning process, called dialogue, in which both
teacher and student have opportunities to become more fully human. (p. 52)
With regard to ‘dialogue’, Benesch (2001a) believes that students should not just
be asked to give feedback on issues pertaining to methods and materials only, but they
should also be involved in curricular and pedagogical decision-making. According to
Freire (2003), “Without dialogue there is no communication, and without
communication there can be no true education” (pp. 92-93). Critical EAP lets teachers
and students “examine externally imposed demands and negotiate their responses to
them”, and offers “alternatives to unquestioning obedience, assuming that students have
the right to interrogate the demands they face” (Benesch, 2001a, p. 53).
Benesch (2001a) believes that a critical approach to EAP is necessary to allow
for a more “nuanced and dynamic relationship between target situations and students’
purposes, desires and aspirations” (p. 35). According to Benesch (2009), critical EAP
“considers hierarchical arrangements in the societies and institutions in which EAP
takes place, examining power relations and their reciprocal relationship to the various
players and materials involved” (p. 81). Furthermore, in Journal of English for
academic purposes special issue on critical EAP in 2009, Benesch discusses critical
EAP’s role in the globalising world and its contributions to research and pedagogy in
EAP. She sees globalisation as a conducive platform for social changes, and for critical
EAP to relate academic English to a larger sociopolitical context.
The issue of which approach to be advocated between pragmatic and critical
EAP has also been discussed (Belcher, 2006; Canagarajah, 2002; Hyland & Hamp-
Lyons, 2002; Hyland, 2006; Swales, 1997; Swales et al., 2001). Swales (1997) and
Swales et al. (2001) have taken rather a ‘middle-of-the-road’ stance in response to
pragmatic versus critical EAP, albeit being more inclined towards accommodationist or
pragmatic approach. Swales (1997) holds the view that “pragmatism is open to ideology
when ideology is salient – even though making any such judgement of salience is itself
a complex matter” (p. 375). Hyland and Hamp-Lyons (2002) raise a question of whether
EAP should develop academic discourse for effective participation in academic
communities, or provide students with ways to challenge the existing discourse. Hyland
(2006) states that one of the objectives of pragmatic EAP is to empower students by
introducing them to the ways of making meanings in their target courses and disciplines
to develop academic competence. Even though there is a risk of teachers limiting
students’ creativity and sacrificing their academic identities to the genres and discourses
in the academy, it has the “potential for helping students to reflect on and critique the
ways in which knowledge and information are organized and constructed in their
disciplines” (p. 31). In contrast, critical EAP encourages students to question the types
of activities that they do in class. Moreover, although pragmatists see meeting student
needs as empowering, critical EAP sees it as a form of domination or “the hold of
developed world on the less developed” (Belcher, 2006, p. 143). Hyland and Hamp-
Lyons (2002) and Hyland (2006) conclude that making the choice between pragmatic or
critical EAP requires more understanding of the real-world consequences of applying
the approach. This is especially directed at critical EAP, which is broadly theoretical
and requires classroom situated exploration, as EAP classrooms “are complex and
hostile to innovation and critique” (Hyland, 2006, p. 35). Hyland also raises a concern
over the inquiring attitude encouraged in critical EAP, as issues are more often raised by
teachers than students – giving the impression that the teachers are speaking for the
students instead of assisting the students to speak for themselves.
On a different note, critical EAP shares some similarities with the academic
literacies approach. Like Street (1995) who used the term ‘ideological’ to refer to
culture and power structures in literacy practices, Benesch (2001b) also describes
critical EAP as ideological as it examines power relations and hierarchical arrangements
in societies and institutions. This is also supported by Hyland (2006) who states that
critical approaches in EAP
share an orientation with the ‘academic literacies’ approach to EAP by
recognizing that there are various literacies, or sets of social communicative
61
practices, in everyday life and emphasizing how access to institutionally valued

literacies has the power to enhance or reduce people’s life chances. (p. 32)
In the context of the university where I work, it is pragmatic EAP that has been
adopted in the academic writing course (EAW). CELPAD has taken the role to decide
on the syllabus, the students’ tasks and the content delivery, and the students have to
accommodate themselves to the requirements of the research papers. I personally
believe that pragmatic EAP is effective to meet short-term needs of the institution, such
as providing necessary skills for students to write their assignments, playing its role as
accommodationist (Benesch, 1993). It seems to be a student-friendly approach, where
students only need to accept what have been decided for them and strive to meet the
course’s prescribed targets instead of spending time to think about issues surrounding
the course and addressing them. However, by not addressing issues like the political
issues in the curricular and pedagogical decision-making and the students’/lecturers’
voice in the course, we are limiting the opportunities especially for the students and also
lecturers to be conscious about optimising what students can learn. This is related to the
notion of situatedness and dialogue in critical EAP as discussed earlier (Benesch,
2001a) – to give opportunities for teachers and students to become more fully human.
The following subsection will discuss how critical EAP can be extended from a
theoretical position to a practical application.
2.6.1 Critical EAP: From theories to practice.

There is growing attention to critical EAP among EAP practitioners, as it has
become a topic of debates in the field of EAP. Hence, EAP practitioners have begun
publishing work related to critical EAP (Hamp-Lyons, 2011). Harwood and Hadley
(2004) compare the pragmatic EAP approach with the critical EAP approach, and
propose the critical pragmatic EAP approach to be applied pedagogically. The critical
pragmatic EAP approach is demonstrated by activities for postgraduate and research
students. According to them, pragmatic EAP is a skills-based approach that aims to give
students awareness of the dominant conventions in Anglo-American writing, also called
dominant discourses. International students are expected to adapt to the dominant
discourses of the academy, whereas when writing research papers, new researchers or
‘neophytes’ must just follow the rules, which can only be broken by experienced
researchers. On the other hand, the critical EAP approach condemns pragmatic EAP. It
claims that the pragmatic approach leads students to become passive and unquestioning
learners. By requiring students to just follow the academic conventions in dominant
discourses, students are just imitating their tutors’ discourse practices rather than
learning them. In addition, L2 researchers face discrimination when they want to
publish their work, as their manuscripts may not look appealing to the journal editors
compared to the ones produced by L1 researchers. This is because many journal editors,
who are North American or western European, have negative attitudes towards English
used by L2 researchers (Flowerdew, 2000, as cited in Harwood & Hadley, 2004).
Critical EAP also argues that academic discourse practices are not fixed but are socially
constructed and open to change.
Harwood and Hadley (2004) argue that critical EAP and pragmatic EAP can be
prescriptive, and call for the critical pragmatic EAP which combines the best of both.
They say,
Critical EAP can seem reactionary, pressuring students to deliberately flout
established practices without good reason. Pragmatic EAP, on the other hand,
can be seen as equally prescriptive as it appears to assume that every student can
and should conform to these established practices. We suggest that a Critical
Pragmatic pedagogy will combine the restive questioning of Critical EAP (while
avoiding its more reactionary elements), with the focus on dominant discourse
norms which a pragmatic approach stresses. (p. 366)
They have introduced corpus-based critical pragmatism, a proposed solution to the issue
of tension that arises when trying to distinguish writing conventions. They divide
writing conventions into two categories. The first category consists of the conventions
that students should not flout (e.g., ‘you must substantiate your argument’, ‘you must
not plagiarise’). The second category comprises conventions that students may be able
to flout (e.g., the use of personal pronoun ‘I’). To inform EAP teachers of the relevant
conventions in the disciplines, they suggest the use of corpus data to provide “at least a
degree of insight into the discourse practices of any discipline” (p. 368). They then
provide some pedagogical activities to show how this can be done.
63
Harwood and Hadley’s (2004) proposed alternative to the pedagogy in the

teaching of academic writing serves as a guide for EAP practitioners to consider using
corpora, for example in helping students to deal with the issue of identities in writing.
Morgan (2009) has discussed possibilities for EAP practitioners to apply the
theory in critical EAP in practice. He describes his efforts in promoting the conceptual
role of transformative practitioner in a language teacher education (LTE) programme
through an Issues Analysis Project (IAP), a group assignment for TESOL students.
Morgan first claims that EAP practitioners have usually been exposed to the conceptual
role of ‘technician’ – the language-support specialist. Another alternative role for them
is the role of a ‘reflective’ practitioner, which Morgan sees as limited to pragmatic
concerns. For example, EAP instructors make reflections on their efficiency of teaching
methods instead of the cultural biases of the methods. Morgan proposes that EAP
instructors should play the role of ‘transformative’ practitioner, a conceptual role
originating from critical EAP, and rejects the conceptual role of a technician as the only
professional role available for EAP instructors. Being a transformative practitioner,
EAP instructors should explore issues of ideology, power and inequality to promote
institutional change and social justice. In promoting this role to new teachers in LTE, he
asks some questions to reflect on why critical EAP and the role of transformative
practitioner have been insignificant in EAP. The questions and what he does with his
students to address the questions are summarised in Table 3.
Table 3. Questions for Critical EAP and Actions to Address the Questions
Questions Actions
1. Are the key texts that Increase the number of readings that combine theory
promote critical with practice and that describe teachers’ decision-
pedagogies inaccessible making process in taking up a transformative role
and over-theorized? within particular institutional constraints and course
responsibilities.
2. Do we inadvertently Consider the meanings students might produce around
promote pedagogies of provocative metaphors such as linguistic imperialism
despair and pessimism? and linguistic genocide. Also, provide texts that speak
to the many joys of language teaching and offer hope
and dialogue along with critical inquiry.
3. To what extent do we Include a number of readings in the socio-politics
exaggerate the capacity for course that offer a diversity of forms and ways of
teachers to become change doing transformative work in EAP and ESL settings.
agents?
4. Defining a transformative When sharing ideas about course content, present the
agenda for EAP: Towards critical perspective (and the transformative
what end and whose vision practitioner’s role) as an option, not as a requirement.
in pre-service LTE? Also, maintain a degree of ‘productive doubt’ around
prior beliefs in dialogic interactions with students.
Note: Morgan (2009, pp. 89-90)
The four questions in Table 3 are based on concerns and issues that might
discourage LTE students from adopting the role of transformative practitioner in EAP.
Morgan asserts that by reflecting on these questions, EAP instructors can move from
theory to practice in an LTE setting. Apart from the questions, he outlines six key
elements to create effective conditions to promote a transformative awareness in LTE:
A. Attention to situated constraints, institutional power relations;
B. Attention to textual patterns and cycles (sequencing/combination) of texts,
including talk about and around texts;
C. Attention to multimodal resources (digital, visual, print, gestures, spatial)
and their “affordances”;
D. Students as active meaning makers and not passive recipients
E. Teacher/Student identities as texts;
F. Critical/Transformative awareness as an emergent phenomenon, potentially
arising from the interaction of all the points above.
(Morgan, 2009, p. 91)
65
What Morgan has done here is translate Benesch’s (2001a) conceptual approach of
critical EAP to practical application for EAP practitioners. Point A emphasises the
values of juxtaposing needs analysis and rights analysis; needs analysis addresses
institutional academic requirements, whereas rights analysis looks at the socio-political
aspects of the requirements and possibilities for change. Points B and D highlight the
importance of creating opportunities for students to give their critical insights as
teachers conduct multiple readings and discussions of texts. The notion of ‘affordances’
in Point C means that critical EAP practitioners must realise that students should benefit
from the resources in the course, such as the EAP text, by being able to relate to them.
In addition, the use of multimodal resources engaging identities and meaning-making
can also contribute to creating a transformative awareness. Moreover, teachers’ and
students’ identities also can be used in transformative ways to become a textual resource
to strengthen course content and facilitate meaning-making (Point E). Finally, Point F
concludes that the awareness of these values may be raised from practising the rest of
the points. In other words, transformative or critical awareness is an emergent
phenomenon. Morgan’s questions in Table 3 and the six key elements are useful for
EAP practitioners to consider when practicing critical EAP in pedagogy. They can serve
as a guide for EAP teachers to become transformative practitioners to be able to explore
issues of ideology, power and inequality in their institutions.
Chun (2016) has shared his experience conducting an ethnographic EAP
classroom case study to examine critical pedagogies approach. His study aims at
bridging the gap between critical theories and actual classroom practices in the context
of TESOL classrooms. In collecting his data, he carried out classroom observations for
11 months, interviews with an EAP instructor and her students, research discussions
with the instructor, and curriculum material analysis. With a belief that dialogues
between critically oriented researchers and new practitioners are important to deal with
racialised discourses in the TESOL classroom, he looks at how an instructor addresses
racialised discourses in discussing an EAP textbook chapter with her students. Chun
asserts that racialised discourses need closer examination to address issues of cultures
and identities, power relations, and inequitable institutional arrangements. This is
because such discourses encompass the power dynamics of the people constructing and
defining racialised identities, and the people who are being defined. He raises questions
of whether such decisions can only be made by the text and/or the teacher, or whether
they can also come from the students. Critical pedagogies in addressing racialised
discourses may involve discussions on the privileged or omitted/ignored representations
in the society and the use of meaning-making resources (e.g., lexical and grammatical
choices) to show how social realities are presented. He believes that the use of critical
pedagogies can help create dialogic space for students to be able to construct meanings
in their own ways. In addition, a dialogical interaction between teachers and students
will achieve critical engagements with the texts.
Drawing on his study, Chun (2016) illustrates two approaches used by the
instructor with her students in addressing racialised multicultural discourses in an EAP
textbook chapter reading in two classroom lessons at a public university in Canada. He
wants to show how the instructor’s different approaches inhibited or aided interactions
with students. In the first lesson, the instructor asked her students to read a chapter of an
EAP textbook. However, the discussion that followed the chapter’s construction of a
hypothetical immigrant consumer named Jennifer Wong, and the students’ meaning-
making did not develop beyond succinct and often one-word replies. The type of replies
suggests that the approach, which frames the cultural identity of Jennifer Wong in static
ways, limited the class discussion. There was a lack of critical engagement with the
discourses, limiting the students’ opportunities to “exercise and develop their academic
language and literacy skills in having extended dialogues on culture, race, community,
and identities” (p. 126). On the other hand, before the second lesson, Chun had several
meetings with the instructor, during which the instructor shared her own racialised
experiences and related them to the chapter’s discourses. Drawing on this, her approach
in the second class was different. Chun stresses that the instructor’s second approach in
discussing the identity of Jennifer Wong shows “a move toward a critical, dialogic
approach in which the students were able to create more interrogative meanings
addressing the chapter’s representations of race and culture” (p. 127). The instructor’s
approach, which encourages reading against the text, led to an expanded meaning-
making among the students. Reflecting on this and relating it to his own transformations
as a critical EAP practitioner, Chun states that it is imperative that critical pedagogies
67
theories are made accessible and practical to practitioners, as some theorists do not
move from theoretical to practical contexts.
Harwood and Hadley (2004), Morgan (2009) and Chun (2016) have attempted
to extend critical EAP from a theoretical position to a practical application. Harwood
and Hadley describe how critical pragmatic EAP, a combination of critical and
pragmatic EAP, can be applied by using corpora in teaching academic writing. In
addition, Morgan’s study discusses how critical EAP can transform EAP practitioners to
be able to explore issues of ideology, power and inequality when practicing critical EAP
pedagogy. He uses Benesch’s (2001a) conceptual approach of critical EAP and
translates it into questions and six key elements which can be referred to by EAP
practitioners. Moreover, Chun demonstrates how critical theories can be applied in
actual classroom practices by illustrating two approaches used by an instructor with her
students in addressing racialised multicultural discourses in an EAP textbook chapter.
Their studies suggest that critical EAP is getting acknowledged by researchers as having
the potential to play a significant role in the field of EAP. However, what they offer is
far from sufficient to claim that critical EAP is as popular as the traditional or pragmatic
approach in the field of EAP. What the studies demonstrated is just a step towards
cementing the critical approach as an established practice, which is currently dominated
by the approaches discussed earlier – the EGAP, study skills and pragmatic models of
EAP. This scenario can also be related to the next subject of discussion – needs analysis
– which is another dominant influence in EAP.
2.7 EAP and Needs Analysis

The main subject in the conceptual framework in investigating academic writing
needs in this research is needs analysis (also NA). Needs analysis is a prominent feature
of an ESP/EAP course (Flowerdew, 2013; Jordan, 1997; Long, 2005; Robinson, 1991).
The following subsections will discuss its origins, importance, definitions, prominent
models, pragmatic and critical approaches in needs analysis, and some selected studies.
2.7.1 Origins and importance.
According to West (1994), the term ‘analysis of needs’ was first used in India in
the 1920s when Michael West introduced it to explain two concepts of ‘need’: what
learners have to do with the foreign language in the target situation; and how learners
could best master the target language. These concepts of need had not been used since
then until the term ‘need’ came back into use with the establishment of ESP. After
language teachers’ use of intuitive or informal analysis of students' needs, the concept
of a formal needs analysis was established in the 1970s, with Richterich and
Chancerel’s systems approach and Munby’s taxonomy of skills and functions becoming
the needs-analysis prototypes during that time (Benesch, 2001a). Benesch explained
that according to Jordan (1997), Richrerich and Chancerel’s systems approach was
sponsored by the Council of Europe and was based on ‘present situation analysis’ – an
ongoing assessment of a large number of variables comprising the learner, teacher,
institution, curriculum, assessment and the interaction among them. On the other hand,
Munby’s approach was based on ‘target situation analysis’, which focused on precourse
assessment of the skills required in future courses. His work, also known as Munby’s
Communicative Syllabus Design, had been recognised as vital in ESP course design
(West, 1994).
Generally, the process of ESP course design should start with identifying the
target situation and then conducting a thorough analysis of the linguistic features of the
situation (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). According to Chambers (1980), “ESP by its
nature is student-task oriented” (p. 25). Therefore, needs analysis is the first thing that
has to be done in an ESP course design to set the content and implement the course
(Benesch, 1999; Flowerdew, 2013; Long, 2005) and this concept of needs has remained
important in ESP (Basturkmen, 2006; Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Hyland, 2013c;
Munby, 1978; Robinson, 1991). The centrality of needs analysis in ESP/EAP has been
well documented (Benesch, 2001a; Serafini et al., 2015). Basturkmen (2006) illustrates
the importance of needs analysis by citing a common constraint in learning – time. She
writes: “As students in ESP classes often have restricted time to learn English, it makes
sense to teach them only the bits of English they need. Thus the task of the ESP course
developer is to identify the needs of the learner and design a course around them” (p.
69
18). Furthermore, Hyland (2006) states that needs analysis is important to form an idea
of learning goals related to the teachers’ values, beliefs and philosophies of teaching
and learning. Thus, needs analysis has a pivotal role in ensuring that an ESP course is
designed in the best way possible, taking into account problems that can be foreseen and
overcome, and matching learning outcomes with effective syllabus and pedagogy.
2.7.2 Definitions/concepts.
Needs analysis and related concepts (learner needs, needs assessment) have been
discussed and presented in the context of ESP/EAP in a number of prominent works
over several decades (Basturkmen, 2006; Benesch, 2001a; Brown, 2016; Chambers,
1980; Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Flowerdew, 2013; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987;
Hyland, 2006; Johns & Makalela, 2011; Long, 2005; Munby, 1978; Robinson, 1991;
West, 1994; Widdowson, 1983). Hence, the definition of needs analysis has evolved
and varies according to the period in which it is addressed. Widdowson (1983)
describes needs analysis by first giving the definition of ‘register analysis’ by Halliday,
McIntosh and Strevens (1964):
Registers…differ primarily in form…the crucial criteria of any given register are
to be found in its grammar and its lexis… It is by their formal properties that
registers are defined. If two samples of language activity from what, on non-
linguistic grounds, could be considered different situation-types show no
differences in grammar or lexis, they are assigned to one and the same register…
(pp. 88-89)
Describing the term ‘register analysis’ and ‘needs analysis’ as commonly understood
terms, Widdowson uses the term ‘needs analysis’ to refer to a method which
characterises language behaviour in terms of specific notions and functions. He explains
that ‘needs analysis’ can be carried out as a “straightforward register analysis, itemizing
the occurrence of formal linguistic features” (p. 29). His definition does not describe
specific criteria of how to conduct a needs analysis; it rather regards needs analysis as
register analysis.
Hutchinson and Waters (1987) relate ‘needs’ to ‘analysis’ by defining needs as
“the ability to comprehend and/or produce the linguistic features of the target situation”
(p. 54), and positioning it in relation to a few concepts of analysis, with a distinction
between ‘target needs’ (what learners need to do in the target situation – categorised as
‘necessities’, ‘lacks’ and ‘wants’) and ‘learning needs’ (what learners need to do to
learn) (see section 2.7.3.2 for fuller discussion).
In a different approach, Robinson (1991) differentiates the meaning of needs and
needs analysis. Using a few other scholars’ definitions of needs, she highlights that
needs can refer to: (1) what students have to be able to do at the completion of a
language course; (2) what the institution or society sees as suitable to be learnt from a
language course; (3) what needs to be done by the learners to really acquire the
language; (4) what the learners would like to get from the language programme; and (5)
what the learners do not know or cannot do in English – also referred to as ‘lacks’. She
refers to the concept of needs in needs analysis by using the terms ‘Target Situation
Analysis’ (TSA) and ‘Present Situation Analysis’ (PSA) (see section 2.7.3.3 for fuller
discussion).
Additionally, Dudley-Evans and St John (1998) describe needs analysis as “the
process of establishing the what and how of a course” (p. 121), and add another
accompanying component to it, referred to as ‘evaluation’ – “the process of establishing
the effectiveness (of the course)” (p. 121). They also add to the concept of TSA and
PSA by introducing LSA – Learning Situation Analysis – which refers to what learners
already know.
Here are two different ways to encapsulate the meaning of needs analysis: one
that is broad and multi-faceted by Hyland (2006); and the other by Brown (1995), which
is a combination of definitions he found in the literature (as cited in Brown, 2016).
Needs analysis refers to the techniques for collecting and assessing information
relevant to course design: it is the means of establishing the how and what of a
course. It is a continuous process, since we modify our teaching as we come to
learn more about our students, and in this way it actually shades into evaluation
– the means of establishing the effectiveness of a course. Needs is actually an
umbrella term that embraces many aspects, incorporating learners’ goals and
backgrounds, their language proficiencies, their reasons for taking the course,
71
their teaching and learning preferences, and the situations they will need to
communicate in. Needs can involve what learners know, don’t know or want to
know, and can be collected and analysed in a variety of ways. (Hyland, 2006, p.
73)
NA is the systematic collection and analysis of all subjective and objective

information necessary to define and validate defensible curriculum purposes that
satisfy the language learning requirements of students within the context of
particular institutions that influence the learning and teaching situation. (Brown,
1995, p. 36, as cited in Brown, 2016, p. 4)
To better understand needs analysis, Brown (2016) first looks at the meaning of
‘needs’ in needs analysis. He asserts that one of the problems in doing needs analysis is
because the word ‘needs’ has a number of different meanings – ‘wants’, ‘desires’,
‘necessities’, ‘lacks’, ‘gaps’, ‘expectations’, ‘motivations’, ‘deficiencies’,
‘requirements’, ‘requests’, ‘prerequisites’, ‘essentials’, ‘the next step’, and ‘x + 1’ (x is
what a student already knows, plus the next step, or 1). Chambers (1980) claims that the
term ‘need’ in needs analysis is ambiguous and imprecise, as it can refer to ‘necessities’
(e.g., Man needs water to live) and ‘desires’ (e.g., What I need is a long holiday
somewhere in the sun). In a similar vein, Benesch (2001a) describes ‘needs’ as a
psychological term (e.g., Students want something from an institution and can get it if
they follow the rules) and also has a biological connotation (i.e. basic human needs like
food and shelter).
Brown (2016) has made a clearer distinction of the various meanings by
classifying the different views of needs in ESP into four categories as presented in
Table 4.
Table 4. Four Viewpoints on Needs
Needs viewpoints Definition of needs Related synonyms

Democratic view Whatever elements of the ESP Wants; desires;
majorities of all stakeholder groups expectations; requests;
want motivations
Discrepancy view The difference or discrepancy between Deficiencies; lacks;
what they should be able to do in the gaps; requirements
ESP and what they currently can do
Analytic view Whatever elements of the ESP Next step; x + 1
students should learn next based on
SLA theory and experience
Diagnostic view Whatever elements of the ESP will Necessities; essentials;
cause harm if they are missing prerequisites
Note: Brown (2016, p. 14)
The first category, the democratic view of needs, is about ‘whatever the most
people want’. It has three benefits: (1) involvement of important groups of stakeholders;
(2) with more people, more good ideas can be gathered; and (3) knowing what people
think about the course at an early stage can lead to a successful curriculum. The second
category, the discrepancy view, is related to the idea ‘whatever is missing’. This
category also has three benefits: (1) it encourages early thoughts and formulation of
programme goals and learning outcomes (instructional objectives); (2) it promotes the
creation of targets and a sense of how far the students need to progress to achieve the
targets; and (3) it encourages the view that the whole ESP course is a single package –
the needs analysts’ involvement may be from the beginning till the end of the course.
The next category, the analytic view, conveys the idea of ‘whatever logically comes
next’. Brown (2016) views this understanding of needs as problematic because it
assumes that the people in the field are well-versed with the hierarchy of learning points
and the process in learning English. The final category is the diagnostic view, which
concerns ‘whatever will do most harm if missing’. It leads to investigations of ESP
situations that students are likely to encounter, anticipation of needs, prioritisation of
needs that are likely to have negative consequences if not met, and inclusion of less
important needs if there is enough time.
Brown (2016) also describes what the word ‘analysis’ means in needs analysis
in ESP. He lists 11 analysis strategies, which are ways of examining, investigating,
73
exploring and analysing information to identify the current needs for a defensible
curriculum in ESP. What each analysis strategy is, and the kind of information that it
examines are presented below:
1. Target-situation use analyses
• Analysis of what the students should be able to do in the ESP at the
end of instruction;
• To examine information on the language uses in the particular ESP
and exemplars of those language uses.
2. Target-situation linguistic analyses
• Analysis of what linguistic features the students will need to know
and use in the ESP;
• To examine information on the specific linguistic characteristics of
the ESP (e.g., vocabulary, discourse markers, pragmatics and genres)
in the exemplars gathered above.
3. Target-situation learning analyses
• Analysis of what the features of learning and continuing to learn are
in the ESP community;
• To examine information about the target information in terms of the
sorts of learning that students will need to do in target ESP situations
at various stages.
4. Present-situation analyses
• Analysis of what the students’ ESP abilities are at the beginning of
instruction;
• To examine information on what the students can do with the
language of the particular ESP at the outset of instruction (with
respect to target-situation use, linguistics, and/or learning) – using
tests or other observational techniques.
5. Gap analyses
• Analysis of what the disparities are between the students’ current
abilities and what they need to be able to do in the ESP;
• To examine information on the disparities between what the students
can do at the beginning and the end of instruction with regard to the
ESP – typically based on analysis of test scores or other
observational techniques.
6. Individual-differences analyses
• Analysis of what students’ individual preferences are with regard to
learning processes;
• To examine information on students’ individual preferences in
learning strategies, learning styles, error correction, group sizes,
amount of homework, and so forth.
7. Rights analyses
• Analysis of what the key power relationships are in the situation and
how they are resisted;
• To examine information on the ways power is exerted and resisted
within the ESP-teaching institution (in terms of teaching, materials,
curriculum decisions, governing rules, and so forth), between that
institution and other entities, or within the target ESP community.
8. Classroom-learning analyes
• Analysis of what the classroom-learning situation is or should be;
• To examine information on the selection and ordering of course
content, teaching methods and materials that will be used in learning
the ESP, and so forth (often requiring negotiations among
stakeholder groups).
9. Classroom-teaching analyses
• Analysis of what the classroom-teaching situation is or should be;
• To examine information on the selection and ordering of course
content, teaching methods and materials that will be used to teach the
ESP, and so forth from the teachers’ perspectives.
75
10. Means analyses

• Analysis of what the contextual constraints and strengths are;
• To examine information on the availability of funding, facilities,
equipment, materials, and other resources; cultural attitudes that
might affect instruction; and the teachers’ proficiency levels in
English, training, and teaching ability – all in terms of both
constraints and strengths.
11. Language audits
• Analysis of what global strategic language policies should be
adopted;
• To examine information aimed at regions (like the European
community), countries, companies, professional groups, and so forth,
such analyses typically ignore the needs of students in particular ESP
situations, but can nonetheless inform local ESP NAs.
(Brown, 2016, pp. 19-20)
This section has presented some definitions and concepts of needs analysis. To
put it in a simpler way, needs analysis is a continuous process of collecting information
to understand what a course requires before it is developed, and also to evaluate the
effectiveness of a course. Generally, it can be seen that the definitions have changed
from Widdowson’s (1983) to Hyland’s (2006). The earlier concepts of needs analysis
reflect the notion of target needs and present needs (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998;
Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Robinson, 1991). These concepts have been integrated in
many prominent models of needs analysis (e.g., Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Robinson,
1991). In a more recent definition by Hyland (2006), he adds the idea of evaluation
(needs analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of a course) to his definition.
On a different note, Brown (2016) has dissected the concepts of needs analysis
by breaking them into four viewpoints on needs (Table 4) and presented 11 analysis
strategies. Nonetheless, the scope of Brown’s discussion only represents the common
practice of needs analysis in EAP. Looking back at the subjects of controversies in EAP
that have been addressed in the earlier sections (EGAP and ESAP; study skills,
academic socialisation and academic literacies; pragmatic and critical perspectives on
EAP), it can be observed that EGAP, study skills and pragmatic EAP share some
similar notions (e.g., accommodating student needs with transferable language skills)
and have been described as being the most common approaches in EAP (see
Basturkmen, 2006; Hyland, 2002; Lea and Street, 2006; Santos, 2001). They can also be
related to most models of needs analysis. On the other hand, ESAP, academic literacies
and critical EAP are more associated with new ideas and controversies (e.g., discipline
specificity, power relations in socio-political contexts) (see Benesch, 2001b; Hyland,
2006, 2013a & 2013b; Street, 1995). Even though Brown mentions ‘rights analyses’
(which reflects the power issues in needs analysis) as one of the analysis strategies, he
has not discussed the concepts of power in needs analysis thoroughly or illustrated how
this type of needs analysis can be applied (see section 2.7.4 for discussion of rights
analysis). Addressing the critical approach in needs analysis is deemed necessary as it
addresses the concept of power which has been the focus in the recent development of
EAP. In other words, Brown’s discussions on needs analysis has overlooked the
importance of rights analysis as a critical approach to needs analysis, an area which is
starting to gain momentum in EAP.
2.7.3 Prominent models of needs analysis.

This section will describe three prominent models of needs analysis. The three
models are the Communication Needs Processor (CNP) by Munby (1978), the target
needs and learning needs by Hutchinson and Waters (1987), and the Target Situation
Analysis (TSA) and Present Situation Analysis (PSA) by Robinson (1991). These
models are selected because they have been influential and widely used in needs
analysis, and they also represent the needs analysis associated with the mainstream
approaches in EAP (e.g., EGAP and study skills models), as their main role is to collect
and analyse the information necessary to satisfy the language learning requirements
(Brown, 2016). These models indicate overlapping mechanisms and concepts in
identifying needs, and have been contributing to identifying needs for various purposes.
Nonetheless, there are criticisms of the models which have led to the establishment of a
new model in needs analysis – rights analysis.
77
2.7.3.1 Communication Needs Processor (CNP) - Munby (1978).

The Communication Needs Processor (CNP) is formed based on the concept of
language users’ competence and its relationship to knowledge and communication.
Drawing on some seminal works on the nature of competence and performance, Munby
looks mainly at Chomsky’s, Habermas’, Halliday’s and Hymes’ viewpoints to develop
the theoretical framework. The CNP sets two parameters to distinguish the variables
that affect communication needs: the ones which process non-linguistic data and the
other ones which provide data in the first place. The first ones are called the ‘a
posteriori’, and the second ones are called the ‘a priori’. The a priori parameters are:
purposive domain, setting, interaction, and instrumentality; whereas the a posteriori
parameters are: dialect, target level, communicative event, and communicative key.
The a priori parameters begin with ‘participant’ before they discuss the first
component (purposive domain). This is the input, which comprises a minimum amount
of potentially relevant information on identity (e.g., age, sex, nationality) and language
(e.g., target language, mother tongue, other languages). Next, ‘purposive domain’ is the
parameter where the type of ESP is first established (e.g., occupational, educational).
Then, ‘setting’ is the parameter involved in the physical setting (e.g., workplace, school)
and psychological setting (target language environments, e.g., culturally different,
unfamiliar) where the target language is needed. Moreover, ‘interaction’ is the
parameter where people with whom the participant has to communicate are identified
and the kind of relationships expected are predicted (e.g., subordinate-superior). Finally,
‘instrumentality’ is the variable used to identify constraints on the input in terms of the
medium (e.g., spoken or written), mode (text to be read or spoken) and channel (e.g.,
print or face-to-face) of communication.
The first a posteriori parameter is ‘dialect’. Considering the constraints, the input
can be processed for dialect (e.g., to differentiate whether the English is British or
American). Second, ‘target level’ is the stage where the participant’s target level of
command has to be highlighted to lead to the further stages of the CNP. Then,
‘communicative event’ is the variable associated with what the participant has to do
productively (e.g., seeking advice) or receptively (e.g., understanding diagrams).
‘Communicative key’, the last variable of the parameters, “is concerned with how (in
the sense of manner) one does the activities comprising an event (the what one does)”
(Munby, 1978, p.38). This variable focuses on the participant’s attitude and tone. For
example, the sentence ‘Take off your shoes’ is considered polite when spoken with a
high fall intonation in a doctor-patient interaction, but impolite in a shop assistant-
customer situation.
The CNP works at the pre-language stage in the specification of communicative
competence. Comprehensive data banks are one of its strengths since they can be used
as checklists for the syllabus produced (Robinson, 1991). Generally, this model is
effective in identifying target situation needs. However, the complexity of the model
seems to have too much focus on the steps in processing the non-linguistic data and the
provider of the data, and it does not include an in-depth look at the learners in relation
to their needs. It has also been criticised for “adopting a classification of language
derived from social English, when the language used in real-world ESP situations
differs from that predicted by some course designers” (West, 1994, as cited in Jasso-
Aguilar, 1999, p. 30). The data collected are about the learners, not from the learners
(Dehnad, Bagherzadeh, Bigdeli, Hatami & Hosseini, 2010). Furthermore, the issue of
practicality is also one of the main criticisms of CNP; its use can be time consuming
(Hutchinson & Waters, 1987).
2.7.3.2 Target needs and learning needs - Hutchinson and Waters (1987).
Hutchinson and Waters (1987) acknowledge John Munby’s Communication
Needs Processor (CNP) as a complete and widely recognised work on needs analysis to
discover target situation needs. Realising that there is much more to needs than the
linguistic features of the target situation in CNP, they initiate their work by first making
a distinction between ‘target needs’ and ‘learning needs’. In their seminal work English
for Specific Purposes: A Learning-Centred Approach, their description of their target
situation analysis framework begins with the introduction of the term ‘target needs’ –
explained in terms of ‘necessities’, ‘lacks’ and ‘wants’. ‘Necessities’ refers to what
learners have to know to function in the target situation effectively. ‘Lacks’, on the
other hand, refers to the gap between the learners’ existing proficiency and the target
proficiency, whereas ‘wants’ is what the learners view their needs as being. The outline
79
of a target situation analysis framework to get the information on target needs is shown
as below:
i) Why is the language needed?

• for study;
• for work;
• for training;
• for a combination of these;
• for some other purpose, e.g. status, examination, promotion.
ii) How will the language be used?

• medium: speaking, writing, reading etc.;
• channel: e.g. telephone, face to face;
• types of text or discourse: e.g. academic texts, lectures, informal conversations,
technical manuals, catalogues.
iii) What will the content areas be?

• subjects: e.g. medicine, biology, architecture, shipping, commerce, engineering;
• level: e.g. technician, craftsman, postgraduate, secondary school.
iv) Who will the learner use the language with?

• native speakers or non-native;
• level of knowledge of receiver: e.g. expert, layman, student;
• relationship: e.g. colleague, teacher, customer, superior, subordinate.
v) Where will the language be used?

• physical setting: e.g. office, lecture theatre, hotel, workshop, library;
• human context: e.g. alone, meetings, demonstrations, on telephone;
• linguistic context: e.g. in own country, abroad.
vi) When will the language be used?
• concurrently with the ESP course or subsequently;
• frequently, seldom, in small amounts, in large chunks.
(pp. 59-60)
After dealing with the issues of ‘target situation needs,’ and considering ‘necessities’,
‘lacks’ and ‘wants’ as a journey to reach them, Hutchinson and Waters continue to
address what they call as ‘learning needs’, or the route of the journey. The framework
which they use to analyse learning needs is:
i) Why are the learners taking the course?

• compulsory or optional;
• apparent need or not;
• Are status, money, promotion involved?
• What do learners think they will achieve?
• What is their attitude towards the ESP course? Do they want to improve their
English or do they resent the time they have to spend on it?
ii) How do the learners learn?

• What is their learning background?
• What is their concept of teaching and learning?
• What methodology will appeal to them?
• What sort of techniques are likely to bore / alienate them?
iii) What resources are available?

• number and professional competence of teachers;
• attitude of teachers to ESP;
• teachers’ knowledge of and attitude to the subject content;
• materials;
• aids;
81
• opportunities for out-of-class activities.
iv) Who are the learners?

• age / sex / nationality;
• What do they know already about English?
• What subject knowledge do they have?
• What are their interests?
• What is their socio-cultural background?
• What teaching styles are they used to?
• What is their attitude to English or to the cultures of the English-speaking
world?
v) Where will the ESP course take place?

• are the surroundings pleasant, dull, noisy, cold etc?
vi) When will the ESP course take place?

• time of day;
• every day / once a week;
• full-time / part-time;
• concurrent with need or pre-need.
(pp. 62-63)
According to Hutchinson and Waters, language use and language learning are both
essential in the analysis of target situation and learning needs, which they call a
learning-centred approach to needs analysis. Their model seems to be an improvement
of Munby’s CNP as they further define learners’ needs in two types: target needs and
learning needs.
2.7.3.3 TSA and PSA - Robinson (1991).

In her needs analysis aiming to establish learners’ needs at the end of a language
course, Robinson (1991) also used the term Target Situation Analysis (TSA) which was
first introduced and discussed by Chambers (1980). She also used John Munby’s
Communication Needs Processor (CNP), for her TSA, especially on the part which is
related to target-level performance, where the TSA complements it by highlighting the
stage where the activity reaches a ‘good enough’ competence. TSA requires information
related to two stages in the students’ lives: the English language requirements during the
stage where the students receive the training, and the stage where the students enter the
job world. For example, for the first stage, what is required for students to achieve the
learning objectives in a course is TSA, whereas for the second stage, TSA looks at what
the students need to have to do well in their work.
Present Situation Analysis (PSA) is a complement to TSA. It “seeks to establish
what the students are like at the start of their language course, investigating their
strengths and weaknesses” (p. 9). In other words, an analysis that identifies students’
problems can be classified as PSA. The basic sources of information can be the students
themselves, the language-teaching institutions, and the ‘user-institution’ (e.g., students’
workplace). Some issues with PSA and TSA are whether one should be carried out first
before the other, or whether they should be carried out simultaneously. These issues
notwithstanding, needs analysis can be regarded as a combination of both PSA and
TSA. The next section will discuss criticisms of needs analysis, and how they are
addressed by rights analysis, a critical model of needs analysis.
2.7.4 Critical needs analysis: Rights analysis - Benesch (2001a).

Looking at the models presented earlier, which have contributed to how needs
analysis has been done until now, it appears that Munby’s CNP has had a significant
influence upon others especially in terms of identifying the target needs. Although
changes and improvements have been made to other models of needs analysis, the
concept of ‘target needs’ is likely to continue as a core element in needs analysis.
Benesch (1996) mentions that by knowing students’ target English situations and using
this as the basis to inform ESP/EAP courses, teachers will be able to provide students
with the specific language they need.
There is no doubt that needs analysis has been an important component and will
remain relevant and significant in an ESP course, but despite its widespread use in the
83
world of ESP/EAP, it still sparks some issues and criticism that perhaps contribute to its
development as well.
Basturkmen (2006) in her book Ideas and Options in English for Specific
Purposes lists a number of issues and criticism of needs analysis. Some of them are:
• needs analysis may just serve the interest of an institution if the information is
based on expectations set by the institutions themselves;
• needs analysis may not elicit the actual needs from the learners as they may not
be a reliable source of information about their own needs;
• there may be a conflict between objective needs and subjective needs (e.g.,
engineering students may objectively need to write technical matters but want to
read topics of general interest; thus, using technical texts may be demotivating);
• discrepancy between language needs and learning needs;
• learners lack awareness and metalanguage to describe their needs meaningfully;
• learners may not be able to identify language use in specific situations due to the
unpredictability of the situations;
• the needs analysts face different perspectives of needs to consider in designing
ESP courses;
• designing courses based on needs analysis may lead to language training rather
than education. Instead of developing linguistic competence of the language,
learners are trained to perform a restricted repertoire of the language;
• needs analysis claims to be a neutral enterprise. However, institutions use it to
get others to conform to established communicative practices;
• theoretically, needs analysis is not neutral as different analysts may have
different aims in conducting their needs analyses.
(pp. 19-20)
These issues and criticisms so far have not depreciated the value of needs
analysis in ESP/EAP. In fact, they do not in any way suggest that needs analysis is no
longer relevant especially in designing ESP/EAP courses. However, all the stakeholders
involved should be sensitive to the needs of the course to “avoid repeating mistakes of
the past and reinventing the wheel” (Long, 2005, p. 2). In other words, if it is discovered
that the learners are not learning what they are supposed to learn especially towards the
end of the learning period, there might be a problem with how their needs are addressed
in the curriculum. Despite all of this, the fact that most models in needs analysis are
similar in nature calls for a need to tap into other potentials of needs analysis. In other
words, there is a need for a critical perspective to scrutinise the dominant practice in
EAP (Luke, 2004).
Benesch (1996, 1999, 2001a) has been critical of some concepts of needs
analysis in the existing models. First, she claims that Robinson’s (1991) model does not
address the political and subjective nature of needs analysis, even though Robinson does
acknowledge that needs analysis is influenced by “the ideological preconceptions of the
analysts” (Robinson, p. 7, as cited in Benesch, 1996). Furthermore, she argues about the
association of needs with target situation demands in needs analysis (Starfield, 2013).
Benesch (2001a) claims that this type of needs analysis only aims at fulfilling target
expectations without questioning them. Hutchinson and Waters’ (1987) model, despite
stressing the importance of a possible mismatch between institutional demands and
learners’ perceptions of their needs, does not formulate any notion that “target needs are
subject to criticism or change (Benesch, 2001a, p. 43). She observes that the taxonomies
of needs by ESP/EAP theorists such as ‘what the user-institution or society at large
regards as necessary’ and ‘what the learner needs to do to actually acquire the language’
are seen as unproblematic and neutral. There is no mention why the items are in the list
or why others are left out (Benesch, 1996). She believes that “taxonomies of needs not
only hide their ideological basis but also disregard the unequal social positions of the
different parties involved and the possible effects of such inequality on curriculum
development” (Benesch, 1996, p. 724). In the existing models of needs analysis, all
stakeholders are presented as being at the same level. This is something that requires
attention especially when the stakeholders are at different levels of the hierarchy, which
raises the issues of power. The issues of power need to be taken into consideration in
designing needs analysis. Some of these are highlighted by Benesch (1996) in her
questions,
Should students’ needs be subordinated to institutional requirements, or should
the institution give up some of its power? And how does one deal with cases in
85
which students are so assimilated into academic culture that they identify study
skills as their needs? Should one accept and be guided by this congruence
between students’ conceptualization of needs and institutional requirements or
instead be wary of it, suspecting the hegemonic influence of academic
traditions? (Benesch, 1996, p. 724)
All in all, Benesch (2001a) sees needs analysis in ESP as merely descriptive; it does not
address questions about unequal power in academia, sociopolitical issues and their
effects on curriculum, and social issues affecting students’ current academic lives such
as funding for education and job security. This is related to the pragmatic approach to
EAP, where the focus of instruction is for students to gain communicative competence
without involving political goals and changing students’ sociopolitical consciousness
(Santos, 1992). Benesch (2001a) views this traditional assumption as the notion that
EAP is neutral, which has developed due to demands by learners. On the other hand,
she sees EAP as ideological because education itself is political and never neutral, as
there are always people who get to make decisions on the content, pedagogy, students,
classroom and assessment (Benesch, 2001b; Pennycook, 1989; Shor, 1992). Thus, she
proposes a critical approach to EAP to address the limitations of traditional EAP, and
consider the opportunities for learners’ negotiation and resistance within and beyond the
classroom (Starfield, 2013).
Hence, Benesch (2001a), advocating a critical stance in EAP, argues for a
critical approach to target situations in needs analysis. She asserts, “the greatest strength
of EAP is its responsiveness to students’ reasons for studying English” (p. 51). She
seeks to join EAP and critical pedagogy to go “beyond pragmatic instrumentalism and a
limited notion of student success as fulfilling content class requirements” (Benesch,
2001a, p. 61). Benesch proposes the concept of critical needs analysis, which according
to her, is a reaction to the pragmatic stance of ESP/EAP, that “changing existing forms
is unrealistic whereas promoting them is practical” (Benesch, 1996, p. 736). Critical
needs analysis sees institutions as a hierarchy where the people at the bottom level are
entitled to more power; it looks for areas where “greater equality might be achieved”
(Benesch, 1996, p. 736).
In her critical needs analysis, Benesch (2001a) is not in favour of the term
‘needs’ in needs analysis. She sees the term ‘needs analysis’ as “inadequate for a
process fraught with ambiguity, struggle and contradiction” (Benesch, 2001a, p. 44).
Therefore, she has replaced the term ‘critical needs analysis’ with the term ‘rights
analysis’ to express how power relations are practised in educational decision-making.
Benesch’s notion of power in her rights analysis is guided by Foucault’s concept of
power. Foucault (1980) sees power as “always already there” (p. 141, as cited in
Benesch, 1999, p. 315), and “is multiple and pervasive, not localized in the State
apparatus” (p. 60, as cited in Benesch, 1999, p. 315). In other words, attention to details
is important in analysing power. Elements of space (e.g., studying the architecture of a
classroom) and time (e.g., studying how students’ days are organised) are taken into
consideration in Foucault’s methods for analysing power (Benesch, 2001a).
Addressing the aspect of power in needs analysis is necessary to balance the
descriptive nature of needs analysis with a critical approach to the target situation.
Although addressing target needs to set the purpose of instruction has been the
dominant worldview or ideology, juxtaposing needs analysis and rights analysis allows
for a two-way strategy to address target needs; needs analysis is to discover and fulfill
target goals, while rights analysis is for a “search of alternatives to strict adherence to
those requirements” (Benesch, 2001a, p. 45).
2.7.4.1 Rights analysis.

Benesch (2001a) perceives the term ‘needs’ as underscoring power relations in
academic settings with its psychological (e.g., students require what the institutions
want) and biological (e.g., basic human needs like food and shelter) connotations. On
the other hand, the term ‘rights’ in critical EAP highlights “life as contested, with
various players exercising power for different ends” (Benesch, 2001a, p. 63). She
asserts that rights analysis
recognizes the classroom as a site of struggle. It studies how power is exercised
and resisted in an academic setting, aiming to reveal how struggles for power
and control can be sources of democratic participation in life both in and outside
the classroom. (Benesch, 1999, p. 315)
87
She adds that rights analysis focuses on power relations and sees EAP students as
“potentially active participants rather than compliant subjects” (Benesch, 1999, p. 315).
Brown (2016) broadens the definitions by giving some examples. He says,
the analyses could additionally examine the power relationships between the
ESP teaching institution and other entities (perhaps examining ways the EST
program can effectively resist the insistence by the national ministry of
education that the program focus on TOEFL preparation), or indeed, the power
relationships in the target ESP community (perhaps studying how and why
engineers with MS degrees feel they are treated poorly by scientists with PhD
degrees). (p. 24)
In other words, students and other stakeholders in the institutional hierarchy
should not be seen as acquiescent parties who only accept their circumscribed roles
without being given the opportunities for interrogations to create democratic
possibilities (Benesch, 2001a; Canagarajah, 2002). Benesch (2001a) has discussed
power relations by referring to Foucault’s theory of power as a framework for studying
power and resistance in EAP. She mentions that the hierarchical concept in EAP
positions EAP teachers as lower-status members of the academic hierarchy, while
students are regarded as novices who must surrender to the requirements of the target
community. Therefore, the “relationships between teachers and students as well as those
between EAP teachers and other members of the academy can be analyzed in terms of
power” (p. 54). Foucault’s concepts of power challenge the traditional assumption that
students are powerless and passive recipients who have to accommodate themselves to
the requirements of the target communities. Nonetheless, power is not regarded in terms
of the relationships between a party dominating its subordinates, but is viewed in terms
of the relationships between power and resistance; “power and resistance coexist: there
are no relations of power without resistances” (Foucault, 1980, p. 148, as cited in
Benesch, 2001a, p. 54). In fact, Foucault places resistance as the counterpart to power.
Rather than looking at humans as objects of control, they should be seen as actively
engaged in the mechanisms of power. However, resistance does not “rule out human
susceptibility to regulation, and even self-regulation, when restrictions have been
internalized and no longer need to be externally enforced” (Benesch, 2001a, p. 55). In
other words, resistance in the event of power does not necessarily result in non-
compliance.
In the context of needs analysis, analysing power can provide an alternative to
the conceptions of the common role of EAP as a service provider to other disciplines,
“whose job is to prepare students to accept their circumscribed roles as consumers of
information and acquiescent workers” (Benesch, 2001a, p. 55). Additionally, in
Foucault’s theory of power, studying power is not just about identifying the heads or
administrators of an organisation. Instead, it should involve questioning how and why
decisions are made. Furthermore, Benesch mentions that due to the hierarchical nature
of an academic community, power can be analysed in the relationships between teachers
and students, as well as between EAP teachers and other members of the community.
In summary, what sets rights analysis apart from traditional needs analysis is the
focus on power relations in the model. In relation to needs analysis in the framework for
this study, I used Robinson’s (1991) model to first elicit the student present needs and
target needs (PSA and TSA), and applied Benesch’s (2001a) rights analysis as the lens
to uncover underlying elements of power relations from the interview data. In other
words, both pragmatic and critical approaches were used in this research. The pragmatic
approach was intended to investigate whether the EAW course meets the student needs
from different faculties, while the critical approach was to explore power relations
between the stakeholders in the course, as a step to address issues of power in the
hierarchical structure of my university.
The present study analysed student needs from the perspectives of the writing
lecturers (EAW lecturers), faculty lecturers and students. Since writing lecturers were
less likely to know their student needs pertaining to academic writing in their faculties,
they could only see their students’ problems in EAW and set expectations of what the
students would achieve from EAW. The analysis of students’ problems in EAW is PSA,
and what students would achieve from the EAW course is TSA. How they thought
EAW could fulfill students’ writing needs at their respective faculties is also regarded as
TSA. On the other hand, for the faculty lecturers, their student needs would be what
writing skills their students needed to have in their studies (PSA), and what they
expected the students to be able to do in academic language performance (TSA).
89
Finally, the students’ PSA would be the information on their problems, and TSA would
be what they hoped to achieve from the EAW course. With regard to rights analysis,
following Helmer (2013), rights analysis framework was used as the lens as I read the
data to investigate power relations – there was no rights analysis instrument per se. By
applying these two concepts of needs analysis, I hope to make my findings useful in that
they do not just identify the student academic writing needs in IIUM, but also uncover
the ideological nature of the EAW course.
2.7.5 Studies employing needs analysis.

Over the years, needs analysis has been conducted in numerous studies. It can be
said that the studies have either adopted the pragmatic approach (e.g., only identified
PSA or TSA) or the critical approach (e.g., addressed the political and subjective nature
of needs analysis). Fifteen studies in the context of EAP have been selected for this
review. The studies involved non-native speakers of English (NNS), or were done in the
context of second language writing (L2 writing) or English as a Second Language
(ESL). However, one study (i.e., Helmer, 2013) did not use the terms NNS, L2 writing,
or any similar terms. The study was done in a college in the northeast U.S.
Nevertheless, the majority of the students in her study were immigrants who had lived
there for only three to five years. Thus, this study was also chosen because of the
assumption that the context can be compared to the contexts of other studies which
involved NNS or L2 writing.
This section discusses the studies by Casanave and Hubbard (1992), Huang
(2010), Jenkins et al. (1993), Yildrim and Ilin (2009), and Zhu (2004), Sarudin, Zubairi
and Ali (2009), Eslami (2010), Akyel and Ozek (2010), Liu, Chang, Yang and Sun
(2011), Mehrdad (2012) and Abiri (2013), which reflect the pragmatic approach, and
the ones by Dehnad, Bagherzadeh, Bigdeli, Hatami and Hosseini (2010), Helmer
(2013), Noori (2015) and Khany and Tarlani-Aliabadi (2016), which advocate the
critical approach to needs analysis.
2.7.5.1 Studies employing the pragmatic approach.
This discussion consists of two parts. The first part will discuss the studies that
employed needs analysis for various purposes. On the other hand, the second part
comprises the studies that only focused on writing needs. The separation is to facilitate
comparisons since the present study also investigated academic writing needs.
Sarudin et al. (2009) conducted a study within the framework of pragmatic
needs analysis to investigate the English language problems in terms of speaking and
writing skills of engineering students at a public university in Malaysia. It was done as
part of a larger curriculum review to redesign English language courses to meet the
needs of the stakeholders. Prior to their study, the Malaysian Ministry of Higher
Education highlighted the need for a comprehensive review of ESP courses in
Malaysian universities due to a decline in the standard of English among Malaysian
students and graduates.
The research questions of the study were: “1. What are the problems of
engineering students in writing and speaking?; 2. What are the problems of engineering
students in writing and speaking from the lecturers’ point of view?; and 3. Is there a
difference between the perceptions of students and lecturers?” (p. 2). The study
employed survey questionnaires to elicit the data. The items in the questionnaires were
based on sub-skills in writing and speaking. The questionnaires were distributed to
students and English language lecturers at a technical university, where 612 students
and 36 lecturers responded to the survey.
In summary, both students and English language lecturers generally agreed that
students had problems in writing and speaking, specifically in vocabulary and grammar.
Additionally, students also had problems in using varied expressions and fluency in
speaking. The study recommended that the language course should include grammar to
be taught in context. Students should also be given more opportunities to be involved in
activities that promote rich vocabulary. Finally, it was also recommended that the
curriculum review should include the opinions of the stakeholders, especially the
students and the course instructors.
The need analysis done in this study employed the pragmatic approach, as it
describes the learners’ needs in terms of their present situation analysis (PSA) and target
91
situation analysis (TSA). It does not raise any possible issue with the institutional
hierarchy or power relations in analysing the student present needs. Identifying
students’ speaking and writing problems is important to establish what the students need
for their language course (Robinson, 1991). Even so, this study only used one
instrument, which is the questionnaire. The findings could have been improved if more
than one data collection method was used to identify the students’ problems. Even
though the study acknowledges the need to include various stakeholders in the
curriculum review, not addressing questions about power in academia, sociopolitical
issues and their effects on curriculum, and social issues affecting students’ academic
lives gives a limited notion of the students’ success (Benesch, 2001a).
Another needs analysis was conducted by Eslami (2010) to gauge students’ and
instructors’ perceptions of their language learning needs and to analyse the perception
of EAP learners from different related academic backgrounds. She introduced the
context of her study by describing EAP practice in Iran, which is mainly “adhoc,
lacking in course design, systematic needs analysis, teacher education, proper
evaluation and systematic research on the effectiveness of these programs” (p. 4). The
research questions of her study were: “1. What are the EAP instructors’ perceptions of
the importance of problematic areas in EAP classes?; 2. What are the EAP students’
perceptions of the importance of problematic areas in EAP class?; 3. Are there any
significant differences between the learners’ perceptions in different academic fields?;
and 4. Are there any significant differences between the learners’ perceptions and their
instructors?” (p. 3). She used only questionnaires as the instrument. Using
nonprobability sample designs or quota sampling, she administered the questionnaires
to 693 undergraduate students. A modified version of the questionnaire was also
administered to EAP instructors (number not mentioned).
The findings revealed that students in humanities and engineering perceived
having a low level of language proficiency as a significant problem compared to
students in medicine. The majority of humanities and engineering students believed that
they needed to increase their general proficiency in English. They perceived limited
vocabulary, slow reading speed, poor listening, speaking, writing and reading
comprehension, boring classes, access to the Internet, and instructors’ lack of emphasis
on the use of the Internet as their main problems. The study also discovered that
students preferred a learner-centred class and wanted more involvement in class
activities. In contrast, there was a difference between the instructors’ perceptions and
the students’ perceptions. The instructors perceived all the problems as more important
than how the students perceived them. The only thing that the instructors did not think
as highly important was the nature of the teacher-centred class. It was concluded that it
was important to know the exact needs of students in different academic fields so that
the instructors could prepare them effectively for the tasks and expectations that they
had. In her conclusion, Eslami (2010) acknowledged Benesch’s (1996) critical needs
analysis, as she believed that learners in Iran should be given more power and their
voices should be heard to effect changes.
Eslami’s (2010) needs analysis is similar to Sarudin et al.’s (2009) in terms of
methodology. Both studies employed only questionnaires and used students and
lecturers as their samples. However, Eslami’s study only identified the students’ present
needs/present situation analysis (PSA), compared to Sarudin et al.’s study that identified
the present needs/present situation analysis (PSA) and target needs/target situation
analysis (TSA). Nevertheless, Eslami compared students’ disciplines when looking at
the students’ problems. Even though she was aware of Benesch’s (1996) rights analysis,
her needs analysis was pragmatic in nature since she did not go beyond describing the
present needs to address the issue of power relations in the study context. On the other
hand, the fact that she acknowledges Benesch’s rights analysis shows that the critical
approach can be useful in addition to a needs analysis to further understand what the
students need.
Akyel and Ozek (2010) conducted a needs analysis while planning
improvements to the ELT curriculum of the preparatory school of an English medium
university in Istanbul, Turkey. Despite not mentioning ESP or EAP, their needs analysis
is regarded as a study within the scope of general EAP (Brown, 2016). It aimed at
getting a better understanding of the students’ academic language needs. The study
triangulated the use of semi-structured interviews with questionnaires to elicit
information on the importance and effective use of learning strategies related to four
language skills in ESL/EFL. The questionnaires were administered to 2328 students and
93
125 lecturers from different departments. For the interviews, 14 university professors
and nine students were randomly selected as participants. They carried out both
procedures at the same time. With regard to the four language skills, their findings
indicated that reading and listening were the skills deemed most important for academic
achievement by university instructors, in contrast to students’ choice of speaking and
listening. This shows a discrepancy between the instructors and the students’
perceptions of the student needs. In addition, even though most of the instructors and
the students agreed with the importance of student initiation in the activities and
frequent participation in the lessons, some students indicated that most of the lessons
were teacher-centred. In relation to learning strategies, it was revealed that students
needed encouragement to use effective language learning strategies. One of the
highlighted findings is that there was no emphasis on speaking skills by the preparatory
school, resulting in great difficulties among students especially in the first two years of
their studies. Some suggestions were as follows: (1) lessons should integrate language
skills and strategies identified in the study; (2) professional development activities
should be provided for instructors; (3) a portfolio system can be established to include
an oral expression component, which is not assessed in the proficiency examination;
and (4) students should be allowed to write ideas and outlines during the writing
examination.
The needs analysis done by Akyel and Ozek (2010) can also be regarded as
employing the pragmatic approach. The main difference between their needs analysis
from the ones by Sarudin et al. (2009) and Eslami (2010) is that their study conducted a
target situation analysis (TSA) only. Notwithstanding, their methods involved
triangulation of semi-structured interviews with questionnaires, which added validity to
the findings (Creswell, 2014). Their needs analysis can be regarded as descriptive since
TSA only identifies what students should be able to do at the end of a course (Brown,
2016). It only fulfills target expectations without questioning them (Benesch, 2001a).
Thus, similar to Sarudin et al.’s and Eslami’s, it can be regarded as a pragmatic needs
analysis instead of a critical one.
Using Hutchinson and Waters’ (1987) model which uses the terms ‘necessities’,
‘wants’ and ‘lacks’ to define needs, Liu et al. (2011) employed them in their
questionnaire to investigate EFL college students’ needs in English for General
Purposes (EGP) and English for Specific/Academic Purposes (ESP/EAP) at six
universities in Taiwan. They based their study on the findings from previous analyses of
learners’ needs in language class. Their research questions were: “1. What reasons were
given by the EFL students for their enrollment in EGP and ESP/EAP courses?; 2. What
particular needs (i.e., necessities, wants, and lacks) did the EFL students want the
courses to fill?; and 3. How are the EGP and ESP/EAP courses contrasted, as shown in
the student responses?” (p. 273). The study used questionnaires, which were
administered to 972 participants who were non-English major EFL students. The
findings revealed differences in perceptions of ‘necessities’, ‘wants’ and ‘lacks’ in
different language skills among the students, and also in their perceptions of needs as
compared to the courses they took. For the EGP course, the four types of language skills
(listening, speaking, reading and writing) were not perceived as equally necessary,
desirable and needed by the students. There were also discrepancies in some paired
language skills. For example, they perceived that they lacked listening skills more than
reading skills, but they considered them less necessary to master compared to reading
skills. Similarly, for the ESP/EAP course, the four types of language skills were not
perceived as equally necessary, desirable and needed by the students, and some
discrepancies were also recorded. For instance, speaking, despite being perceived as a
weaker skill, was rated as less necessary to master compared to reading. It was
concluded that the students had different perceptions of necessities, wants, and lacks
“not only in terms of the different language skills taught within, but also across, EGP or
ESP/EAP courses” (p. 277). One limitation highlighted from the study is the lack of
triangulation in the methods to get a more in-depth understanding of learner needs.
Hutchinson and Waters (1987) refer to ‘necessities’, ‘lacks’ and ‘wants’ as
‘target needs’. Therefore, like Akyel and Ozek (2010), this study uses a pragmatic
approach in its needs analysis as it only identifies students’ target needs/target situation
analysis (TSA) without questioning them or looking at power relations. Nonetheless,
Liu et al. (2011) only used questionnaires as its instrument, and students as the sample.
What they discovered here is limited to what the students shared in their responses to
the questionnaires; they could have benefited more from their study if the needs analysis
95
applied triangulation of methods and involved other stakeholders such as the lecturers.
As stated by Davis (1995), Greene and McClintock (1985), Serafini et al. (2015) and
Yin (2014), triangulation has been acknowledged as a useful way of ensuring research
credibility, reliability and validity.
In a similar study, Mehrdad (2012) investigated students’ conceptions of good
learning of English at a university in Iran. He conducted a needs analysis which reflects
two elements of Hutchinson and Waters’ (1987) model – ‘wants’ and ‘lacks’. The study
only used questionnaires as its instrument. The participants were 52 students from the
departments of Arts, Engineering, Humanities, Science and others. The students were
from different levels of studies – first year to senior level. During the study, the students
were taking a general English course as a pre-requisite to their ESP courses. Although
this was a general English course, Mehrdad asserted that according to Hutchinson and
Waters, there is no difference between conducting a needs analysis for a general English
course and an ESP course. The findings revealed that students showed a high preference
for reading and grammar. One interesting finding was that students also showed a
preference for a teacher-centred classroom. Mehrdad concluded that the findings that
showed students’ specific preferences (e.g., pronunciation, grammar and a teacher-
centred classroom) suggested that there was a need to improve the course syllabus.
Overall, most students expressed their wish to improve their reading and writing skills,
as well as vocabulary and grammar. On the other hand, he claimed that the existing
language course was not meeting their needs. Therefore, the need to revise the content
and syllabus was proposed.
Liu et al.’s (2011) and Mehrdad’s (2012) studies were similar because they both
specifically referred to Hutchinson and Waters (1987) as the model for the needs
analysis. In addition, they also used only questionnaires for data collection, and students
for their respondents. Generally, both of them applied the pragmatic approach in their
studies as they just investigated the students’ target needs/target situation analysis
(TSA). Although Mehrdad’s study was different since he mentioned some departments
indicating students’ disciplines in his study, he did not compare the student needs
according to their departments. The findings would have been improved if he had done
so, as Eslami (2010) highlighted the importance of knowing the exact needs of students
in different academic disciplines so that their expectations can be matched effectively
with the tasks in their course.
Finally, the study by Abiri (2013) employed needs analysis to identify
psychology students’ needs in an ESP course in five universities in Iran. The research
questions of the study were: “1. What are the specific English language needs of Iranian
psychology students?; 2. What types of content and class activities are appropriate for
psychology students?; and 3. What language sub-skills do psychology students need to
develop?” (p. 822). This study triangulated the methods of using questionnaires,
informal discussions with learners, interviews with teachers and observation of students.
It involved 278 students who were randomly selected from five universities. The
teachers who participated in the interviews were three language teachers and eight
subject specific teachers. The results of the study indicated that the majority of the
students considered reading comprehension as very important, with reading a text as the
most significant needed sub-skill. Writing was ranked as the second most important
skill. The students and the instructors also shared a similar view that the students lacked
English language proficiency to cope with the huge amount of reading they had to do in
their courses. Both students and instructors also perceived the students as lacking the
speaking skills for group discussions and presentations. In addition, most respondents
claimed students lacked the ability to use grammatical language even after they passed
their language course. It was suggested that the English course should provide students
with authentic academic language experiences.
Abiri (2013) employed the pragmatic approach in his needs analysis. He looked
at student target needs/target situation analysis (TSA). The findings described the
language skills that the students needed in order to excel in their course. However,
compared to the needs analyses in the studies discussed before, this study involved
more methods and stakeholders. It not only used students and teachers to elicit the
student needs, but also triangulated the methods by using questionnaires, informal
discussions with learners, interviews with teachers and observation of students.
Therefore, even though the needs analysis can be considered as descriptive and
pragmatic as it does not address questions about power relations (Benesch, 2001a), the
97
findings from triangulation of data can be regarded as credible, reliable and valid
(Davis, 1995; Greene and McClintock, 1985; Serafini et al., 2015; Yin, 2014).
In conclusion, all the studies reviewed mostly aimed at reviewing existing
courses at their institutions and/or to understand the needs of the students, in particular,
and other stakeholders, in general. All of them employed the pragmatic approach to
needs analysis, although there are some differences in the ways of how they were
carried out. First, in terms of the participants, Abiri (2013), Akyel and Ozek (2010),
Eslami (2010), and Sarudin et al. (2009) involved students and lecturers as participants
in their studies, compared to Liu et al. (2011) and Mehrdad (2012) who only used
students. Secondly, all studies used questionnaires, except for Akyel and Ozek, and
Abiri who added interviews as a way to elicit the data. Abiri also triangulated the
findings from questionnaires and interviews with the findings from informal discussions
with learners, and observations of students. Additionally, only Eslami looked at the
students’ disciplines in analysing the student needs. Finally, the only thing that all
studies have in common is that all of them investigated the present needs/present
situation analysis (PSA) or target needs/target situation analysis (TSA) of their
participants. As discussed earlier, target needs are the core element in needs analysis. In
fact, language skills have been the main focus of all target needs in all of the studies.
None of them addressed other issues such as power relations directly, except for Eslami
(2010) who indirectly touched on this in her conclusion that the Iranian learners’ voices
should be heard by the institutions. All of the needs analyses in the studies are
descriptive in nature; they only identified lists of needs (Benesch, 1996). The findings
were for the students to accommodate themselves to the demands of academic
assignments and for the institutions to provide targeted instruction to fulfill local
academic demands (Benesch, 2001a; Hyland, 2006). Hence, the approaches used in the
needs analysis in all the studies are considered pragmatic, not critical.
The second part of this discussion will look at studies that specifically
investigated writing needs. Casanave and Hubbard (1992) have conducted a survey to
examine writing needs and problems of first-year doctoral students who were native and
non-native speakers of English (NS and NNS). Questionnaires were distributed to
faculty in humanities, social sciences, and science and technology departments at
Stanford University. They wanted to know about the kind of writing the faculty
members require of their students, the criteria they use to evaluate students’ writing, and
the students’ writing problems. Overall, the results from 85 questionnaires suggested
that writing plays an important role. All faculty members believed that writing skills
became more and more important as students progressed through a graduate program. In
terms of the student needs, it is interesting to highlight that one of the findings revealed
that all faculty perceived global features of writing like quality of content and
development of ideas as more important than local features such as grammatical
accuracy and spelling. On the other hand, in terms of their students’ writing problems,
NNS were reported to have more problems than NS, which is not surprising. The
problems were mainly related to punctuation/spelling, grammatical accuracy and
appropriateness and vocabulary, but not so much at the discourse level.
This study employed the pragmatic approach because it did not investigate
power relations among the faculty members or look into any socio-political issues in the
faculty. It only looked at what the faculty required of the students, which can be
compared with the target needs/target situation analysis (TSA), and the students’
writing problems, hence the present needs/present situation analysis (PSA).
The study by Jenkins et al. (1993) also studied writing needs from the faculty
perspectives. Jenkins et al. carried out a study to investigate writing practices in
graduate engineering programmes and faculty attitudes about writing needs and the
importance of writing skills in the graduate programme and beyond. This can be related
to target situation analysis (TSA), which reflected the pragmatic approach in needs
analysis. The study was driven by some evidence that the engineering faculty was not
happy with their graduate students’ literacy. The study used questionnaires, which were
sent to the engineering faculty at Cornell, Drexel, Ohio University, Ohio State, Stanford
University and the University of Cincinnati. One of the main reasons why the schools
were chosen was due to the fact that they had a big number of students who were NNS.
They mailed 600 questionnaires and received 188 back, but only 176 were used for
analysis. The results indicated that firstly, the engineering faculty believed that writing
was more important for students to succeed after graduation than in the graduate
programme. In addition, there was a discrepancy in the standards used to evaluate the
99
writing of native and non-native students between the faculty. Finally, there was an
indication that there was a problem in terms of terminology in a dialogue between ESP
and engineering faculty, since ESP practitioners did not have the expertise in the
technical fields and the engineering faculty lack expertise in discourse analysis. They
further discussed this in the pedagogical implications section. They stated, “the
engineering faculty often seem to regard ESL faculty as ‘relatively untrained people’
who can correct syntax errors, but have little else to offer” (p. 63). In relation to this,
they believed that there should be cooperation between the ESL and the engineering
faculty.
Similarly, the study by Zhu (2004) explored faculty views on academic writing.
She conducted her study on academic writing and writing instruction at a public
research university in the Southeast of the United States. Interviews were done with 10
business and engineering professors. Both faculties placed a great emphasis on the
importance of writing. Nevertheless, the emphasis on writing in the academic
curriculum differed, which reflected differences in disciplinary cultures. The business
faculty recognised the importance of writing at the policy level and worked towards
integrating writing into their curriculum; on the other hand, the engineering faculty put
limited efforts into doing so. In addition, both faculties generally had two views on
academic writing and writing instruction. The first view represents the autonomous
view of literacy, which holds that in academic writing, generalisable writing skills can
be transferred across contexts and that writing instruction can be best delivered by
writing or language instructors. However, the second view holds that general writing
skills are the basis for the development of discipline-specific processes, but academic
writing involves specific disciplinary thought and communication processes. In terms of
writing instruction, they viewed content and writing instructors as sharing the same role
in developing academic writing skills of the students. Moreover, in terms of the nature
of academic literacy and faculty role in academic writing instruction, the findings
suggested that there is a need to teach discipline-specific writing in the EAP context.
Zhu’s study can also be regarded as a pragmatic needs analysis. It can be said that both
faculties indicated their needs in terms of the target needs/target needs analysis (TSA).
Overall, the needs analyses in the three studies above can be considered as
employing the pragmatic approach, as their findings can be classified as either the target
situation needs/target situation analysis (TSA) (Casanave & Hubbard, 1992; Jenkins et
al., 1993; Zhu, 2004) or the present situation needs/present situation analysis (PSA)
(Casanave & Hubbard, 1992). In terms of the findings, the faculties from all three
studies above acknowledge the importance of writing, but the emphasis is different. In
Casanave and Hubbard’s (1992) study, the faculty viewed writing as important as
students progressed through a graduate program, while in Jenkins et al.’s study (1993),
they placed the importance on writing for students to succeed after graduation. The
faculties in Zhu’s study (2004) differed in how they emphasised writing in their course;
the business faculty viewed writing as important to be integrated into their curriculum,
while the engineering faculty put limited efforts into doing so. In terms of methodology,
both Casanave and Hubbard, and Jenkins et al. used only questionnaires to obtain their
data, while Zhu used interviews. The fact that all studies only used one data collection
method can be seen as a weakness in their studies. Even though all of the findings may
be regarded as valid or trustworthy, applying multiple methods to triangulate the data
may strengthen the validity of the findings (Greene, Caracelli & Graham, 1989).
On the other hand, Huang’s (2010) and Yildrim and Ilin’s (2009) studies differ
from the ones by Casanave and Hubbard (1992), Jenkins et al. (1993) and Zhu (2004),
as they investigated academic writing needs from the perspectives of two groups of
stakeholders – writing instructors and students. The study by Huang assessed how
students of English as an additional language and instructors perceived language
learning needs for successful completion of their course, which can be related to the
target needs/target situation analysis (TSA), and examined the students’ competency in
the required skills, which reflects the present needs/present situation analysis (PSA). It
was done at a university in British Columbia, Canada, in which 432 students and 93
instructors responded to questionnaires aimed at getting information for the initial
development of EAP programs. Out of 432 students, 337 were undergraduate and 95
were postgraduate students.
The findings revealed that the skill items identified as ‘very important’
overlapped between graduate students and graduate instructors, and also between
101
undergraduate students and undergraduate instructors, suggesting that the students were
clear about the language skills deemed important by their instructors. On the other hand,
there was a huge difference between the students’ self-assessments and instructors’
assessments of their students’ skill status. Several implications from this study were
discussed. First, since the results revealed that students need help with their writing,
further studies need to be done to probe their needs. Second, the skills that the students
identified as important may not be the same as the ones that they perceived as needing
help with. Finally, there are three things that need to be considered when designing
instructional and pedagogical materials: (1) writing instruction should include skill
items identified as important by the students; (2) support services should continue to
focus on writing at different levels as most students revealed that they need support at
the discourse (e.g., organisation and development of ideas) and local (e.g., grammar,
phrasing, effective sentence structure, spelling and punctuation) levels of writing; and
(3) both graduate students and instructors identified content-related writing problems
such as using relevant support for a position, and disciplinary writing involving major
research papers, theses and journal articles as important.
Yildrim and Ilin (2009) have examined tutors’ and students’ conceptions of a
good research paper and whether there was any difference between the two groups. The
study was conducted in the department of English Language Teaching in a Turkish
university. First, 31 undergraduate students and five tutors were asked to write down
individual constructs of what a good research paper should consist of (TSA). Then, they
were interviewed to understand what each construct meant. The content analysis of the
students’ and tutors’ constructs showed that mechanics of research and writing are
important to produce a good research paper. In addition, most students also believed
that having the skills to conduct research is also important to be a good writer. In terms
of writing problems, the tutors pointed out that understanding and applying the concept
of research are two main problems faced by the students (PSA). However, even though
the students also perceived these problems to a certain extent, they were more
concerned about the feasibility of doing research. It can be said that generally, there is a
match between the students’ and tutors’ perceptions of a good research paper, but they
had different perceptions of the problems.
Yildrim and Ilin’s (2009) and Huang’s (2010) studies can also be considered as
employing the pragmatic approach in their needs analysis. This is because their studies
only conducted TSA and PSA, without examining any issues pertaining to power
relations or elements that a critical needs analysis would look at. With regard to their
findings, it can be said that Yildrim and Ilin’s (2009) findings are similar to Huang’s
(2010). Both studies indicate that generally, students and writing instructors share a lot
of similar views when it comes to writing needs. They find that both students and
writing instructors perceived the same types of writing skills as important. Nevertheless,
both studies also reveal some differences in students’ and instructors’ perceptions.
Huang found that students and instructors differed greatly in their assessment of the
students’ skill status, while Yildrim and Ilin found that although the students and their
instructors had the same perceptions of the students’ writing problems, the students
were more concerned about conducting their research. On a different note, even though
both studies are similar as they involved two groups of stakeholders in the writing
course, they used different methods; Huang used questionnaires, which is similar to
Casanave and Hubbard (1992) and Jenkins et al. (1993), while Yildrim and Ilin used
interviews and content analysis to elicit the data. Yildrim and Ilin’s use of two methods
allows them to triangulate more than one type of data to answer their research questions,
and adds credibility, reliability and validity to their research (Davis, 1995; Greene &
McClintock, 1985; Serafini, Lake & Long, 2015; Yin, 2014).
Additionally, it is interesting to note that Casanave and Hubbard (1992) suggest
that the quality of content and development of ideas is more important than local
features such as grammatical accuracy and spelling, which is in contrast to Huang
(2010) who highlights the importance of both. Casanave and Hubbard only get the
faculty members’ perspectives to elicit their students’ writing needs and problems in
their study while Huang, on the other hand, gets his information from two sources –
students and instructors. Although this cannot be used as a reason to justify the
difference, involving more than one stakeholder to study writing needs and problems
may contribute to getting a better picture of the situation being studied. In case studies,
Yin (2014) mentions that using many sources of evidence contributes to higher quality
than those that only used single source of information. Finally, Zhu’s (2004) findings
103
that the faculty viewed content and writing instructors as sharing the same role in
developing students’ academic writing skills is similar to Jenkins et al. (1993), who also
found that the faculty was receptive to the idea of collaboration between language and
faculty lecturers. On the other hand, there are no detailed explanations of how the two
parties can collaborate and have the same role in teaching academic writing.
In summary, the studies above show that academic writing was important among
the students (Casanave & Hubbard, 1992; Jenkins et al., 1993; Zhu, 2004) and writing
instructors and students shared similar and different views about student writing needs
(Yildrim & Ilin, 2009; Huang, 2010). On the other hand, some of the studies could have
yielded better results if more than one method had been used and more than one
stakeholder had been involved. In addition, more detailed explanations of the
pedagogical implications could have also helped EAP practitioners, for example in
terms of the collaboration between the faculty and the writing instructors.
2.7.5.2 Studies employing the critical approach.

Dehnad et al. (2010) carried out a needs analysis using the critical approach as
part of an attempt to revise the syllabi of ESP postgraduate courses in the Ministry of
Health in Iran. Before the study, they discovered from the documents in the ministry
that no formal research had been conducted on needs analysis for postgraduate courses.
On the other hand, it was the heads of educational departments who had determined the
educational needs, and this was done without involving the instructors and the students.
Thus, they conducted the study to make suggestions for changes in the course. They
referred to Benesch (1996) and Pennycook (1989) who stated that the critical approach
to needs analysis is both descriptive and transformative, which means that the findings
will provide information on student needs as well as suggestions for changes in the
content, materials and teaching methods.
The study was done at the Faculty of Management and Medical Information.
The instruments used were questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. All 56
postgraduate students at the faculty were asked to answer the questionnaires, whereas
interviews were done with the heads of departments, graduate students and a high-
ranking administrator at the Ministry of Health. The findings of the study indicated
some similarities and differences between students’ needs and the needs of other
stakeholders such as teachers and administrators at the institution. The students and ESP
teachers identified writing as the most important skill for the postgraduate students. In
contrast, the heads of departments chose reading as the most important skill. Policy
makers at the Ministry of Health, however, differed in their choice depending on the
disciplines. It was concluded that the differences between the students’ perceptions of
their needs and the instructions that they received could have been the cause of the low
quality learning and their lack of motivation.
In my opinion, even though Dehnad et al. (2010) claimed that their study
employed the critical approach to needs analysis, what they reported in their findings
only indicated the target needs/target situation analysis (TSA). They labelled their
findings as ‘descriptions of needs’, which were further divided into the stakeholders’
descriptions of student needs in terms of language skills, without any discussion on
issues of power relations or any elements in the critical needs analysis. Therefore, I
believe that this study may have employed the critical approach to needs analysis only
in theory, but not in practice. They may have identified the context for the critical
approach from how decision making was done at the higher level of the hierarchy,
which suggests the political aspect of education. On the other hand, the needs analysis
used multiple sources of data and involved various stakeholders, which adds validity
and credibility to the findings. They used questionnaires and semi-structured interviews,
and did not only involve students and teachers, but also heads of departments and an
administrator at the Ministry of Health.
In another study, using needs analysis and Benesch’s rights analysis, Helmer
(2013) used a critical EAP (CEAP) framework to assess an EAP writing programme at
a college in the northeast U.S. The aims of the study were to: re-evaluate the curriculum
and achievements of the EAP programme using a CEAP framework; find out students’
perceptions of their learning experiences and how they can be used to evaluate the
programme; explore insights of writing instructors, EAP faculty and students;
investigate how the institutional and/or administrative structures impact the curriculum;
and restructure the EAP programme and redesign the curriculum. She obtained the data
from classroom observations, semi-structured focus-group interviews (eight EAP
105
writing tutors), questionnaires (121 students and six EAP professors) and student-
writing portfolios. She did not create rights analysis instruments per se for the study.
However, when analysing the data, she discovered that the rights analysis framework
was suitable for her to understand the needs of the programme. Using this approach, she
discovered that restructuring the EAP programme’s organisational hierarchy should
have been prioritised over meeting student learning ‘gaps’ or ‘deficiencies’, as her
findings indicated that students’ ‘gaps’ were not necessarily caused by the students’
‘deficiencies’, but lack of programme cohesion, consistency and oversight – suggesting
programme neglect.
First, although she discovered that students from the lower levels acknowledged
that learning with their peers and getting support from their professors were helpful in
acquiring academic English, students in the highest level viewed learning the writing
skills (e.g., practice exams, grammar) as more important for them, as they were under
pressure to pass the university writing exam. This indicated that, apart from providing a
classroom environment with professor and peer support, the students’ needs of passing
the exam should have also been considered in redesigning the EAP curriculum. On the
other hand, she also discovered that, although the EAP programme was already more
than ten years old, there was a lack of coherence between the learning objectives, text
types and standardised assignments. Additionally, there was also a lack of cohesion
between EAP professors and writing tutors in terms of their teaching practice. These
showed that the EAP programme’s hierarchical structure required re-evaluation to
promote better communication and course cohesion. Helmer claimed that the use of
CEAP framework in her study (rights analysis) enabled her to address the root concerns
in re-evaluating the EAP writing programme. She then proposed strategic collaborations
between the EAP programme and the college’s First Year Experience, a programme that
organised learning communities and first-year seminars.
In contrast to Dehnad et al. (2010), Helmer (2013) has conducted a thorough
needs analysis (with triangulation of multiple methods), which was not only descriptive,
but also used a critical lens to understand the findings. The fact that she discovered that
the EAP programme’s hierarchical structure lacked communication and cohesion may
suggest elements of power which had been exercised by the stakeholders at the college.
I find it interesting that she prioritised addressing issues in the programme’s
organisational hierarchy instead of student needs, as this is something that is not usually
done in a traditional needs analysis. This also matches what Benesch (2001a) describes
as the difference between needs analysis and rights analysis – “needs analysis to
identify requirements and rights analysis to discover possible areas of change” (p. 61).
This is something that other EAP practitioners can emulate when conducting a needs
analysis.
Like Helmer (2013), Noori and Mazdayasna (2015) applied critical or rights
analysis alongside the descriptive needs analysis in their study. Noori and Mazdayasna
stated that, although needs analyses literature is abundant, critical needs analysis or
rights analysis is not getting much attention in EAP. They aimed to investigate power
and authority in the Iranian EAP institutional contexts and look for possibilities of
programme reform, student engagement and meeting stakeholders’ needs. The study
took place at the English Language and Literature departments of three universities in
Iran. The research questions were: “1. How is the unequal structure implicitly exercised
in the EAP Iranian situation through different institutional formats?; 2. How do the
Iranian EAP students resist and challenge the implicit academic inequities?; 3. What are
the suggestions for balancing the unequal structures in the academic context?” (p. 48).
They observed ten classes and interviewed students and lecturers. From their
observations, they discovered that the classroom seating positions limited the chances
for the students to face each other, causing student discussions to be difficult. Most
classes were teacher-fronted and there was hardly any discussion between the teachers
and the students. The majority of the students took a passive role in the class, even
though a small number of classes did have student presentations.
Furthermore, the data from the interviews revealed that most students were not
satisfied with the pre-academic EFL instruction, as they claimed that it was not
sufficient for them for further academic success. At pre-academic levels, they were also
not well informed about prospective academic majors. Moreover, they also complained
about the large class size and a wide variety of English proficiencies in the class,
making the low proficient students feel inferior when speaking English. Additionally,
many students reported that the audiovisual facilities were underutilised. The
107
instructional format, which was lecture-based, was also highlighted by many students as
a problem for them to stay focused during lectures. Many also expressed their
dissatisfaction over the large amount of materials to be memorised. Most of the students
hoped for the syllabus to be taught by content specialists in the future so that there is a
better control of what to learn. This also linked to another complaint about the number
of content specialists, which they regarded as insufficient. Finally, they were also
concerned about their future job prospects. The study also revealed long-standing
unequal relations and issues with authority in EAP pragrammes in the Iranian context.
The content specialists had instilled “a sense of professorial authority and hierarchical
status in the students, making them accept that the instructor is the best source of
knowledge from whom they can learn best” (p. 51). In the discussion, Noori and
Mazdayasna (2015) proposed a need to reform the hierarchical structure at the academic
institutions in Iran to effectively address the student needs, as there was evidence of
inequities and manifestation of power and control over the students by lecturers. Most
students were reluctant to challenge their lecturers and preferred to keep their questions
to themselves, except for some who expressed their dissatisfaction.
In comparison to Helmer (2013) who used a critical lens only when analysing
her data, Noori and Mazdayasna (2015) reflected a critical approach in their needs
analysis in their research questions. With their aim to investigate power and authority in
the Iranian EAP institutional contexts, they regarded the classroom as a site of struggle
and viewed the students as active participants rather than compliant subjects (Benesch,
1999). In my opinion, what they have conducted is a full rights analysis that addresses
the questions of students’ subordination to institutional requirements (Benesch, 1996).
Another study by Khany and Tarlani-Aliabadi (2016) was also done in the
Iranian context. While acknowledging a number of studies investigating foreign
language learning needs of Iranian EAP students, Khany and Tarlani-Aliabadi claimed
that there was hardly any research that studied whether students’ and teachers’ feedback
had been used for textbook selection, teaching methods, assessment and classroom
participation patterns. Thus, they wanted to know to what extent students’ and teachers’
suggestions and feedback informed the Iranian EAP curriculum. Their study was
informed by the critical EAP theory. First, a survey involving two groups of participants
was carried out. The first group comprised students who had passed at least one EAP
course; 200 responses were analysed. The second group consisted of 50 language
teachers. Secondly, 18 students from the first group and 10 teachers from the second
group were interviewed. The findings revealed that there was little or no interactions
among students, teachers and department officials regarding curriculum development
and classroom practices. Khany and Tarlani-Aliabadi stated that “there is currently an
unbalanced relationship between students, teachers and curriculum developers in that
students are seen as acquiescent recipients who are to enact rigorously imposed
requirements” (p. 83). Students were seen as passive and powerless with regard to
curricular and pedagogical decision-making. Guided by critical EAP, they suggested
some ways to improve the EAP course. Other than subsequent needs analysis, they
suggested that students, teachers and those involved in designing the curriculum should
consult one another in making decisions related to pedagogy. Students should also be
empowered through opportunities to ask questions and exercise power.
What Khany and Tarlani-Aliabadi (2016) have done in their study demonstrates
another example of the critical approach in needs analysis. Their study addresses what
Benesch (2001a) explains about the concept of dialogue in critical needs analysis,
Yet, because needs analysis in EAP is not critical, it is usually little more than an
accounting of academic requirements; and, because the instruction is not
dialogic, the traditional EAP teacher is mainly a conduit for efficient inculcation
of those requirements rather than an activist who could invite students to
question them. (p. 51)
Khany and Tarlani-Aliabadi’s study highlighted the importance of dialogue in a critical
EAP course by identifying the areas where students and teachers could consult one
another to enhance learning.
In conclusion, these studies have offered an alternative to the traditional or
pragmatic approach to needs analysis. Even though the one by Dehnad et al. (2010) may
be argued to not employ the critical approach, the rest of the studies have shown
different ways how critical needs analysis can be conducted. Helmer (2013) shows how
she used rights analysis as a lens to interpret her findings, while Noori and Mazdayasna
(2015) and Khany and Tarlani-Aliabadi (2016) employed rights analysis to investigate
109
power relations between students and teachers in an EAP course. In terms of

methodology, all studies used more than one method, which adds to the validity and
reliability of their findings (Davis, 1995; Greene and McClintock, 1985; Serafini et al.,
2015). Dehnad et al. and Khany and Tarlani-Aliabadi employed questionnaires and
interviews, while Noori and Mazdayasna conducted observations and interviews.
Helmer used multiple methods in her study, where she collected her data from
classroom observations, semi-structured focus-group interviews, questionnaires and
student-writing portfolios.
2.8 Aim of the Research

This research investigates academic writing with the aim to understand
academic writing in the context of student academic writing needs and the EAW course
in IIUM.
2.9 Research Questions

Three research questions have been developed for the research:
1. What are the EAW lecturers’, the faculty lecturers’, and students’ perceptions
of academic writing needs?
2. What are the EAW lecturers’, the EAW/ENGIN students’ and the EAW/HS
students’ perceptions of the EAW course?
2.1 What are the EAW lecturers’ perceptions of the EAW course in the context
of EGAP and ESAP?
2.2 What are the EAW lecturers’, the EAW/ENGIN students’ and the EAW/HS
students’ perceptions of the EAW course and student needs?
3. How do the EAW lecturers’, the faculty lecturers’, and students’ perceptions of
EAW indicate power relations?
The first research question (RQ 1) aims to identify the student academic writing
needs from the perspectives of the EAW lecturers, the faculty lecturers and the students
taking the EAW course in CELPAD, IIUM. In relation to the issues of the EAW
students’ needs and the effectiveness of the EAW course, the literature has shown that
needs analysis is useful to evaluate the effectiveness of a course (Brown, 2016; Hyland,
2006). The findings from RQ 1 are to provide the present study with what Robinson
(1991) categorises as the target needs (Target Situation Analysis or TSA) and the
present needs (Present Situation Analysis or PSA).
The second research question (RQ 2) focuses on the EAW lecturers and
students, the two stakeholders who were directly involved in the EAW course. There are
two subquestions under this research question. RQ 2.1 aims to get the EAW lecturers’
understanding of the EAW course with regard to EGAP and ESAP as two pedagogical
approaches in EAP. On the other hand, the aim of RQ 2.2 is to identify the extent to
which the EAW course meet student needs. This question was also addressed to the
EAW lecturers and students for their perspectives.
Finally, the third research question (RQ 3) aims to elicit power relations among
the stakeholders in the EAW course. Based on Foucault’s (1980) concept of power as
“always already there” (p. 141, as cited in Benesch, 1999, p. 315), the elements of
power relations could be identified using Benesch’s (2001a) rights analysis as the
critical lens to analyse the data in the study. The use of rights analysis was to discover
possible areas of change, while the use of needs analysis to answer RQ 1 and RQ 2 was
to identify the institutional requirements (Benesch, 2001a).
2.10 Conclusion
To conclude, this chapter has provided the theoretical context for the present
study. In order to set the subject of needs analysis in the context of academic writing in
EAP, the chapter has discussed the history and the developments in the EAP field,
followed by a discussion of academic writing in EAP. The discussion of three
controversies: the two approaches in EAP – EGAP and ESAP; the approaches in the
teaching of student writing – the study skills, academic socialisation and academic
literacies models; and the pragmatic and critical perspectives on EAP, is to show how
111
they are interconnected and interrelated, and how their concepts and ideologies are
related to needs analysis. The notion of universal skills versus specificity, discussed in
the EGAP and ESAP approaches, is extended in the study skills and academic literacies
models, while critical EAP shares an orientation with the academic literacies approach
(Hyland, 2006). In relation to this, the purpose of my study was to investigate the
student academic writing in IIUM, a public university in Malaysia. The framework of
the study comprises the subject of needs analysis in the context of academic writing,
discussed with reference to the pragmatic and critical approaches in EAP. This study
was guided by two approaches in needs analysis in its conceptual framework – needs
analysis (Robinson, 1991) and rights analysis (Benesch, 2001a).
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter begins with the discussion of the theoretical and philosophical
underpinnings related to the methodology of this study. The following section will be
the discussion of the research design, where a review of selected studies, the purpose
statement, and the mixed-method design will be presented. Next, the case which is the
focus of this study will be discussed. The following sections will be on the research site,
the research process, and the chapter conclusion.
3.2 Theoretical and Philosophical Underpinnings

Stake (1995) mentions that “case study research shares the burden of
clarifying descriptions and sophisticating interpretations” (p. 102). To begin with,
this case study was an intrinsic case study. According to Stake, an intrinsic case
study is a case study that is conducted due to the researcher’s interest in the case.
The purpose of the intrinsic case study is not to build a theory (although that can be
an option) or understand a generic phenomenon (Merriam, 2009). It is conducted to
understand a case because the case itself is of interest, and not because it represents
other cases or exemplifies a particular characteristic or problem. The decision to use
the students’ academic writing as the case for this study is because I was driven by
the experience during my time teaching the EAW course. Thus, I adopted case
study research in order to ‘clarify descriptions and sophisticate interpretations’ of
the phenomenon in focus. On the other hand, Duff (2008) asserts that conducting a
case study “for its own sake” (p. 101) is not an appropriate reason for higher
education research. It is also important to present proper issues, goals, relevant past
research and theoretical models. These have been addressed in the two previous
chapters. According to Merriam (2009), “a theoretical framework is the underlying
structure, the scaffolding or frame of your study” (p. 66). She also states that the
framework can come from “the concepts, terms, definitions, models, and theories of
113
a particular literature base and disciplinary orientation” (p. 67). With regard to
theories, the framework of my study was guided mainly by two theoretical
underpinnings: the pragmatic approach to needs analysis by Robinson (1991) and
the critical approach to needs analysis, or rights analysis, by Benesch (2001a).
Juxtaposing needs analysis and rights analysis enabled me to address target needs
concerning the students’ academic writing at their faculty, as well as identify issues
that might be the obstacles for students to achieve the needs (Benesch, 2001a). In
brief, the use of Robinson’s (1991) needs analysis was to capture the present needs
and target needs of the participants, whereas Benesch’s (2001a) rights analysis was
used to uncover underlying elements of power relations from the stakeholders’
perceptions of the student academic writing needs.
One of the most important methodological aspects in conducting research is the
research paradigm. Thomas Kuhn, in his 1962 seminal book The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions, introduced the concept of paradigms (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017; Morgan,
2007). The word paradigm, which he first used in the book, means a philosophical way
of thinking (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017), and has become a central concept in social
science research methodology (Morgan, 2007). Kivuna and Kuyini (2017) state that the
term paradigm in educational research is used to describe a researcher’s ‘worldview’,
which is the perspective or a set of shared beliefs that informs the meaning of research
data. With regard to methodology, determining the research paradigm means choosing
the philosophical stance as the lens which determines what research methods to use and
how the data will be analysed. On that note, positivism and constructivism are two
philosophical paradigms that have been a subject of discussions and debates among
researchers as to which paradigm to adopt for their research.
According to Merriam (2009), a “positivist orientation assumes that reality
exists “out there” and it is observable, stable, and measureable” (p. 8). It is an
epistemological position that has been associated with natural science, even though it is
argued that it is a mistake to treat positivism as synonymous with science, as even
philosophers of science disagree over the best way to characterise scientific practice
(Bryman, 2012). Positivism has been associated with quantitative research, and this
research paradigm has been labeled as the scientific method of investigation (Merriam,
2009; Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). As a scientific method, it looks at cause and effect
relationships in nature, and in its pure form, involves a process of experimentation used
to explore observations and answer questions; it encompasses the deductive approach,
formulation and testing of hypotheses and mathematical operations to generate
conclusions (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). It was noted that the term ‘positivist paradigm’
was used by those who challenged its application in social science research when
attention to qualitative research increased in the late 1970s (Morgan, 2007). At that
time, there was no commonly agreed term for the dominant paradigm in the social
science research methodology. It was the critics who labelled the existing dominant
approach as the ‘positivist paradigm’ and described what it was.
The most widely known work that created alternatives to positivism originated
from Egon Guba and Yvonna Lincoln, who developed “a system for comparing
different ‘paradigms’ in social science research through a familiar trilogy of concepts
from the philosophy of knowledge: ontology, epistemology, and methodology”
(Morgan, 2007, p. 57). According to Kivunja and Kuyini (2017), ontology is concerned
with the assumptions we make to believe that something makes sense or is real (i.e.,
what is reality?), whereas epistemology is used to describe how we come to know the
truth or reality (i.e., how do we know something?). Methodology refers to how we go
about to find out something, using well-planned research designs, methods, approaches
and procedures including data gathering, selection of participants and instruments, and
data analysis (i.e., how do we go about finding it out?).
Another element of a research paradigm is axiology. Axiology refers to the
ethics and values that researchers have to consider before conducting research (Kivunja
& Kuyini, 2017; Morgan, 2007). It is about considering issues such as the participants’
rights, confidentiality of data and other questions relating to ethics in conducting
research. It is important to note that although axiology is regarded as one of the
elements in a research paradigm, Morgan (2007) views it as not appropriately placed in
the philosophy of knowledge, but rather belonging to the branches of philosophy known
as ‘ethics’ and ‘aesthetics’. This is because it does not concern “the nature of reality or
the possibility of objective truth” (Morgan, 2007, p. 58). In other words, Morgan prefers
axiology to be used to consider values alongside issues of ontology, epistemology, and
115
methodology.
Guba and Lincoln, in their early comparisons of paradigms in 1985, compared
positivism with a competing paradigm they called “naturalistic inquiry,” which became
better known as constructivism or also known as interpretivism (Creswell, 2014;
Merriam, 2009; Morgan, 2007). Constructivism is an important paradigm from
qualitative researchers’ perspective. The central undertaking of constructivism or
interpretivism is to understand the subjective world of human experience (Guba &
Lincoln, 1989, as cited in Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). Creswell (2014) states that
constructivism believes that
individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work.
Individuals develop subjective meanings of their experiences – meanings
directed toward certain objects or things. These meanings are varied and
multiple, leading the researcher to look for the complexity of views rather than
narrowing meanings into a few categories or ideas. The goal of the research is to
rely as much as possible on the participants’ views of the situation being studied.
(p. 8)
According to Merriam (2009) and Stake (1995), it is a belief of many qualitative
researchers that reality or knowledge is constructed, not discovered; researchers
construct knowledge, not find it. Thus, it is important to understand and interpret the
viewpoint of the subjects being studied by ‘getting into their heads’, as the focus is on
the subjects’ understanding and their interpretation of the world around them (Kivunja
& Kuyini, 2017). According to Bogdan and Biklen (1989, as cited in Kivunja & Kuyini,
2017), the key principle of the interpretivism is that reality is socially constructed. In
other words, constructivism is a social construction of reality, and “there is no single,
observable reality. Rather, there are multiple realities, or interpretations, of a single
event” (Merriam, 2009, p. 8).
Another research paradigm advocates the use of mixed methods in its
methodology; it is known as the pragmatic paradigm. Kivunja and Kuyini (2017) state
that philosophers like Patton, Tashakkori and Teddlie have argued for the need for a
more practical approach that “could allow a combination of methods that in conjunction
could shed light on the actual behaviour of participants, the beliefs that stand behind
those behaviours and the consequences that are likely to follow from different
behaviours” (p. 35). Morgan (2007) notes that Guba and Lincoln and some strong
proponents of constructivism did not object to combining methods as long as the
paradigms are not combined, as they believed that “the most important aspects of
paradigm allegiances were ontological commitments, not the mundane use of research
methods” (p. 64). This suggests that researchers have the flexibility to use the methods
that they deem suitable for their research purposes. The pragmatic research paradigm
offers an alternative to researchers to apply a mixed-method design for their research.
Nevertheless, there are different types of the mixed-method design that researchers can
consider. A discussion on the mixed-method design is provided in section 3.3.4.
Merriam (2009) states that qualitative research should be grounded in a
particular philosophical position. In relation to my case study, I was mainly guided by
the philosophy of constructivism. Since my case study was about investigating student
academic writing needs, I viewed constructivism as an appropriate orientation for me to
interact with my qualitative data. The constructivist paradigm was used to understand
lecturers’ and students’ perceptions of student academic writing needs. They
constructed their knowledge or reality based on their individual experience in writing
and interpreted it based on their perceived understandings.
Additionally, having employed a quantitative method as part of the triangulation
process, I also adopted a pragmatic paradigm, which involved a method from the
positivist approach – a survey questionnaire. Greene and McClintock (1985) argued for
the appropriacy of positivism in relation to using questionnaires in a mixed-method
research as follows: “the positivist nature of the questionnaire component is reflected in
its intent to derive prescriptions for change from a deductive analysis of responses on a
predetermined set of specific variables” (p. 530). Morgan (2007) claims that the
appropriateness of methods is not something that is automatic; we have to decide what
is appropriate and important. The next section provides a thorough discussion of the
research design for this case study.
117
3.3 Research Design

Yin (2014) describes research designs as “the logical sequence that connects the
empirical data to a study’s initial research questions and, ultimately, to its conclusions”
(p. 28). The following subsections begin with an introduction, and are followed by a
discussion of needs analysis in case studies, the purpose statement and the
complementarity mixed-method design.
3.3.1 Introduction.
This case study employed a single-case (embedded) design (Yin, 2014). Before
the research design of this case study is explained in detail, this section will give a
description about case study research. Case study research has been used by many
researchers, and some of the prominent case study methodologists are Robert K. Yin,
Robert E. Stake and Sharon B. Merriam. These three renowned methodologists have
been writing about case study research as methodology since the 1980s (Merriam,
2009). Case studies are difficult to define because they vary in focus and research data
(McKay, 2006). There are a variety of definitions related to case study research in the
literature, but I only chose the ones that are related to the context of research in the field
of social sciences. Miles, Huberman and Saldaña (2014) define a case as a unit of
analysis – a “phenomenon of some sort occurring in a bounded context” (p. 28).
Merriam (2009) defines case study as “an in-depth description and analysis of a
bounded system” (p. 40), while Yin (2014), has a more elaborate definition. His
definition is twofold:
1. A case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary
phenomenon (the ‘case’) in depth and within its real-world context,
especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context may not
be clearly evident.
2. A case study inquiry copes with the technically distinctive situation in which
there will be many more variables of interest than data points, and as one
result relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to converge
in a triangulating fashion, and as another result benefits from the prior
development of theoretical positions to guide data collection and analysis.
(Yin, 2014, pp. 16-17)
Yin’s (2014) definition of case study addresses the issues of scope, data
collection and analysis strategies (Duff, 2008). Other than conveying the notion of in-
depth description and boundedness as reflected in Merriam’s (2009) definition, Yin’s
definition also includes the importance of triangulating the sources of evidence. In brief,
a case study is an empirical inquiry that takes a close-up look at a phenomenon within
its real-world context. Merriam concludes that “the single most defining characteristic
of case study research lies in delimiting the object of study, the case” (p. 40). In this
regard, a case “could be a single person who is a case example of some phenomenon, a
program, a group, an institution, a community, or a specific policy” (p. 40). Yin also
highlights the importance of defining the case and bounding the case. He mentions that
a case can involve small groups, communities, decisions, programmes, organisational
change, and specific events.
To further define the case study, Merriam (2009) lists three characteristics of
qualitative case studies: ‘particularistic’, ‘descriptive’ and ‘heuristic’. First,
‘particularistic’ refers to the focus of the case study – it can be on a particular situation,
event, program, or phenomenon. The second characteristic, ‘descriptive’, refers to the
final product of a case study, which should be a rich, thick description of the
phenomenon being studied. Finally, ‘heuristic’ means that a case study should enhance
the readers’ understanding of the phenomenon being studied.
Additionally, Yin (2014) lists five components which are important in a research
design: (1) a case study’s questions; (2) its propositions, if any; (3) its unit(s) of
analysis; (4) the logic linking the data to the propositions; and (5) the criteria for
interpreting findings. The questions usually asked in a case study are the ‘how’ and
‘why’ questions. However, research questions can also take other forms such as ‘what’
questions, as “some types of ‘what’ questions are exploratory” (p. 10). The
propositions, which are the second component of the case study research design, lead
towards the purpose of the study. The researcher can have the option whether to state
the propositions in their case study or not. Thirdly, another important component of the
case study research design is the unit(s) of analysis or the “case” being studied. As
discussed earlier, Yin stresses two steps that need to be considered for this component -
119
defining the case and bounding the case. A case can be individuals, communities,
decisions, programs, organisational change and specific events. Linking data to
propositions is the fourth component mentioned by Yin, and he lists five ways of doing
so: pattern matching, explanation building, time-series analysis, logic models, and
cross-case synthesis. All these are types of analysis which require combinations of case
study data to be a direct reflection of the case study proposition. Finally, the criteria for
interpreting the findings for a case study involves addressing rival explanations for the
findings. Yin argues that “the more rivals that have been addressed and rejected, the
stronger will be your findings” (p. 36).
3.3.2 Needs analysis in case studies.

This section will present some previous case studies done in the area of needs
analysis, with a focus on the methods they used. The selected studies were conducted
not in the context of EAP, but in the context of needs in the workplace; nonetheless,
they were chosen as they used case studies in their research designs to conduct needs
analysis, which is the main subject in my research framework. The studies served as a
methodological reference for this case study. Altogether there are three case studies that
will be discussed: the ones by Jasso-Aguilar (1999), Cowling (2007), and Spence and
Liu (2013).
Jasso-Aguilar (1999) conducted a case study at a hotel in Waikiki. Her
objectives were twofold. First, the main purpose was to compare several methods and
sources available in needs analysis. Second, using needs analysis, she wanted to identify
the tasks performed by the hotel maids to do their daily routine and the language
involved in the tasks. She conducted the needs analysis within the framework of needs
analysis for the workplace. She obtained her data from the human resources person, the
executive housekeeper, three housekeepers, various supervisors, a task force consisting
of people of different expertise (maintenance, security, housekeeping, front desk and
human resource) who had contact with the hotel maids, morning briefings where the
supervisors reminded the housekeepers about their duties and dealt with their issues,
and documents such as job and routine descriptions.
The methods that she used were participant observations, unstructured
interviews and questionnaires. From the study, she found that participant observations
were the most useful method. On the other hand, questionnaires gave very little
information on either language or tasks. She concluded that using multiple sources and
methods were valuable for identifying learners’ needs, and participant observations
were successful to familiarise the researcher with the tasks and language and identify
more valuable data sources. In addition, triangulation of methods enabled the researcher
to identify the most reliable sources. In the context of case study research, integrating
qualitative and quantitative data helps the researcher to get a holistic understanding of
the phenomenon being studied (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Additionally, the use of multiple
sources to obtain the data and triangulation of methods can also contribute to the
reliability and validity of research (Brown, 2001; Creswell, 2014; Yin, 2014).
Cowling’s (2007) case study described the needs analysis stage during the
development of English language materials for an English intensive course at a
Japanese company. Needs analysis was the first stage of the course development.
Cowling described the different methods that he used in the needs analysis to get the
data. Initially, the client who requested the course recommended the content of the
course to be based on perceived needs rather than the learners’ actual needs. However,
Cowling decided to use multiple sources and triangulate the findings to increase the
reliability of the data to be used for the course content. Therefore, the sources used were
the sales director who was responsible for the language training contracts, the client
who requested the intensive course, the English language instructors, and the learners
who would take the course.
In considering the methods, Cowling did not conduct a language audit because
of the short time and budget constraints. He also did not choose to use observations due
to the same reasons and, it was “arguable whether this would reveal any useful details
about the actual needs of the students” (p. 430). Cowling finally chose interviews and
questionnaires as the methods for the needs analysis. He conducted interviews with all
participants and distributed questionnaires to the students. The findings from the
comparisons and triangulation of results revealed that the syllabus was required to
provide nine areas of study helpful for students’ working life, provide a communicative
121
course related to the business context, provide a course that considers cultural issues,
and provide authentic examples of language.
One of the things that can be learned from Cowling’s (2007) methodology in his
case study is that he chose his methods based on the practicality and usefulness of the
methods. Compared to Jasso-Aguilar (1999) who used observations, interviews and
questionnaires, Cowling only used interviews and questionnaires. Although he was
aware of the two other possible methods that he could have used, which were a
language audit and observations, he decided not to use them due to the time and budget
constraints. He also thought that observations would not provide him with useful data
with regard to student needs. This suggests that when choosing the methods, it is
important to consider the situation and have in mind criteria to fulfill, and choose the
methods that can best fulfill those criteria (Morgan, 2007). In addition, despite the
advantages of obtaining data from multiple data sources, managing and analysing
overwhelming amounts of data can cause problems to researchers as they might “find
themselves ‘lost’ in the data” (Baxter & Jack, 2008, p. 554). The present case study
employed interviews and questionnaires as they were believed to be the most
appropriate methods, as questionnaires facilitated access to a bigger data collection, and
interviews allowed investigating the phenomenon at a greater depth. Even though
Cowling did not use all the methods that he was aware of, Cowling’s use of more than
one method provides data credibility to his case study (Yin, 2014).
In a case study by Spence and Liu (2013), the researchers had identified that
Taiwanese companies required engineers to be competent in all skills in English,
namely reading, writing, listening and speaking. On the other hand, they found that
there had been no needs analysis conducted for engineers in Taiwan. They then
conducted a needs analysis of the English language needs for process integration
engineers (PIEs) at Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). The
research questions of their study were: “1. With whom do process integration engineers
communicate in English at TSMC?; 2. What modes of communication are used when
process integration engineers communicate in English?; 3. What are the English skills
needed by process integration engineers to effectively conduct their daily working
tasks?; and 4. What tasks do process integration engineers perform that require
English?” (p. 99). The methods involved interviews, observations and online
questionnaires. They triangulated their sources and methods in conducting the needs
analysis. First, they compared within group interview responses with each other. Then,
they contrasted the responses with the survey data. They also did on-site observations of
PIEs’ daily working situation and interviewed one of the customers. The results
indicated that most PIEs communicated in English with foreign customers and used
multiple communication tools. Email was the most common mode of communication.
Finally, the common tasks that PIEs performed were writing minutes of meetings,
memos, project proposals, reports and making presentations.
Spence and Liu’s (2013) methodology is similar to Jasso-Aguilar’s (1999) as
they both used interviews, observations and questionnaires. The difference is that
Spence and Liu administered their questionnaires online. Spence and Liu’s use of the
online platform to administer their questionnaire can be regarded as a more efficient
method for this purpose as it speeds up the process and facilitates the researchers when
it comes to storing and managing the data since they are all in the digital form. It also
has a high level of anonymity, and helps the researchers in terms of the convenience of
administration, cost-effectiveness and access to specific populations (Dörnyei, 2007).
For the same reason, the questionnaires for this present case study were administered
online. However, although the online platform might be convenient, it does not
guarantee a desired response rate. Thus, it is advisable that a researcher has several
measures to deal with this possibility.
In summary, all the three case studies presented used more than one method of
conducting needs analysis. They used multiple sources and methods and triangulated
them to increase the validity and reliability of the study (Brown, 2001). The case studies
by Jasso-Aguilar (1999) and Spence and Liu (2013) used three methods compared to
Cowling’s (2007) that used only two. Even though Cowling only used interviews and
questionnaires, he justified the reason for not using other methods like observations. To
conclude, these case studies indicate that using and triangulating multiple sources and
methods are considered important by researchers to achieve more valid and reliable
results in their studies. Additionally, Jasso-Aguilar showed evidence suggesting that
some methods are more useful than the others, as she compared the usefulness of
123
participant observations with the less useful data from questionnaires. The methods in
these studies can be compared to the present study that used online questionnaires and
interviews in conducting needs analysis.
3.3.3 The purpose statement.

The purpose of my case study was to investigate academic writing at a public
university, in relation to student writing needs and the context of academic writing in a
writing course, English for Academic Writing (or EAW) and the faculties. The case
study intended to get the writing lecturers’, the faculty lecturers’ and the students’
perceptions of the phenomenon. The present case study applied the complementarity
mixed-method design. Quantitative and qualitative instruments were used to elicit the
student needs as well as gauge the students’ and lecturers’ attitudes towards academic
writing and the EAW course. The research site for the study was a public university in
Malaysia, the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM), which provided the
context of the academic writing use among the students. The writing course (English for
Academic Writing or EAW), provided by the language centre in the university
(CELPAD), was the intermediary unit (Yin, 2014) where the issues regarding academic
writing arose.
3.3.4 The mixed-method design.

The mixed-method design had been used to conduct the research in this case
study. Specifically, the approach that was employed was the complementarity mixed-
method design (Greene, Caracelli & Graham, 1989). Before a discussion on the
complementarity mixed-method design, I will present some definitions of the mixed-
method design, and describe the two important elements of the design: qualitative and
quantitative research.
3.3.4.1 Definitions of the mixed-method design.

The notion of a mixed-method approach to research has been in the literature
since as early as the 19th century (Erzberger & Prein, 1997). However, according to
Erzberger and Prein, the methodological proposition for combining quantitative and
qualitative techniques in the same research design was presented by Barton and
Lazarsfeld in 1955. To date, there are a number of definitions of the mixed-method
design. Greene and McClintock (1985) identify two dimensions of the mixed-method
design: “(a) the degree of independence of the quantitative and qualitative data
collection and analysis activities and (b) the degree to which the implementation of both
methods is sequential and iterative versus concurrent” (p. 525). Dörnyei (2007)
describes the mixed-method design as “the collection or analysis of both quantitative
and qualitative data in a single study with some attempts to integrate the two approaches
at one or more stages of the research process” (p. 163). In comparison, Bryman (2012)
comes up with a simpler definition. He associates the mixed-method design label with
“research that combines research methods that cross the two research strategies” (p.
628). His definition does not specify the type of research methods. Creswell (2014) has
given a definition which is closer to Dörnyei’s but simpler like Bryman’s. He defines
the mixed-method design as a combination or integration of qualitative and quantitative
research and data in a study. Creswell has also added more specific information to the
definition. He states that qualitative data “tends to be open-ended without
predetermined responses while quantitative data usually includes closed-ended
responses such as found on questionnaires or psychological instruments” (p. 14). Yin
(2014) points out that mixed methods research enables richer and stronger data to be
collected to answer more complicated research questions. In short, the mixed-method
design is a study that combines qualitative and quantitative research methods.
Since the idea of qualitative and quantitative is reflected in the definition of the
mixed-method design, it is crucial that we understand the meaning of qualitative and
quantitative research to understand what the mixed-method design is. According to
Bryman (2012), qualitative research is “a research strategy that usually emphasizes
words rather than quantification in the collection and analysis of data” (p.380). He adds
that it is “broadly inductivist, constructionist, and interpretivist, but qualitative
researchers do not always subscribe to all three of these features” (p. 380). Dörnyei
(2007) mentions that qualitative research has been regarded as difficult to define.
However, he summarises qualitative research as having six main characteristics. The
first one is the emergent nature of qualitative research. This means that qualitative
125
researchers can start their research without having to set out preconceived hypotheses,
and are flexible to make changes during the process. The second feature of qualitative
research is the nature of qualitative data. Most data are transformed into a textual form
as most qualitative data analyses are done with words. The next feature is the
characteristics of the research setting. Qualitative research is done in a natural setting
with no control over the situation. The fourth characteristic of qualitative research is
regarding the insider meaning. Qualitative research explores participants’ views as it is
concerned with subjective opinions, feelings and experiences. Furthermore, qualitative
research usually has a small sample size. The last characteristic of qualitative research is
it is fundamentally interpretive. This means that the results of the research are the
researchers’ interpretation of the data.
Bryman (2012) tries to capture the characteristics of quantitative research by
describing it as
entailing the collection of numerical data, as exhibiting a view of the
relationship between theory and research as deductive and a predilection for a
natural science approach (and of positivism in particular), and as having an
objectivist conception of social reality. (p. 160)
On the other hand, Dörnyei (2007) describes quantitative research by describing six
main features of quantitative research. The first and the most important characteristic of
quantitative research according to him is it mainly uses numbers. This feature can both
be an advantage or disadvantage. It can be an advantage as numbers are a powerful tool
in research as proven in the discipline of mathematics. However, its disadvantage is
numbers depend on contextual support to make their use meaningful. The second
feature is also related to number; quantitative research requires a priori categorisation.
What this means is that specific categories and values need to be assigned to numbers
before the actual study. The third characteristic of quantitative research is it sees
variables as more important than cases. For example, quantitative researchers are more
interested in studying relationships between variables than understanding individuals.
The next feature is quantitative research consists of statistics and the language of
statistics. The statistical analyses can be calculating the average of some figures or
running complex analyses using computational software. The fifth characteristic is
quantitative research uses standardised research procedures to make sure of the stability
of the researchers and the subjects. Finally, quantitative research is a quest for
generalisability and universal laws. What this means is that all other features mentioned
earlier are part of a quest for facts that are generalisable and universal.
In relation to combining qualitative and quantitative research methods in the
mixed-method design, Rossman and Wilson (1986) summarise the practice by stating,
“Ultimately, combining methods in a single study is triangulation” (p. 632). Greene and
McClintock (1985) also use the term triangulation to refer to the use of quantitative and
qualitative methods in the mixed-method design. In a more detailed definition,
triangulation refers to “the designed use of multiple methods, with offsetting or
counteracting biases, in investigations of the same phenomenon in order to strengthen
the validity of inquiry results” (Greene, Caracelli & Graham, 1989, p. 256).
Triangulation has been acknowledged by many researchers to be a useful practice in the
mixed-method design, as it is a way of ensuring research credibility (Davis, 1995) and
achieving reliability and validity (Greene & McClintock, 1985; Serafini et al. 2015;
Yin, 2014). In the context of case study research, Yin (2014) explains the rationale of
triangulating many sources of evidence as giving case studies higher quality than those
that only used single source of information, as it helps to strengthen the construct
validity of a case study. It is one of the ways to achieve trustworthiness in case study
research (Baxter & Jack, 2008).
3.3.4.2 The complementarity mixed-method design.

The complementarity mixed-method design was proposed as one of the ways to
mix qualitative and quantitative research methods by Greene, Caracelli and Graham
(1989). The design was proposed as a result of their study to develop a conceptual
framework to inform and guide the practice of mixed-method research. The study was a
comprehensive review of 57 mixed-method evaluation studies. From the results, they
identified five designs in mixed-method studies, which they called mixed-method
evaluation designs: triangulation; complementarity; development; initiation; and
expansion (Table 5).
127
Table 5. Mixed-method Evaluation Designs
Design Purpose Rationale

Triangulation seeks convergence, To increase the validity of constructs and
corroboration, correspondence inquiry results by counteracting or
of results from the different maximizing the heterogeneity of
methods. irrelevant sources of variance attributable
especially to inherent method bias but
also to inquirer bias, bias of substantive
theory, biases of inquiry context.
Complementarity seeks elaboration, To increase the interpretability,
enhancement, illustration, meaningfulness, and validity of
classification of the results constructs and inquiry results by both
from one method with the capitalizing on inherent method strengths
results from the other method. and counteracting inherent biases in
methods and other sources.
Development seeks to use the results from To increase the validity of constructs and
one method to help develop or inquiry results by capitalizing on inherent
inform the other method, method strengths.
where development is broadly
construed to include sampling
and implementation, as well as
measurement decisions.
Initiation seeks the discovery of paradox To increase the breadth and depth of
and contradiction, new inquiry results and interpretations by
perspectives of framework, the analyzing them from the different
recasting of questions or results perspectives of different methods and
from one method with paradigms.
questions or results from the
other method.
Expansion seeks to extend the breadth and To increase the scope of inquiry by
range of inquiry by using selecting the methods most appropriate
different methods for different for multiple inquiry components.
inquiry components.
Note: Greene, Caracelli & Graham (1989, p. 259)
Table 5 shows a classification of mixed-method designs typically employed in

mixed-method research. Each design has its specific purpose and rationale. It is
important to highlight here that the designs were proposed based on the identification of
the purposes of the 57 mixed-method evaluation studies that were reviewed by Greene
et al. (1989). In other words, they used the purposes of the studies that they analysed in
the review and named the designs after the purposes. Seven characteristics were used in
categorising each purpose or design. The characteristics are listed as follows:
1. Methods – the degree to which the qualitative and quantitative methods selected
for a given study are similar to or different from one another in form,
assumptions, strengths, and limitations or biases.
2. Phenomena – the degree to which the qualitative and quantitative methods are
intended to assess totally different phenomena or exactly the same phenomenon.
Mid-range phenomena positions occur when qualitative and quantitative
methods overlap in their intent, yet also capitalize on the strengths of one or both
methods to secure additional information.
3. Paradigms – the degree to which the different method types are implemented
within the same or different paradigms.
4. Status – the degree to which a study’s qualitative and quantitative methods have
equally important or central roles vis-à-vis the study’s overall objectives.
5. Implementation: Independence – the degree to which the qualitative and
quantitative methods are conceptualized, designed, and implemented
interactively or independently can be viewed on a continuum.
6. Implementation: Timing – although ‘implementation: independence’ can be
viewed on a continuum, a pair of methods is typically implemented concurrently
or sequentially, not in between.
7. Study – the empirical research either encompassed one study or more than one
study.
(Greene et al., 1989, pp. 262-264)
The design that I would like to focus on in this discussion is the
complementarity mixed-method design, which was used in this case study. A clearer
picture of the design can be seen by comparing it with triangulation. Yin (2014) uses the
term convergence of evidence to refer to the case study where data have really been
triangulated to support its findings. Greene et al. (1989) state that, “A mixed-method
design with a triangulation intent seeks convergence in the classic sense of
triangulation” (p. 258). They explain that triangulation is strong when “the status of
different methods – that is, their relative weight and influence – is equal and when the
129
quantitative and qualitative study components are implemented independently and

simultaneously” (p. 266).
On the other hand, the complementarity mixed-method design is different from
the triangulation mixed-method design. One of its common purposes is “to use the
results from one method to elaborate, enhance, or illustrate the results from the other”
(p. 266). They mention that “interpretability is best enhanced when the methods are
implemented simultaneously and interactively within a single study” (p. 267).
In comparison to Greene et al’s (1989) mixed-method evaluation designs,
Rossman and Wilson (1985) discuss how quantitative and qualitative methods can be
combined in a single study. They identify three analytic functions of what they called
‘between-methods design’ – corroboration, elaboration and initiation. Corroboration is
similar to the triangulation mixed-method design as both seek convergence in findings.
Elaboration, on the other hand, provides richness and detail. This model can be
compared with the complementarity mixed-method design, in which one of its purposes
is instead to elaborate. The last one, initiation, is indeed the same as the one in Greene
et al’s mixed-method evaluation designs. It seeks contradiction by recasting the
questions or results to bring fresh insight and new perspectives. Additionally, Erzberger
and Prein (1997) differentiate the approaches to triangulation by classifying them as
convergence, complementarity and dissonance. It can be said that convergence and
complementarity match nicely with the categories of triangulation mixed-method design
(Greene et al., 1989) and corroboration (Rossman & Wilson, 1985) respectively.
The present case study employed the complementarity mixed-method design in
the sense that it used qualitative and quantitative instruments to obtain complementary
findings to enhance and elaborate each other. The instruments used were questionnaires
and interviews, and according to Brown (2001), these two types of instruments are
complementary. In addition, the case study can also be regarded as using a cross-
sectional design, where groups of different people were studied at one point in time
(Coolican, 1995) using a mixed methods approach, where quantitative and qualitative
data were collected and analysed to answer the research questions.
3.4 The Case
Generally, the purpose of this case study was to investigate academic writing at
a public university, with regard to student needs and its context in a writing course.
Therefore, the case is academic writing, and I related it to the context of student needs
in EAW, a writing course. In addition, bounding the case involves identifying the
context of the study so that the units of analysis can be distinguished from other
elements outside the context. This practice is also known as the bounded system
(Merriam, 2009). In this study, the context was academic writing in a public university,
IIUM. Hence, the practice and needs of academic writing being studied were not related
to the practice and needs of academic writing outside the university. Specifically, I
investigated academic writing among engineering and human sciences students taking
the EAW course. The theoretical proposition that I developed before the case study was,
‘the case study will give an understanding of academic writing from the perceptions of
student academic writing needs in the context of an EAP course’.
Yin (2014) divides case study research designs into four: the single-case
(holistic) design; the single-case (embedded) design; the multiple-case (holistic) design;
and the multiple-case (embedded) design. The single case designs are usually chosen
when the case is critical, unusual, common, revelatory, or longitudinal. A case is critical
if there is a theoretical position that needs to be proven in the study. A case is unusual if
it is an extreme case which deviates from social norms. Moreover, a case is common if
the purpose of the study is to capture a situation. Additionally, a case is revelatory if the
case under study was not previously accessible. Finally, a case is longitudinal when the
case is studied at two or more different times. On the other hand, the multiple-case
designs involve employing replication of several cases. An important consideration
when using the multiple-case designs is the number of cases deemed necessary or
enough for the study.
The case designs can be holistic or embedded. For the single-case design, it is
holistic if the case study only examines the whole nature of a case, for example, a case
study on a single mother. In this example, the single mother is the only unit of analysis
of the case. On the other hand, the embedded, single-case design may involve a subunit
or subunits. For example, a case study might be about a company, but the analysis
131
might involve outcomes about the work culture of staff in the company. Yin (2014)
even mentions the possibility of having quantitative analyses in an embedded, single-
case study. In an example, he described a case study about the politics of an
international union, which involved several units of analysis. I would like to draw on his
description about the units of analysis in the case study:
The main unit was the organization as a whole, the smallest unit was the
individual member, and several intermediary units were also important. At each
level of analysis, different data collection techniques were used, ranging from
historical to survey analysis. (p. 54)
The present case study advocated an embedded, single-case design. An
embedded case study design involves units of analysis at more than one level when the
attention is given to a subunit or subunits within a single case (Yin, 2014). For this case
study, the main case or the main unit of analysis was academic writing among
undergraduate students in IIUM, the intermediary unit of analysis was the student
writing in the context of needs and a writing course, and the five subunits of analysis in
the study were: (1) English language lecturers at a language centre who taught the
academic writing course (EAW lecturers); (2) lecturers at the engineering faculty
(ENGIN lecturers); (3) lecturers at the human sciences faculty (HS lecturers); (4)
engineering students who took EAW at CELPAD (ENGIN/EAW students); and (5)
human sciences students who took EAW at CELPAD (HS/EAW students). This is
illustrated in Figure 4. Figure 4 shows that the students’ academic writing in IIUM was
the case being investigated in the case study, the students’ academic writing in the
context of needs and a writing course (EAW) was the intermediary unit of analysis, and
the five embedded subunits of analysis are shown in five boxes.
Students’ academic writing in IIUM
Students’ academic writing in the context of needs and a
writing course (EAW)
ENGIN/EAW students HS/EAW students
EAW ENGIN HS lecturers

lecturers lecturers
Figure 4. The embedded, single-case design of the study.

Apart from the EAW lecturers who were from CELPAD, the other subunits of
analysis were from the engineering (ENGIN) and human sciences (HS) faculties. The
selection of the faculties was done in two stages. In the first stage, based on my
experience teaching academic writing more than five years prior to this study, I
observed that in general, the engineering faculty was one of the faculties (together with
the architecture, economics and information communication technology faculties) that
had students struggling with their writing. Discussions with the students revealed that
they struggled to write in the course as their writing requirements in their faculty were
different. In contrast, students from the faculties of human sciences, law and education
were generally more proficient with their writing. Thus, I recorded these faculties as I
was interested to investigate students’ writing from two different groups – one which
was doing well and one which was struggling with writing. Second, as part of the data
collection process, I elicited the EAW lecturers’ opinion on the faculties which they had
any preferences or difficulties teaching during the interviews (see subsection 3.6.4.2).
Even though the data revealed a number of faculties, I was only able to get cooperation
133
from the engineering and human sciences faculties to collect data for my study.
Therefore, these two faculties were chosen.
3.5 The Research Site

The main site for the case study was the International Islamic University
Malaysia (IIUM), Gombak, Malaysia. The case study was specifically conducted at
three sites in the university: the language centre (Centre for Languages and Pre-
University Academic Development – CELPAD), the engineering faculty (Kulliyyah of
Engineering – ENGIN), and the human sciences faculty (Kulliyyah of Islamic Revealed
Knowledge and Human Sciences – HS).
3.5.1 The language centre (CELPAD).

CELPAD is situated at the main campus of IIUM, Gombak. It was first
established as The Centre for Languages (CfL) in July 1983 together with the Centre for
Fundamental Knowledge, Kulliyyah of Economics and Kullliyyah of Laws. In May
1993, the Centre for Languages was renamed the Centre for Languages and Pre-
University Academic Development or CELPAD. The centre bears the responsibility to
teach languages at the IIUM. It is responsible to make sure that all IIUM students have
the required competence of the languages required for their academic purposes. The
language courses offered by CELPAD are English, Arabic, Malay and Tilawah al-
Quran. Additionally, the centre also offers Mandarin, Japanese and French courses.
Since 2008, CELPAD has been organising its own international conference,
International Language Conference (ILC), to provide an avenue for academics,
researchers, practitioners, course providers and students to showcase their work
pertaining to language teaching, learning and research (International Islamic University
Malaysia, n.d. -a) .
3.5.2 The engineering faculty (ENGIN).

The engineering faculty was established in March 1994. It started off with only
three departments - Electrical and Computer Engineering, Manufacturing Engineering
and Mechatronics Engineering. To date, the departments at the faculty are:
• Department of Mechatronics Engineering
• Department of Manufacturing & Materials Engineering
• Department of Mechanical Engineering
• Department of Science in Engineering
• Department of Biotechnology Engineering
• Department of Civil Engineering
• Computer and Information Engineering
• Manufacturing Engineering
• Mechatronics Engineering
• Automotive Engineering
• Biotechnology Engineering
• Communication Engineering
• Materials Engineering
• Aerospace Engineering
• Civil Engineering
(International Islamic University Malaysia, n.d. -b)
Generally, students who graduate from the engineering faculty are expected to have
leadership and technical expertise to advance in their career, show moral and
professional commitment for the betterment of society, be involved in entrepreneurial
activities, and be involved in life-long learning through postgraduate education and
professional development.
3.5.3 The human sciences faculty (HS).

The human sciences faculty was established in 1990. With over 4,000 students
and about 250 academics, it is the biggest faculty in IIUM. The faculty has two main
divisions: the Human Science division (HS) and the Islamic Revealed Knowledge
division (IRK). These are the departments under the Human Science division:
• Department of Communication (COMM)
• Department of English Language and Literature (DELL)
• Department of History and Civilization (HIST)
• Department of Political Science (PSCI)
135
• Department of Psychology (PSYC)

The departments under the Islamic revealed Knowledge division (IRK) are:
• Department of Arabic Language and Literature (DALL)
• Department of Fiqh and Usul al-Fiqh (RKFQ)
• Department of General Studies (RKGS)
• Department of Qur’an and Sunnah (RKQS)
• Department of Usul al-Din and Comparative Religion (RKUD)
• Department of Sociology and Anthropology (SOCA)
(International Islamic University Malaysia, n.d. -c)
With two large divisions under its roof, the faculty aims to integrate Islamic Revealed
Knowledge and Human Sciences disciplines to produce holistic individuals who can be
religious as well as knowledgeable in their fields.
3.5.4 Doing research at the site.

Being a lecturer at IIUM, the main site of the research, I did not face any
difficulties moving around campus, getting access to the language centre and the
faculties, finding the lecturers’ rooms to meet them, making contacts with the students
and using most facilities provided for students and staff at the university. All three sites
– the language centre (CELPAD), the engineering faculty (ENGIN) and the human
sciences faculty (HS) – were on campus and about five minutes’ walk apart. I took
advantage of this to expedite my data collection process, especially in conducting the
interviews (I did not have to use the venues to administer my questionnaires as they
were done online).
Almost all interviews with the lecturers were done in their offices, except for
some EAW lecturers who requested to have the interviews at the resource centre at
CELPAD, as it was common for them to spend their free time there. The resource centre
was a convenient place to conduct interviews as we used the small meeting rooms
inside the resource centre to make sure that the interviews were done smoothly and
without interruptions. The rest of interviews with EAW lecturers were done in their
offices. All the rooms were comfortable – they had proper chairs and a big table, were
air-conditioned and had a minimum level of noise from outside. Some of the lecturers
had offices to themselves, but some share their offices with another lecturer. However,
since all interviews were pre-arranged, they had already made arrangements with their
colleagues not to be there during the interviews and the arrangements went well. On
other hand, there were a few occasions when the interview was interrupted by knocks
on the door, usually by students. All the lecturers’ rooms were located in CELPAD’s
building. The building was located right in the middle of the university campus. This
strategic location made it easy for me to access the building, and since I am university
staff, getting access to any levels or offices at any time was not a problem.
All interviews with lecturers were done during office hours, which was between
9.00 am and 5.00 pm. Before the interviews, I contacted each participant to ask for his
or her availability, and set the date, time and venue for the interview. The participants
were also asked to bring along any of their students’ written assignments or project
papers for the interviews. Interviews with faculty lecturers were all done in their offices.
Generally, their rooms were similar to the EAW lecturers’ room in the sense that it was
suitable to conduct interviews there. In fact, none of faculty lecturers share the rooms
with anyone so it was even easier for the interviews to be conducted. However, the
interviews with the students were slightly different in terms of the convenience of the
research sites. Even though all the interviews were done on campus, the locations varied
depending on the convenience of the students. Interviews with students were also done
between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm. Most of them were done indoors, either in the labs or in
the classrooms, but some of them had to be done in cafes. Even though we chose the
most isolated spots in the cafes, sometimes there was a distraction from surrounding
noise. Nevertheless, this posed no major problems and the interviews were conducted
successfully.
3.6 The Research Process

Figure 5 shows the research process as summarised in ten steps and presented in
the following subsections. It is important to note that the steps are to show what has
been done in the research process; they do not indicate a chronological order although
some of them might have required a particular order. For example, ‘conducting review
137
of literature’ was an ongoing process which began at the first stage and continued until
the end of the research process.
1. Identifying the issue
2. Determining the case
3. Conducting review of literature
4. Planning the research
5. Seeking ethics aproval
6. Contacting relevant authorities
7. Preparing for data collection
8. Conducting the research
9. Analysing the data
10. Determining reliability and validity
Figure 5. The research process.
3.6.1 Identifying the issue.

Identifying the issue was the first step of the process. According to Bryman
(2012), personal experience can be a stimulus for research as it was in this case. My
personal experience was based on my time teaching academic writing in the EAW
course at CELPAD. There were some problems as some of the students found it hard to
relate to what I was teaching. Throughout my time teaching, I shared the problems with
the EAW coordinator, EAW lecturers, CELPAD students, faculty lecturers, as well as
the senior management in CELPAD. So, at that time I already established some ideas on
possible topics for my research.
3.6.2 Determining the case.

My experience while teaching in CELPAD had prompted me to focus on
academic writing to develop several questions. Some of the questions were concerning
the lecturers’ and students’ understanding of academic writing and academic writing
needs, and whether the needs could be met with one writing course. After consulting my
research supervisors, I decided to look at academic writing from the perspective of
student needs. This is where I moved from identifying the issue to determining the case
for my study. I decided then that I would do case study research on academic writing in
IIUM. From there, I realised the importance for this research to involve the writing
course provider, the faculties, as well as the students since they were the stakeholders
with presumably the best knowledge of what was needed to further improve the writing
course to meet the students’ writing needs. Even though I had not taught the course
since 2012, the questions and my interest in the issue were still there, and I was
determined to get the answers. Constant communication with the language lecturers and
the coordinator of the EAW course had indicated to me that the situation was still the
same when I began to conduct the study.
3.6.3 Conducting review of literature.

In the third step of the process, conducting a review of literature, I started to do
more reading and reviewing of several journal articles and books to familiarise myself
with the topic. Research begins with a thorough literature review (Yin, 2014). In
addition, Bryman (2012) points out that, “The existing literature represents an important
element in all research” (p. 8). When we review the literature, it is important for us to be
aware of the existing knowledge about a topic, the existing concepts and theories on the
topic, the research methods associated with the topic, any controversial issues about the
139
topic, any conflicting evidence and the key contributors to research in the topic
(Bryman, 2012). From my reading, I managed to get a sense of how academic writing in
EAP was investigated using needs analysis. I also came across controversies in EAP
which are related to needs analysis. These subjects are: the two approaches to EAP –
EGAP and ESAP; the approaches in the teaching of student writing – the study skills,
academic socialisation and academic literacies models; and the pragmatic and critical
perspectives on EAP. I also chose to apply the principles of the critical EAP approach in
my research to elicit underlying elements of power relations from the stakeholders’
perceptions of academic writing and student needs in IIUM.
3.6.4 Planning the research.

The next step was planning the research. This involved preparing a sound
proposal of the steps to conduct the research. It involved deciding on the purpose of my
study, the research questions, the research design, the participants, the instruments, the
data collection procedures, the methods of analysis and the format of the research
report. However, they were still considered a working proposal or work in progress, so
changes were still made throughout the research process until the final step. Planning
the research also involved developing my research instruments for the actual research.
There were two instruments that I developed for my study: the questionnaire and the
interview. The instruments underwent a series of revisions with the help of my
supervisor in order to ensure their quality. In addition, I also had to conduct a pilot
study to test each instrument. Apart from the two instruments, I also regarded myself as
the primary instrument in collecting qualitative data (Merriam, 1998). According to
Merriam (1998), in gathering and analysing qualitative data, a researcher can maximise
the opportunities to collect and produce meaningful information. However, the
researcher has to be able to tolerate the complexity of the research process, be sensitive
to the surroundings and communicate well, especially with the respondents.
The following subsections will discuss the two instruments (the questionnaire
and the interview) in detail.
3.6.4.1 Questionnaire.
Questionnaires can be defined as “any written instruments that present
respondents with a series of questions or statements to which they are to react either by
writing out their answers or by selecting from among existing answers” (Brown, 2001,
p. 6, as cited in Dörnyei, 2007, p. 102). They may consist of factual questions,
behavioral questions or attitudinal questions (Dörnyei, 2007). For this study, the
questionnaire was to investigate the respondents’ attitudes towards the importance of
academic writing skills in the EAW course (all participants) and the respondents’
perceptions of the EAW course (EAW lecturers and all students). It was meant to
complement the findings from the interview data. Before the items were developed, I
consulted my supervisor on the items that I would include in the questionnaire. It was a
bit challenging as three different sets of questionnaires had to be developed: one for the
students (see Appendix C), one for the EAW lecturers (see Appendix D), and one for
the faculty lecturers (see Appendix E).
The questionnaire type was the self-completion questionnaire, where the
respondents completed the questionnaire themselves. It was administered by asking the
respondents to visit a website and answer the questionnaire online (Bryman, 2012). The
website used to test the questionnaire was SurveyGizmo. The website allowed me to
create the questionnaire on its website, and generated a URL or a link for the
respondents to answer it. The questionnaire was then administered with the help from
the EAW course coordinator. The EAW course had a Moodle-based online learning
platform which every EAW lecturer shared with their students only. Therefore, the
EAW course coordinator made a request to all EAW lecturers to publish the URL and
ask their students to answer the questionnaire.
The questionnaire was piloted for students on 13 March 2015. The respondents
of the pilot study were a group of 23 undergraduate students from the Department of
Languages and Management, IIUM (it was a new department then and none of the
students had taken EAW). With the help of their English lecturer, a session for them to
complete the online questionnaire was conducted via video teleconferencing. The
students were asked to respond to each item, and take notes on the interface, format,
number of questions, question types and the language used. After the session, a
141
discussion was done to get their feedback. Generally, they agreed that the questionnaire
was appropriate and easy to complete. The pilot study for the lecturers, however, was
not done in a single session, as it was hard to gather them at one specific time. I
managed to contact 13 English lecturers from the Department of Languages and
Management (six of them had taught EAW when they were in CELPAD before they
moved to the new department) to answer the questionnaire for EAW lecturers. I also
managed to get 11 lecturers from the education faculty to do the questionnaire for
faculty lecturers. They were all given the URL to the questionnaire, and were asked to
give their feedback. All of them were generally satisfied with the questionnaire. The
only thing that they highlighted was the possibility of the students not getting access to
the internet or to a proper computer to answer the questionnaire.
Validity and reliability are two important things that need to be considered when
using questionnaires. All three questionnaires were revised with the help of my
supervisor and two PhD English students before they were piloted to achieve face
validity. Bryman (2012) mentions that face validity is to indicate that the items in the
questionnaire reflect “the content of the concept in question” (p. 171). In addition,
Cronbach’s alpha levels of the questionnaires were 0.837 for the student questionnaires,
0.757 for the EAW lecturer questionnaires, and 0.727 for the faculty lecturer
questionnaires. According to Bryman (2012), alpha 0.80 typically shows an acceptable
level of internal reliability, while 0.70 is considered satisfactory. Therefore, the alpha
levels of all three questionnaires indicated some level of internal reliability of the
questionnaire items.
Except for the section on background or demographic information, the
questionnaires used closed-ended items, featuring the Likert scale. It is considered the
most widely used type of format for close-ended items in questionnaires (Dörnyei,
2007). The items consist of attitudinal statements and the respondents were asked to
choose an option to represent the extent of their agreement or disagreement with the
statements. The options or responses usually range from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly
disagree’ (Dörnyei, 2007). An example of how the type of question featured in this case
study is shown below:
1) The objectives of EAW are clear.
( ) Strongly Disagree ( ) Disagree ( ) Undecided ( ) Agree ( ) Strongly Agree
Some of the questionnaire items were based on the EAW course outline to
examine how the course objectives were perceived by the students and EAW lecturers.
For example, the item:
2) It is important for students in my kulliyyah/most kulliyyahs to know how to cite

academic sources.
( ) Strongly Disagree ( ) Disagree ( ) Undecided ( ) Agree ( ) Strongly Agree
was adapted from this learning objective:
The objectives of this course are to produce students who can use appropriate
techniques in citing sources.
In addition to Likert scale questions, the questionnaire also has some open-
ended questions, which gave the freedom to the respondents to give their opinion on
certain questions if they wanted to. An example of an open-ended question is as
follows:
40) Please write your opinion/comments on EAW in the box below, if you have any.
Finally, all the responses from the respondents were categorised by

SurveyGizmo as having either ‘Complete’ or ‘Partial’ status. ‘Complete’ status means
that the respondent has reached the ‘Thank You’ page or the last page of the
questionnaire. On the other hand, ‘Partial’ status means that the respondent clicked the
‘Next button’ on at least the first page but has not yet reached the ‘Thank You’ page.
For the purpose of analysis, only responses with ‘Complete’ status were selected. Even
so, some ‘Complete’ questionnaires still had some unanswered items, but the rate was
only 10% or less. The ‘Partial’ ones, on the other hand, mostly had only the
143
demographic data filled out. Therefore, only the responses with the ‘Complete’ status
were selected. This is also to ensure that the response rate was correctly reported.
The administration of the questionnaire was done on 16 March 2015. The
questionnaire was to gather information on the respondents’ perceptions of academic
writing and the students’ and EAW lecturers’ attitudes towards the EAW course. The
questionnaire had a short introduction stating the purpose of the study and the
confidentiality of the participants’ responses, anonymity of their identities and also their
rights to not answer the questionnaire.
The questionnaire items were organised in several sections. Since there were
three questionnaires, some sections were in all three, and some were not. The sections in
the questionnaire are presented in Table 6:
Table 6. Questionnaire Sections
Sections Student EAW lecturer Faculty lecturer

questionnaire questionnaire questionnaire
Background information √ √ √
Linguistic information √
Perceptions of EAW √ √
Perceptions of EAW √
students
Perceptions of academic √ √ √
writing
It can be seen from Table 6 that only two sections were included in all three
questionnaires: the sections on ‘background information’ and ‘perceptions of academic
writing’. However, the section on ‘perceptions of EAW’ was only in the student
questionnaire and EAW lecturer questionnaire. This is because the faculty lecturers
were not involved in the EAW course.
Regarding the student questionnaire, the final analysis was only done on the
faculties selected for the case study. The questionnaire was administered to all students
who were taking EAW in that semester. However, the faculties were only selected after
the interviews with the EAW lecturers. The administration of the student questionnaire
had to be conducted early as the total number of students was 1228. It was administered
online two weeks before the interviews.
3.6.4.1.1 The demographic data.

The demographic results presented here are from all the students who completed
the questionnaire. According to Bryman (2012), the response rate is the percentage of a
sample that agreed to participate or in other words, the usable questionnaires. Usually,
not all questionnaires are suitable or appropriate. The calculation to get the response
rate is:
Number of usable questionnaires x 100

total sample – unsuitable questionnaires
The total number of ‘Complete’ questionnaires was 213, and the total number of
‘Partial’ questionnaire was 119. Therefore, following this calculation, the response rate
of my questionnaires is 19.20%. It was rather disappointing as the response rate was
considered low even though the students were given six months to answer the
questionnaire. A few measures were also put in place as follow-ups to ensure more
participation. Other than asking the EAW coordinator to remind the lecturers to
encourage their students, the URL was also published on the IIUM students’ Facebook
group called ‘IIUM online’. This Facebook group was the biggest online group of IIUM
students and staff. However, the response rate remained low.
The demographic data were presented in pie charts that show the percentages of
students’ age, gender, nationality, ethnicity, faculty, year of study and English language
qualifications. Pie charts are a type of diagram to present quantitative data, especially
the nominal or ordinal variables, in the easiest way for people to understand (Bryman,
2012).
145
26 - 28
years old 0.5%
0.5%
20 - 22
years old
24%
23 - 25
years old
75%
Figure 6. Students’ age
It can be seen from Figure 6 that 75% of the students were between 23 to 25 years old.
This indicates that the majority of the respondents were in the average age range of
students in their final year.
Male
30%
Female
70%
Figure 7. Students’ gender
Figure 7 shows that the majority of the respondents (70%) were female.
Non-
Malaysian
4%
Malaysian
96%
Figure 8. Students’ nationality
In Figure 8, we can see that 96% of students who completed the questionnaires were
Malaysians. The remaining 4% represent students who were non-Malaysians.
Indian Other
Chinese 0.5% 3%
0.5%
Malay
96%
Figure 9. Students’ ethnicity
Figure 9 indicates that most respondents (96%) were Malay.

147
Languages &
Mgmt Education
1% 4%
Law
Human 7%
Sciences
21%
Economics
25%
Engineering
23%
Architecture
15%
ICT
4%
Figure 10. Students’ faculty
It can be seen from Figure 10 that most of respondents were from the engineering (23%)
and human sciences (21%) faculties. Languages and Management had the lowest
percentage of students with only 1%. This is possibly due to the fact that the faculty was
new and the number of students in the faculty was small.
Second year
4%
Third year
38%
Fourth year
58%
Figure 11. Students’ year of study

Figure 11 shows that more than half (58%) of the respondents were in their fourth year,
which was the final year of their study. Surprisingly, there were 4% of the respondents
who were in their second year. Usually, the EAW course was only taken by the third or
fourth year students.
IELTS TOEFL Other

8% 2% university
equivalent
1%
IIUM English
ProOiciency
Test (EPT)
89%
Figure 12. Students’ English qualifications
Figure 12 indicates that most students (89%) entered the university after taking the
university’s own proficiency test, the IIUM English Proficiency Test or EPT. IELTS
was the second most common test taken by the respondents, with 8% of them taking the
test.
3.6.4.2 Interview.
Semi-structured interviews were used to collect qualitative data. A semi-
structured interview has an open-ended format where the interviewer’s role is to guide
the interviewee for responses and prompt them for elaboration on certain topics
(Dörnyei, 2007). Additionally, the interviewee also has the flexibility in how to reply to
the questions (Bryman, 2012). In a semi-structured interview, the interviewer may ask
the same questions to all participants but the questions do not have to be in the same
order or wording (Dörnyei, 2007). Semi-structured interviews were chosen for the
present study as they were suitable for situations where the interviewer is familiar with
149
the phenomenon being investigated; the interviewer can ask broad questions about the
topic instead of ready-made response categories “that would limit the depth and breadth
of the respondent’s story” (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 136).
In addition, my interview also integrated the retrospective or stimulated recall
techniques (Dörnyei, 2007). Dörnyei as well as Greene and Higgins (1994) used the
term ‘retrospective’ and ‘stimulated recall’ interchangeably to refer to a situation where
respondents give their responses after getting some sort of stimulus to retrieve their
relevant thoughts. For example, in retrospective accounts, the interviewer may show a
person’s written work during the interview (Dörnyei, 2007; Greene & Higgins, 1994) to
be used as stimulus for the person to retrieve the needed information.
In relation to my study, I began by preparing three sets of interview questions
for the students, EAW lecturers and the faculty lecturers. The students’ set and the
EAW lecturers’ set comprised questions on academic writing and the EAW course,
while the set for faculty lecturers had questions on academic writing only (see
Appendices F, G and H). For all sets, there was one section where the participant was
asked to look at a piece of written work (lecturers would have their students’ project
papers or assignments, and students would have their own written work) during the
interview. Using the written work as stimulus, I then asked the participants to answer
some questions with the help of the stimulus to recall the relevant information. An
example of these questions can be seen below:
15. Looking at your written work (and your lecturers’ comments), can you
please explain which area, in relation to academic writing, you need to improve
to make it better?
To answer this question, the participants had to go through the written materials to give
their answers (samples of students’ written work are in Appendices K, L, M, N, O, and
P). For example, if the interview was with a student and the written material had the
lecturers’ annotations or comments on certain writing mistakes, the student could relate
that to something that he or she needed to improve.
All three sets of interview questions were reviewed by my supervisor and an
English teacher. After some changes, I piloted my interview questions to ensure that
they were easily understood and appropriate to be asked during the interview. The
interviews were conducted with five students and three lecturers from the Department
of Languages and Management. All the students had taken the EAW course before, and
the three lecturers also had taught EAW. Additionally, two lecturers from the education
faculty were interviewed to pilot the questions for the faculty lecturers. From the pilot
interviews, several changes were made based on their feedback.
Using purposive sampling, I used the reputational case selection (Miles,
Huberman & Saldaña, 2014) to choose the participants. Reputational case selection is
when the participants were “chosen on the recommendation of an expert or key
participant” (Miles, Huberman & Saldaña, 2014, p. 32). The first sample was the EAW
lecturers. Firstly, I began by contacting the EAW course coordinator. I regarded the
EAW course coordinator as the key participant as she had a vast knowledge of the EAW
course and the lecturers teaching the course. A meeting was held on 02 April 2015 in
CELPAD to explain the intention to recruit EAW lecturers for the study and the
selection criteria. The criteria were: (1) the EAW lecturers had to be teaching EAW in
CELPAD; and (2) the EAW lecturers were of three levels of experience – those who
had some experience (three years or less), those who were experienced (more than three
years of experience), and those who were the experts in teaching the course (more than
ten years of experience). The second criterion was regarded as the most important as the
lecturers’ experience played a role in shaping their perceptions of academic writing and
student needs. Additionally, I also asked the EAW course coordinator to be one of the
participants, as I believed she could be a valuable source of information. I was then
given 10 lecturers’ names for each level of experience. The total number of the EAW
lecturers for that semester – Semester 2, academic year 2014/2015 – was 62.
Out of 30 lecturers, 15 lecturers were willing to be the interview participants.
One of them used to be the course coordinator during the early years of EAP and EAW
in CELPAD so I believed she would have valuable insights to offer. Table 7
summarises the participants according to their levels of experience.
151
Table 7. Interview Participants: EAW Lecturers
No Lecturer/code Gender Qualification Level of Experience

1 LEAW4 Male First degree 1.5 years
Some
2 LEAW15 Female First degree 2 years
experience
4 LEAW7 Male First degree 4 years
6 LEAW13 Female Master’s degree 4 years
Experienced
11 LEAW2 Female Master’s degree More than 10 years
Experts
14 LEAW6 Female First degree More than 15 years
It can be seen from Table 7 that there was almost a balanced number of
participants based on their levels of experience. Three lecturers were categorised as
having ‘some experience’ as they had been teaching EAW for three years or less. One
lecturer had three years of experience, one had two years of experience, and one had
only taught EAW for one and a half years. Additionally, six lecturers were categorised
as ‘experienced’. Four of them had been teaching EAW for four years, one had five
years of experience and one had eight years of experience. The last category was the
most experienced ones, which I referred to as ‘experts’ in teaching EAW. Having taught
longer than the others, some of them could not remember exactly how long they had
been teaching EAW. One lecturer had 10 years of experience and another was not sure
of the exact number but she knew it had been more than 10 years. Additionally, one
lecturer had 12 years of experience, and another had taught EAW for 13 years. Again,
there was another who was not so sure of the number of years that she had spent
teaching EAW, but she remembered it had been more than 15 years. Finally, one
lecturer had 16 years of experience teaching EAW in CELPAD.
The interviews were carried out after setting the date, time and venue with the
selected EAW lecturers. Interviews with the EAW lecturers had two purposes: (1) as
part of the main data collection process to answer the research questions; and (2) to
identify the faculties to be selected as subunits of analysis for the case study. The
second issue was pressing, as I needed to start contacting selected faculties. One of the
questions that was asked was whether they had any preferred faculty to teach, or any
difficulty teaching a particular faculty. The following are two examples of their
responses:
• It's difficult to teach the Engineering kulliyyah (faculty). Because for one thing,
their kind of research is different from ours. (LEAW13, Lines 42 – 43).
• HS, for example, they have better grasp of the language (LEAW7, Lines 34 –
35).
The results revealed that the majority of EAW lecturers found teaching engineering and
architecture students more difficult than others. On the other hand, the majority of them
found teaching human sciences and law students easier than others.
Armed with this information, I went to see the deputy deans of the four faculties
to seek their assistance. I managed to see the deputy deans from all three faculties
except for the law faculty. I was then introduced to the academic advisors for their
assistance to recruit the interview participants. There was only one criterion for
selection – they must be the lecturers of courses which mostly required students to
produce written projects or assignments. Finally, only three lecturers from engineering
and four lecturers from human sciences were willing to be interviewed. One lecturer
from architecture also responded positively, but since she was the only one from
architecture, I decided not to include her in the study. None from the law faculty was
153
available, although there was one who replied my email to apologise for not being able
to participate.
Therefore, I chose the engineering faculty and the human sciences faculty. Table
8 and Table 9 contain the information on the faculty lecturers who were selected as
participants.
Table 8. Interview Participants: ENGIN Lecturers
No Lecturer/Code Gender Qualification Department

1 LENG1 Female PhD Manufacturing Engineering
2 LENG2 Female PhD Mechatronics Engineering
3 LENG3 Female PhD Biotechnology Engineering
Table 9. Interview Participants: HS Lecturers
No Lecturer/Code Gender Qualification Department

1 LHS1 Female PhD English Language and Literature
2 LHS2 Female PhD Psychology
3 LHS3 Female PhD English Language and Literature
4 LHS4 Female PhD Sociology and Anthropology
Next, the EAW coordinator was consulted again to select the students. There
were two criteria in choosing the EAW students. First, the students were either from the
engineering or human sciences faculties. The second criterion was to choose students
who had been performing well in the course and students who were not doing so well.
The reason for the second criterion was to get the perspectives from two different kinds
of students. After receiving a list of names to be contacted, I managed to set
appointments for interviews with four EAW students from engineering and four EAW
students from human sciences. Table 10 and Table 11 depict the information on the
EAW students who were selected as my participants.
Table 10. Interview Participants: EAW/ENGIN Students
No Student/Code Gender Year of study Programme

1 SENG1 Male Fourth Mechanical Automotive
2 SENG2 Female Fourth Biotech Engineering
3 SENG3 Female Fourth Electronic-Computer and IT
4 SENG4 Male Fourth Chemical Biotechnology
Engineering
Table 11. Interview Participants: EAW/HS Students
No Student/Code Gender Year of study Programme

1 SHS1 Female Fourth Psychology
2 SHS2 Male Fourth Sociology and Anthropology
3 SHS3 Female Fourth English Language and Literature
4 SHS4 Female Fourth Sociology and Anthropology
Having a specific procedure is important in conducting an interview, and one of the

ways of doing so is by developing an interview protocol (Creswell, 2014). The
interview protocol for my interviews was as follows:
• Record the date, time and venue of the interview with each participant.
• Give the consent form (see Appendix I) and the participant information sheet
(see Appendix J) to be filled out and signed by the participant (for ethics
purposes).
• Explain about the process of the interview (e.g., the participant is free to talk in a
casual manner as it is a semi-structured interview, consideration of relevant
safety measures in the event of unplanned incidents, etc.).
155
• Ask the participant for the requested materials (the participant was asked in
advance to bring any written work such as assignments or project papers for the
retrospective/stimulated recall part in the interview).
• Remind the participant that the interview will be recorded and allow the
participant to decide if he or she does not want to proceed with the recording
(the participant was told in advance that the interview would be audio recorded).
• Ask some ice-breaking questions before the recording begins to create a casual
and comfortable environment for the interview.
• Begin the interview by mentioning the participant’s name (with the participant’s
consent for my record and reference only), date and time.
• Proceed with the interview questions.
• Allow ample time for the participant to respond.
• Prompt for more information whenever necessary.
• Ask for clarifications whenever necessary.
• Avoid or minimise interruptions during the participant’s speech.
• Write down anything only if it is really important.
• Thank the participant when the interview is over.
• Keep a record of any materials given by the participant.
Overall, it took me three weeks to do all the interviews. Each interview took about 20
minutes. The process of transcribing and analysing the interviews is discussed in
subsection 3.6.9.2.
3.6.5 Seeking ethics approval.

As part of the university requirements for students at the University of Sheffield,
I applied for ethics approval from the university before I began the actual research work
(i.e. the data collection procedures). The ethics committee are formed to protect
research participants and the institutions from unethical behavior by researchers
(Bryman, 2012). Therefore, prior to collecting the data, an ethics application form was
submitted online to the University of Sheffield on 17 November 2014 to be reviewed by
the university ethics reviewers. The first result which was obtained on 1 February 2015
required another application with some additional documents. The documents were the
interview consent form (see Appendix I) and the participant information sheet (see
Appendix J). Therefore, on 17 February 2015, the second application form was
submitted together with the required forms. The ethics approval was finally obtained on
24 February 2015. Other than getting ethics approval to conduct the research, I also had
to make sure that all the ethical considerations were taken into account during the
research process. Since I conducted my study at the university where I taught, there
were participants whom I was familiar with. One benefit of being an ‘insider’ is that
you get easily accepted into the community (Dwyer & Bukle, 2009). Therefore, I had to
make sure that I kept a distance from the participants during the data collection process
(Kanuha, 2000) to make sure I did not unduly influence them.
3.6.6 Contacting relevant authorities.

The sixth step was contacting relevant authorities to seek permission to collect
data for my study. The most important parties were the language centre (CELPAD) and
the faculties at IIUM. On 21 November 2014, I contacted the deans and deputy deans of
all faculties and the language centre via emails to inform them of my intention to
involve lecturers and students at their respective faculties in my study.
3.6.7 Preparing for data collection.

The preparation for the data collection involved distributing the URL for the
questionnaires and setting the dates, time and venues for the interviews. Since the
interview was going to be audio-recorded, I had brought a new voice recorder with
spare batteries (although I had an alternative of using my phone to record, I preferred
not to use it to avoid distractions from incoming calls). I also prepared a notepad and a
few pens for taking down any important notes during the interview (I tried to minimise
doing this as it might have affected my concentration and the flow of the interview).
157
3.6.8 Conducting the research.

The process that took place during this stage is illustrated in Figure 13.
Stage 1
ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE
INTERVIEW
- Students from all faculties
taking EAW at CELPAD - EAW lecturers
- Data to identify faculties - Data to answer RQ 1,

for case study RQ 2 & RQ 3
- Data from the identified
faculties to answer RQ 1 &
RQ 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stage 2
INTERVIEW ONLINE ONLINE INTERVIEW

QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONNAIRE
- EAW/ENGIN
students - EAW lecturers - ENGIN lecturers - ENGIN lecturers
- EAW/HS HS lecturers - HS lecturers
students
- Data to answer - Data to answer - Data to answer

RQ 1, RQ 1 & Figure 13. The data collection RQ 1RQ& 1RQ 3
RQ 2 & RQ 3 RQ 2 process
As can be seen in Figure 13, there were two types of data collection in the first stage,
and they were conducted simultaneously. At this stage, the faculties for the case study
had not been identified. Therefore, the questionnaires for students were administered
online to all undergraduate students who were taking EAW in CELPAD in Semester 2,
academic year 2014/2015. At the same time, the interviews with the EAW lecturers
were carried out.
The second stage involved the faculties which had been identified for the case
study. Interviews were done with the engineering (ENGIN) lecturers and human
sciences (HS) lecturers, as well as engineering students who were taking EAW
(EAW/ENGIN students) and human sciences students who were taking EAW
(EAW/HS students). Furthermore, online questionnaires were also administered to
EAW lecturers, ENGIN lecturers and HS lecturers. The questionnaires were
administered via email, where I emailed the questionnaire URL to all EAW, ENGIN
and HS lecturers.
3.6.9 Analysing the data.

Two research instruments were used in the case study: the questionnaire and the
interview. The first subsection describes the analysis of the questionnaire and the
second subsection will be on analysing the interview.
3.6.9.1 Analysing the questionnaires.

The questionnaire was analysed by calculating the frequencies and percentages
of each response. This is one of the methods in descriptive statistics, where numerical
data are summarised (Dörnyei, 2007) to examine frequencies (Brown, 2001). For the
questionnaire in this study, frequencies were calculated by counting the number of
responses for each attitude (strongly disagree, disagree, undecided, agree, strongly
agree). Frequencies could also be converted to percentages by dividing the total number
in one category by the total number in all categories (Dörnyei, 2007). For example, if
the number of responses which agreed with one item was 13, and the total number of all
responses to the same item was 26, the percentage of the frequency was 50%.
The presentation of the results was done in cross-tabulation tables or crosstab
with the frequency distribution and percentages to jointly display the data. The
calculation of frequencies and percentages was done by SurveyGizmo and exported to
Excel file. The data presentation in Excel was edited using crosstab before being
converted to the Microsoft Word file. The use of crosstab enables the data to be
159
compared; however, it does not give a causal relationship between them (Bryman,
2012). The use of crosstab was simply to examine trends and patterns in the data. The
percentages or the frequencies of the responses to the same question by the respondents,
for example students and EAW lecturers, were compared just to see whether the trend
between the two groups was similar or different. Therefore, if the questions or items
were included in the questionnaires of all subunits of analysis – the engineering
students, the human sciences students, the EAW lecturers, the engineering lecturers and
human sciences lecturers – I could have all the responses in the same crosstab and easily
compare whether the frequencies or percentages among the five subunits of analysis
groups were similar or different.
The presentation of results began with the demographic data. Here, crosstabs
containing more than one subunit of analysis in the rows were used only if there was
any similar information that at least two of the groups shared. For example, the
information on ‘year of study’ was only shared by the engineering and human sciences
students. Therefore, this information was presented in a crosstab comparing the year of
study of the two subunits of analysis. I would then be able to compare not just the ‘year
of study’ among the engineering students, but also compare the data with the ‘year of
study’ of the human sciences students. However, the information on ‘years of teaching
experience in CELPAD’ only referred to the EAW lecturers. Therefore, the crosstab
only showed the ‘years of teaching experience’ in the column, and I only compared the
‘years of teaching experience in CELPAD’ among the EAW lecturers.
Next, the results were presented according to the research questions. The first
research question was, ‘What are the EAW lecturers’, the faculty lecturers’, and
students’ perceptions of academic writing needs?’ For this research question, the results
containing the questionnaire data on the perceptions on the importance of writing to
students were presented. This presentation included all subunits of analysis. The second
research question was ‘What are the EAW lecturers’ and the EAW/ENGIN and the
EAW/HS students’ perceptions of the EAW course?’ For this research question, the
results comprising the questionnaire data on the perceptions of the EAW course were
presented. Since the research question was only related to the EAW lecturers and the
students, the results only represented the EAW lecturers, the EAW/ENGIN students and
the EAW/HS students. The results were then compared with the findings from the
interviews to see whether there were similarities, differences or additional information
that complemented the findings of the interviews.
3.6.9.2 Analysing the interviews.

The process of analysing the interviews involved transcribing, coding and
assigning themes. I will explain about each stage in the subsections that follow.
3.6.9.2.1 Transcribing.
The first step in analysing the interviews was transcribing the recorded
interviews. According to Brown (2001), transcribing is “making a copy, arrangement, or
record of the data with the purpose of reducing the data to a form that can easily be
stored, accessed, sorted, and analyzed” (p. 215). It is a time-consuming process, and it
can take at least five hours to transcribe a one-hour interview (Bryman, 2012; Dörnyei,
2007). Cleaning up the interview data or doing a partial transcription may reduce this
problem, but a full transcription is always encouraged as accurate records can be very
important to conduct a thorough qualitative investigation (Brown, 2001; Dörnyei,
2007).
For the purpose of my case study, I did a full transcription of all the interviews
(see Appendices Q, R, S). Altogether, I had 30 interviews (15 with EAW lecturers,
seven with faculty lecturers and eight with students). All the interviews were recorded
using an audio recorder which had a built-in memory to save the recordings in an MP3
audio file format. I considered the recorder as fit for purpose with regard to its quality of
recording because the device’s function was specifically made to record only. To
transcribe the interviews, firstly, I transferred the recordings to my computer. Then, I
used transcription software called Wreally which allowed me to download each
recording and type the interviews into a designated space in the software. The software
had the functions to play, pause, stop, rewind, forward and slow the recording speed
down, which was useful when I needed to understand certain unclear words. To
facilitate the transcribing process, I used a foot pedal which I used mostly to pause and
play the recordings as I was typing. The average duration of each interview was 20
161
minutes, taking an average of three to four hours to transcribe. Some interviews took
longer than others depending on the voice quality of the participants.
In the transcription, each participant was assigned with a code (see Tables 7, 8,
9, 10 and 11). Their names were not used to maintain confidentiality. The code only
identified them by their status (L = Lecturer; S = Student), and their course or faculty
(EAW = English for Academic Writing; ENG = Engineering; HS = Human Sciences).
Each code had a number to differentiate the participants. For example, a participant
coded as LEAW1 was an EAW lecturer, LENG1 was an engineering lecturer, LHS1
was a human sciences lecturer, SHS1 was a human sciences student, and SENG1 was
an engineering student. Each transcript was labelled with the participant’s code.
However, to mark the speakers in the transcripts, their initials were used to associate
their true identities with the interviews. For example, if the person’s name was Ken
Hyland, the initials ‘KH’ were used. I as the interviewer was referred to as ‘I’ in the
transcript.
According to Dörnyei (2007), there are no fixed transcription conventions. I
began the transcription by typing the title, date and length of the interview. Then, the
interview was typed word for word. (For referencing, I numbered every line from the
heading to the last line of the transcript, but this was done later in the Microsoft Word
document as it had a special feature to do so). Standard orthography was used as much
as possible for ease of readability (Dörnyei, 2007), but I also used features like three
dots to indicate a pause, a square bracket to indicate an action, and a parenthesis to
indicate an overlap in speech between the participant and the interviewer. Below is an
excerpt from a transcript to show how it was done:
66 I: Okay. Do you know about ESAP and EGAP?
67 AA: Err...[laughed] can you clarify that?
68 I: Okay. ESAP stands for English for Specific Academic Purposes, while EGAP stands 69
for English for General Academic Purposes. Okay. They both belong to the err...to 70
the EAP group... to the sort of subgroups of EAP. So, by that definition, does it 71
give some ideas to you what ESAP and EGAP are?
71 AA: Err... I would imagine ESAP would be very customised to a particular group of 72
students or pupils, and EGAP would be more for the general students, perhaps, yea?
73 I: Yes...yes.
74 AA: Ah… okay. So, I'm right there?
75 I: Yea. okay. So, in your opinion, is CELPAD's EAW an ESAP or EGAP course?
76 AA: I think it's the second one (EGAP).
77 I: EGAP?
In the excerpt, ‘…’ and ‘[laughed]’ in line 67 show that there was a pause and the
participant laughed after she paused, and ‘(EGAP)’ in line 76 and ‘EGAP’ in line 77
show that both the participant and the interviewer were speaking at the same time. It is
also important to note that, even though I allowed the participants to code-switch or
code-mix during the interviews, most of them used only English, except for one lecturer
and one student who sometimes used Malay words. In the transcripts, the Malay words
were italicised and translated to English. The following are the examples:
• Thesis statement. This one. Another one as I mentioned earlier the

technical..things. This one memang [translated - surely] every single
semester...quotation, page number..err..this one is very common. So there is the
second issues..[still flipping through the student's assignment] how to cite
references... (LHS4, Lines 136 – 139).
• [Giggled] I don't know... maybe kitorang punya term kot guna LOP. [translated -
maybe LOP is just our term for it] But for language, after EAW, we need to do
LAP. Yea. So, that subject is already different based on the kulliyyah. But I
think maybe EAW should, should do like that. (SHS4, Lines 144 – 147).
The whole process of transcribing took me about three to four months. After the
transcription process had been done, all the transcripts were copied and pasted into the
Microsoft Word documents.
163
3.6.9.2.2 Coding and assigning themes.

The data were coded and analysed using the computer-assisted qualitative data
analysis software or CAQDAS (Bryman, 2012; Dörnyei, 2007). The use of CAQDAS
was to facilitate the process of coding and retrieving the data. It also helped in
managing the research materials including interview transcripts, audio and video
recordings, and notes. The software that was used was NVivo 11 where interview
transcripts were uploaded for coding.
The approach used in coding the interview data was thematic analysis (Braun &
Clarke, 2006; Bryman, 2012). According to Braun and Clarke (2006), thematic analysis
is “a method for identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data” (p.
79). Ryan and Bernard (2003, as cited in Bryman, 2012) have recommended the
researcher to look at eight criteria when looking for themes: (1) repetitions; (2)
indigenous typologies; (3) metaphors and analogies; (4) transitions; (5) similarities and
differences; (6) linguistic connectors; (7) missing data; and (8) theory-related material.
Of all eight criteria, they suggest that an emphasis on repetition has been “one of the
most common criteria for establishing that a pattern within the data warrants being
considered a theme” (p. 580). Braun and Clarke explain about two approaches to a
thematic analysis. The first one is by applying an inductive approach, which is similar
to grounded theory. In this approach, the identified themes are strongly based on the
data; they have little association with the questions that the researchers used to ask the
participants. The second approach is called the ‘theoretical’ thematic analysis. In this
approach, the analysis follows the theoretical interest in the area. It is analyst-driven,
and tends to produce a detailed description of some aspect of the data rather than the
overall data. To relate the theoretical thematic analysis to its use in a case study, I
compared this approach with one of the strategies of data analysis described by Yin
(2014). Yin states that one strategy that can be used to analyse a case study is by
following the theoretical propositions or the theoretical orientations that lead a
researcher to conduct the case study.
The analysis of the interview data was conducted following Braun and Clarke’s
(2006) thematic analysis approach. The first thing that I did was to familiarise myself
with the data. This was done by reading and rereading the transcripts to immerse myself
in the meanings and patterns of the data. Next, the initial codes of the data were
generated. Codes are features of the data that appear interesting to the researcher and
can be ‘data-driven’ or ‘theory-driven’ (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The way I coded my
data was more ‘theory-driven’ as I had specific questions in my mind when I
approached the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Using NVivo, useful parts of the
transcripts were highlighted. A ‘node’ was then assigned to the highlighted parts. The
same ‘node’ was assigned to other parts that I found similar when I read through the rest
of the transcripts. I also developed other ‘nodes’ for other meaningful data.
The next step was identifying themes. This process involved “sorting the
different codes into potential themes, and collating all the relevant coded data extracts
within the identified themes” (Braun & Clarke, 2006). An example of how this was
done in my study is presented in Table 12. In the table, each data extract gave different
reasons why the EAW course was needed by the students, but they all could be related
to one key idea, which was ‘research’. The different codes/nodes contain the idea of
‘research’ for the reasons for the course. After categorising all of the codes/nodes that I
could find, I ended up with the theme ‘The student need for EAW is due to their need to
do research’ to represent the key idea in all the codes/nodes.
Table 12. Assigning Codes/Nodes and Themes to Data Extracts

Participant Data extract Codes / Nodes Themes
LEAW1 we give the students to write for research, basically. Needed for students The student need
So, they get familiar with all the terms in research to continue doing for EAW is due to
writing, erm all the components, all the different types research their need to do
of chapters, the style of writing for each of the research.
165
chapters, so, it's pretty much, yea, I think it's relevant

and students need this, especially if we want, we intend
for them to continue this study, write papers, produce...
and do their own research.
LEAW10 first of all, I think most of the students here, they are Needed as most
required to write a final year project or research paper, students have to
in which, what I found is that, we have students who write research
produce good projects. But it was written terribly. They
don't know the proper key words, vocabulary,
structure, so it was all over the place - based on what I
have read; my students' work. So, I think, this course is
very much relevant to what they are doing.
LEAW14 Academic writing... yes because we do expose them to Needed for
research, don't we? exposure to
research
After the themes had been developed, the next step was to review the themes.
Braun and Clarke (2006) mention that some themes might not be themes, some themes
might collapse into each other, and some themes might need to be broken down into
separate themes. I compared the themes that I had developed and made some changes
accordingly. The next step was to define and name the theme. What is important here is
to make sure that the names are “concise, punchy, and immediately give the reader a
sense of what the theme is about” (p. 93). The theme in Table 12 is an example of a
theme which had gone through the reviewing process and was finally used to present
my findings.
3.6.10 Determining reliability and validity

Reliability and validity are two very important goals of qualitative research
(Brown, 2001; Creswell, 2014; Dörnyei, 2007) as well as quantitative research (Greene
& McClintock, 1985; Yin, 2014; Serafini et al. 2015). Some important questions in
qualitative research are whether the research has been done with reasonable care and
whether the findings make sense and are credible (Miles, Huberman & Saldaña, 2014).
In quantitative research, researchers are concerned with the concept of generalisability,
as they attempt to make sure that their findings can be “generalized beyond the confines
of the particular context in which the research was conducted” (Bryman, 2012, p. 176).
One way that can be used to achieve reliability and validity of qualitative
research is by applying triangulation (Brown, 2001; Creswell, 2014). Brown states that
this can be done by using multiple sources to obtain the data, known as triangulation of
data. Similarly, in the context of mixed-methods design, Greene and McClintock
(1985), Yin (2014) and Serafini et al. (2015) point out the use of triangulation can
achieve reliability and validity.
Triangulation of data has been practised by researchers in needs analysis.
Serafini et al. (2015) have done a survey of methodological practice reported in needs
analysis research for over 30 years (1984 – 2014). One of their main findings was that
in needs analysis studies, “common standards for reliability and validity have yet to be
established” (p. 24). They suggested that reliability and validity in needs analysis can be
achieved by “triangulation of data obtained from the same source via different methods
and using the same method to consult several sources (i.e., source x method
interactions)” (p. 12). They categorised sources into two types: insider and outsider. For
example, to identify the language needs of medical students, the sources for information
should not just be the students, but the information should also come from the
physicians (insider) and ESP instructors (outsider). Methods refer to qualitative and
quantitative methods in research. Therefore, to achieve the best result, the sources
should be investigated using two or more sources, both qualitative and quantitative.
Relating this to my case study, I had taken the step to achieve validity and reliability of
my research by using students, EAW lecturers and faculty lecturers as my sources of
data, as well as interviews and questionnaires (qualitative and quantitative) methods to
obtain the data.
In qualitative research, validity and reliability can also be achieved by
conducting member checking (Brown, 2001; Creswell, 2014). This is done by letting
the participants verify the accuracy of the data and the researcher’s interpretations of the
data. In my case, I met with some of my participants during my second visit to the
research site in August 2015 (my data collection was in April 2015) to discuss the
interview data with them. However, I was not able to see all of them due to time
constraints and other obstacles. Therefore, what I did was ask a peer who is an English
teacher to check for accuracy of my transcription by letting her listen to the audio
recording and compare it with the interview transcript.
167
3.7 Conclusion
This chapter describes and discusses the methodological aspects of the present
case study. It begins with a discussion of the issue, the theoretical underpinnings of the
study and its relation to the methodology of this case study, and the research design.
The description of the research site is also included. The final section on the research
process discusses the specific steps that were taken in conducting the research.
CHAPTER FOUR
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction
This chapter begins with the presentations of the findings. Next, the second part
of the chapter will discuss the findings. The data collection process for the case study
was done in two stages, which has been explained in detail in Chapter Three. The first
stage was administering online questionnaires to EAW students and conducting
interviews with the EAW lecturers. One part of the interviews was immediately
analysed to identify the faculties to be approached for the case study. The engineering
faculty (ENGIN) and human sciences faculty (HS) were chosen, and their lecturers and
students who were taking EAW in CELPAD were recruited to be the participants
together with the EAW lecturers. The second stage involved interviews with the
selected ENGIN and HS lecturers as well as ENGIN and HS students (referred to as
EAW/ENGIN and EAW/HS students). During this stage, online questionnaires were
also administered to the EAW lecturers, ENGIN lecturers and HS lecturers.
The presentation of findings begins with the reporting of the demographic data.
The demographic data comprise the data from all subunits of analysis: (1) EAW
lecturers; (2) EAW/ENGIN students; (3) EAW/HS students; (4) ENGIN lecturers; and
(5) HS lecturers. Then, the analysis of the questionnaire items as well as the interview
data will be presented. For ease of presentation, some questionnaire data, especially
from the faculty lecturers and EAW students, will be presented in the format of cross-
tabulation tables. The numbers in bold in one of the columns indicate the majority of the
frequencies and percentages.
The analysis of the questionnaire data only included the items which are
significant for the findings. It is important to note that the questionnaire data are to
complement the interview findings. This is because this part of the research was not
entirely successful, especially in achieving the desired response rate from the
respondents although several measures (reminders through the EAW coordinator and
Facebook group) had been taken to get more responses during the data collection
process. In addition, the open-ended questions in the questionnaire did not get enough
responses for a thematic analysis to answer the research questions. Therefore, they were
not reported as part of the findings.
169
Since the case study employed interviews and questionnaires, the findings are
presented by disaggregating the results from the analysis of interviews and
questionnaires to answer each research question. Hence, the most important parts of the
analysis, which contribute to answering the research questions, have been selected in
the presentation of the findings. To answer the first and second research questions, the
discussion on needs references Present Situation Analysis (PSA) and Target Situation
Analysis (TSA) – a needs analysis model by Robinson (1991). For the third research
question, the discussion of the findings will be carried out from the perspectives of the
critical needs analysis or rights analysis (Benesch, 2001a).
4.2 Survey Demographic Data

The demographic data reported here are from questionnaires completed by the
five subunits of analysis. The total number of respondents was 157. There were 26
EAW lecturers (N=26, response rate 53%), 39 faculty lecturers (N=39) comprising 22
from the engineering faculty (n=22, response rate 5.2%) and 17 from the human
sciences faculty (n=17, response rate 6%), and 92 EAW students (N=92) comprising 48
from the engineering faculty (n=47, response rate 15%) and 45 from the human sciences
faculty (n=45, response rate 15%).
4.2.1 Age.
Table 13. Age of EAW Lecturers (N=26)

35 - 44 years 45 - 54 years > 54 years Row
old old old Total
Freq 15 10 1 26
1. Age:
Row % 57.70% 38.50% 3.80% 100.00%
Abbreviations. Freq = frequency
Table 13 shows the age of the EAW lecturers who completed the questionnaires.
At the time of the survey, 15 lecturers or 57.70%, which were more than half of EAW
lecturers who completed the questionnaires, were between 35 to 44 years old. Ten other
lecturers were in the age range of between 45 to 54 years old, which was 38.50% of the
total number of respondents. Only one lecturer was in the age category of 54 or more.
Table 14. Age of Faculty Lecturers (N=39)
25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 > 54 years Row
Faculties: years old years old years old old Total
Freq 4 11 4 3 22
ENGIN (n=22)
Row % 18.20% 50.00% 18.20% 13.60% 56.40%
Freq 1 9 4 3 17
1. Age: HS (n=17)
Row % 5.90% 52.90% 23.50% 17.60% 43.60%
Column Total 5 20 8 6 39
Column Total % 12.80% 51.30% 20.50% 15.40% 100.00%
Table 14 shows that most lecturers from both faculties who completed the
questionnaires were between 35 to 44 years old. Eleven respondents from ENGIN and
nine from HS were in this category, or 50% and 52.90% respectively. ENGIN had the
smallest proportion of lecturers in the over 54 years old group, while HS had only one
lecturer in the age range of 25 to 34 years old.
Table 15. Age of EAW Students (N=92)
Faculties: 20 - 22 years old 23 - 25 years old Row Total
EAW/ENGIN Freq 4 43 47
(n=47) Row
% 8.50% 91.50% 51.10%
EAW/HS Freq 11 34 45
1. Age: Row
(n=45)
% 24.40% 75.60% 48.90%
Column Total 15 77 92
Column Total
% 16.30% 83.70% 100.00%
As shown in Table 15, there are only two age groups of students who completed
the questionnaires. It can be clearly seen in the table that the vast majority of students
who completed the questionnaires were between 23 to 25 years old. Out of 47
EAW/ENGIN students, 43 or 91.50% of them were in this age group, and out of 45
EAW/HS students, 34 or 75.60% of them were in the same age category. The other age
group, which was 20 to 22 years old, comprised only four EAW/ENGIN students.
171
However, the number for EAW/HS students was slightly higher, with 11 of them in the
group.
4.2.2 Respondents’ gender.
Table 16. Gender of EAW Lecturers (N=26)

Not Row
Male Female indicated Total
Freq 2 23 1 26
2. Gender:
Row % 8.00% 88.00% 4.00% 100.00%
Table 16 shows the genders of EAW lecturers who completed the

questionnaires. From the table, it can be seen that almost all respondents were females.
One lecturer did not answer this question, and two EAW lecturers who completed the
questionnaires were males.
Table 17. Gender of Faculty Lecturers (N=39)

Row
Faculties: Male Female Total
Freq 8 14 22
ENGIN (n=22)
Row % 36.40% 63.60% 56.40%
Freq 3 14 17
2. Gender: HS (n=17)
Row % 17.60% 82.40% 43.60%
Column Total % 28.20% 71.80% 100.00%
Table 17 shows that both groups of faculty lecturers who completed the
questionnaires were mainly females. There were 14 ENGIN lecturers, or 63.60% of the
total amount of ENGIN respondents, and 14 HS lecturers, or 82.40% of the total amount
of HS respondents. There were only eight males from ENGIN and three from HS.
Table 18. Gender of EAW Students (N=92)

Faculties: Male Female Row Total
EAW/ENGIN Freq 21 26 47
(n=47) Row % 44.70% 55.30% 51.10%
Freq 16 29 45
2. Gender: EAW/HS (n=45)
Row % 35.60% 64.40% 48.90%
Column Total % 40.20% 59.80% 100.00%
Similar to EAW lecturers and faculty lecturers, most of the EAW students who
completed the questionnaires were also females (Table 18). However, the difference
between the number of males and females for both groups was not big. For
EAW/ENGIN students, 26 of them or 55.30% were females, while for EAW/HS
students, the number of females was slightly higher, which was 29 or 64.40%.
4.2.3 Nationality.
Table 19. Nationality of EAW Lecturers (N=26)

Row
Malaysian Total
Freq 26 26
3. Nationality:
Row % 100.00% 100.00%
It can be seen in Table 19 that all 26 EAW respondents who completed the
questionnaires were Malaysians.
Table 20. Nationality of Faculty Lecturers (N=39)
Faculties: Malaysian Non-Malaysian Other Row Total

3. Nationality: ENGIN Freq 18 3 1 22
173
(n=22) Row % 81.81% 13.64% 4.55% 57.90%

Freq 14 2 0 16
HS (n=17)
Row % 87.50% 12.50% 0.00% 42.10%
Column
Total 32 5 1 38
Column
Total % 84.21% 13.16% 2.63% 100.00%
Most of the ENGIN and HS respondents were Malaysians. As can be seen from
Table 20, 18 respondents or 81.81% of ENGIN respondents were Malaysians. From the
HS lecturers group, 14 respondents or 87.50% were Malaysians. However, one
respondent did not choose any option, making the total number of respondents who
answered this question 16 out of 17 respondents.
Table 21. Nationality of EAW Students (N=92)

Row
Faculties: Malaysian Non-Malaysian Other Total
Freq 46 0 1 47
EAW/ENGIN
Row
(n=47)
% 97.87% 0.00% 2.13% 51.09%
Freq 40 3 2 45
EAW/HS
3. Nationality: Row
(n=45)
% 89.00% 6.60% 4.40% 48.91%
Column Total 86 3 3 92
Column Total
% 93.48% 3.26% 3.26% 100.00%
Table 21 consists of information on the nationality of EAW students who

completed the questionnaires. Similar to EAW lecturers and faculty lecturers, the
majority of the respondents were Malaysians. Forty-six of EAW/ENGIN students, or
97.87% of them, were Malaysians, and one respondent chose ‘Other’ but did not specify
a nationality. However, it was slightly different for EAW/HS students in terms of the
breakdowns. There were 89% or forty Malaysian respondents, three non-Malaysians
and two who did not specify a nationality.
4.2.4 Highest academic qualifications.
Table 22. Highest Academic Qualifications of EAW Lecturers (N=26)

Master's Bachelor's Row
PhD Degree Degree Total
Freq 3 17 6 26
4. Highest academic qualification:
Row % 11.50% 65.40% 23.10% 100.00%
From Table 22, we can see that the majority of EAW lecturers who had
completed the questionnaires held master’s degrees at the time of the survey. Seventeen
respondents or 65.40% of them were in this category, while three respondents had PhDs
and six respondents had bachelor’s degrees.
Table 23. Highest Academic Qualifications of Faculty Lecturers (N=39)

Master's
Faculties: PhD Degree Row Total
ENGIN Freq 20 1 21
(n=22) Row % 95.20% 4.80% 56.80%
Freq 16 0 16
HS (n=17)
4. Highest academic qualification: Row % 100.00% 0.00% 43.20%
Column
Total 36 1 37
Column
Total % 97.30% 2.70% 100.00%
Table 23 reveals that between the two groups of faculty lecturers who took part
in the survey, 21 ENGIN lecturers or 95.20% of them held PhDs, except for one who
had a master’s degree. However, one lecturer did not indicate his or her highest
academic qualification. This is similar to the other group, as one HS lecturer also did
not reveal his or her highest academic qualification. Nevertheless, the rest of the HS
respondents indicated that they held PhDs at the time of the survey.
4.2.5 Year of study.

175
Table 24. Year of Study of EAW Students (N=92)

Faculties: Second year Third year Fourth year Row Total
EAW/ENGIN Freq 0 2 45 47
(n=47) Row % 0.00% 4.30% 95.70% 51.60%
EAW/HS Freq 1 16 27 44
4. Year of study: (n=45) Row % 2.30% 36.40% 61.40% 48.40%
Column Total 1 18 72 91
Column Total
% 1.10% 19.80% 79.10% 100.00%
In contrast to EAW lecturers and faculty lecturers who revealed their highest
academic qualifications, EAW students were asked to indicate their year of study during
the survey. As shown in Table 24, almost all (95.70%) EAW/ENGIN students were in
their fourth year, which was the final year of their studies, except for two who were in
their third year. On the other hand, EAW/HS students were more diverse with regard to
their years of study. Only 27 (61.40%) respondents were in their final year. Sixteen
students or 36.40% were doing their third year, one student was in their second year,
and one student did not indicate his or her year of study.
4.2.6 Years of teaching experience.
Table 25. Years of Teaching Experience of EAW Lecturers (N=26)

More 16 - 20 11 - 15 6 - 10 Less Row
than 20 years years years than 6 Total
years years
5. Years of teaching experience in Freq 2 2 6 11 5 26
CELPAD: Row % 7.70% 7.70% 23.10% 42.30% 19.20% 100.00%
Table 25 gives us information on EAW lecturers’ years of teaching experience

at the time of the survey. Eleven of them had been teaching for six to ten years.
However, this number was not a clear majority as it only represents 42.30% of the total
sample. Five of the respondents, or 19.20% of them, had less than six years’ teaching
experience in EAW, while two respondents had a vast experience of more than 20
years.
Table 26. Years of Teaching Experience of Faculty Lecturers
More than 16 - 20 11 - 15 6 - 10 Less than Row
Faculties: 20 years years years years 6 years Total
Freq 3 3 8 1 7 22
ENGIN (n=22)
Row % 13.60% 13.60% 36.40% 4.50% 31.80% 56.40%
5. Teaching
experience Freq 5 1 3 2 6 17
HS (n=17)
(current Row % 29.40% 5.90% 17.60% 11.80% 35.30% 43.60%
faculties): Column Total 8 4 11 3 13 39
Column Total 100.00
% 20.50% 10.30% 28.20% 7.70% 33.30% %
From Table 26, it can be seen that both groups of faculty lecturers included
respondents with various lengths of teaching experience when the survey was carried
out. Most ENGIN lecturers who completed the survey had eleven to fifteen years of
teaching experience at their faculty. There were eight of them, representing 36.40% of
the total sample. Seven respondents had less than six years of teaching experience, and
one lecturer had been teaching for six to ten years. There were three lecturers who had
taught for more than 20 years. On the contrary, many HS respondents (35.30%) had less
than six years of experience. The most experienced ones were five in number, a
percentage of 29.40% of the total sample.
4.2.7 Linguistic backgrounds.
Table 27. Linguistic Backgrounds of EAW Students (N=92)

177
EPT IELTS TOEFL Other Row

university Total
Faculties: equivalent -
MUET
7. My English Freq 42 4 1 0 47
language
EAW/ENGIN
qualification
(n=47)
when I entered
kulliyyah was:
Row % 89.40% 8.50% 2.10% 0.00% 51.10%
Freq 39 2 2 2 45
EAW/HS
(n=45) Row % 86.70% 4.40% 4.40% 4.40% 48.90%
Column Total 81 6 3 2 92
Column Total 88.00% 6.50% 3.30% 2.20% 100.00%
%
Abbreviations. Freq = frequency; EPT = English Proficiency Test; IELTS = International English
Language Testing System; TOEFL = Test of English as a Foreign Language; MUET = Malaysian
University English Test.
Table 27 indicates the students’ linguistic background in terms of their English

language qualification when they entered the university. A large majority of students
from both groups took the EPT, an English test administered by the university. Forty-
two or 89.40% of EAW/ENGIN students were in this category together with 39 or
86.60% of EAW/HS students. Other types of qualifications were IELTS (four
EAW/ENGIN students and two EAW/HS students), TOEFL (one EAW/ENGIN student
and two EAW/HS students), and MUET (two EAW/HS students).
4.3 Analysis of Data from Interviews and Questionnaires.

The research data were collected from interviews and online questionnaires.
Thirty respondents took part in the interviews. The respondents were 15 EAW lecturers
and seven faculty lecturers (three from ENGIN and four from HS), and eight EAW
students (four from ENGIN and four from HS). Following the analysis, several major
themes were developed after classifying the respondents’ responses into categories. The
categories were developed when the respondents gave consistent responses when
answering key questions related to the research questions. Nevertheless, it is important
to note that there were times when the respondents had more than one answer to the
same question and the answers were categorised in different categories, but contributed
to the main themes that were selected to answer the research questions.
The questionnaires were administered by providing the SurveyGizmo link of the
questionnaires to respondents. A total number of 157 respondents completed the
questionnaires. The number was made up of 26 EAW Lecturers, 22 ENGIN lecturers,
17 HS lecturers, 47 EAW/ENGIN students and 45 EAW/HS students. The questionnaire
data will be presented mostly in cross-tabulation tables with the frequency distribution
and percentages to see the association between the data and the respondents.
To answer the research questions, the results of the interviews will be presented
alongside the results from questionnaires wherever necessary as a triangulation of
evidence to strengthen the construct validity of the case study (Yin, 2014). I will present
the themes with reference to the categories and examples from the interview transcripts,
to answer Research Question 1 (RQ 1), Research Question 2 (RQ 2) and Research
Question 3 (RQ 3). The results of questionnaires will be used to support the interview
findings to answer RQ 1 and RQ 2.
4.4 Research Question 1

The first research question (RQ 1) is:
1. What are the EAW lecturers’, the faculty lecturers’, and students’ perceptions of
academic writing needs?
To answer this research question on eliciting the respondents’ perceptions on the

academic writing needs of the students, following Robinson (1991), the responses were
analysed to understand the needs according to Present Situation Analysis (PSA) and
Target Situation Analysis (TSA).
For EAW lecturers, they are less likely to know their students’ specific needs in
terms of academic writing in their faculties; instead, they could only see their students’
problems in EAW and set expectations of what the students would achieve from EAW.
Questions were asked about what they think the students’ problems were (PSA) and
what students would achieve from the course (TSA) to elicit their opinions on student
179
needs. They were also asked to explain how they thought EAW could fulfill students’
writing needs in their respective faculties (TSA). On the other hand, it was rather
straightforward with the faculty lecturers. With regard to academic writing, they would
see their student needs in terms of what writing skills their students needed to have in
their studies (PSA), and what they expected the students to be able to do in academic
language performance (TSA). The students were also able to give information on their
needs by sharing what their problems were (PSA) and what they hoped to achieve from
the EAW course (TSA).
4.4.1 Present Situation Analysis (PSA).

Two major themes emerged in the PSA from the interviews with the
respondents: (1) student needs for research writing skills; and (2) student needs for basic
language skills. However, another theme was: (3) students have needs which were
unmet by EAW.
4.4.1.1 Theme 1: Student needs for research writing skills.

This theme derived from three categories classifying students’ present needs that
emerged during the analysis of the interviews. The students’ present needs were
identified as the respondents described the problems faced by students in their writing
and their needs. These three categories are what the respondents believed to be the most
important research writing skills needed by students.
The first one is ‘literature review’, which was specifically mentioned by four
EAW lecturers and two ENGIN lecturers. For example, when asked about what the
respondents thought their student needs were, one EAW lecturer said that “the problem
here lies in literature review” (LEAW6, Line 157), and another lecturer from ENGIN
mentioned that the students needed to “be taught how to critically do the literature
review” (LENG3, Line 138).
The second category is ‘paraphrasing and summarising’. This category was
developed from responses given by three EAW lecturers, two ENGIN lecturers, two
EAW/ENGIN students and one EAW/HS student. One EAW lecturer explained that the
students “don't really understand that they need to be critical; they have to read and then
take the relevant ideas and then try to sort of summarise, paraphrase.” (LEAW5, Lines
206 – 207). The lecturers from ENGIN also shared the same opinion as they said:
“Although they cite, but they still...they need to rephrase all the sentences” (LENG2,
Lines 181 – 182); and “…at the moment I think the...the students are confused even on
how to actually reword or rephrase from a journal, you know, from a published paper.
They don't know what is plagiarism. So what they do is normally just copy and paste”
(LENG1, Lines 57 – 59).
Moreover, examples from students’ responses are:
About writing, for me, now I am concerned with the... with how I paraphrase
(SHS3, Lines 63 – 64);
I think we need to have like... you need to know how to put anything that you
wanna say. Everything in the simplest form possible so that people can
understand it easily (SENG2, Lines 48 – 49).
The third category is ‘citations’. All three ENGIN lecturers perceived that one of
their students’ present needs is to know how to make proper citations. When asked
about their students’ writing problems, one ENGIN lecturer said, “they don’t know how
to actually quote properly for citation purposes” (LENG1, Lines 61 – 62), and in
explaining what her students needed to do in relation to academic writing, she
mentioned, “… need to have a proper citation” (LENG2, Line 118). Two EAW
lecturers, two EAW/ENGIN students and one EAW/HS student also mentioned this
when explaining about academic writing related to present situation needs. One of the
EAW/ENGIN students referred to doing citations as his problem in writing. He said,
“… looking back right now at my Seminar report, it's full of mistakes in terms of
citation” (SENG4, Lines 37 – 38).
This theme is also supported by the stimulated recall data, which are the
lecturers’ comments about students’ problems in written assignments during the
interviews. Students’ written assignments were used as the stimulus for the lecturers to
181
retrieve their thoughts to answer the interview questions (Dörnyei, 2007; Greene &
Higgins, 1994). Some examples are shown in Table 28.
Table 28. Stimulated Recall Data indicating Needs for Research Writing Skills
Respondents Comments Excerpts from assignments
LEAW3 LEAW3: My students, they know The scope of teaching is much
that they have to write in that way, wider compared to before. For
so it is different from how they write instance, back in the old days a
to their friends… like, you know the teacher may only teaches the
words that they use ‘the scope of students. (p. 4)
teaching is much wider, For
instance… and Research evidence Research evidence has shown that
has shown that…’ (Lines 156 – there is high stress and burnout
161). among lecturers in higher
LEAW3: This is an example of educational institutions. (p. 5)
language for research writing… we
teach them, but I think this is… one
of the difficult ones. (Lines 163 –
164).
LEAW3: …as you can see this is the
first draft… I commented I see a lot
of copying from the original. (Lines
167 – 168).
LEAW3: … so I asked them to
paraphrase… use appropriate
technique in citing sources. (Lines
172 – 182).
LEAW5 LEAW5: We have told them that Several literature have been
they have to indicate that they have reviewed in the relationship
started the literature review. So, for between the gender differences
example, this student says... (males and females) and belief in
‘Several literature have been conspiracy theory. (p. 4)
reviewed in the relationship
between the gender differences… Second, Farias, Claridge and
and belief in conspiracy theory’ Lalljee (2005) did a research on
Then I know that this is the the relationship between
beginning of the literature review, involvement in New Age religiosity
and added by the citation and certain aspects of personality
‘[inaudible] 2005 did a research’ and cognitive functioning. (p. 5)
and then ’a study conducted by
Darwin’ ok, then ‘despite Third, a study conducted by
numerous studies reported on the Darwin, Neave and Holmes (2011)
relationship between gender’, among the student population of a
that..that I know, that is... they tried North-East University in the United
to say something about the gap. Kingdom (UK). (p. 5)
(Lines 188 – 195).
Me: Generally, in terms of academic Despite numerous studies reported
writing in EAW, what kind of on the relationship between
problems do you see? gender differences and superstitious
LEAW5: …I would say literature belief, magical thinking or
review, very difficult… because conspiracy thinking, studies done on
most of the students tend to copy the relationship between gender
and paste. They don’t really differences and belief in conspiracy
understand that they need to be theory among university students are
critical; they have to read and then still limited. (p. 5)
take the relevant ideas and then try
to sort of summarise, paraphrase.
(Lines 202 – 207).
LENG1 LENG1: Let me see… just grammar Wiercigrocch M. and Budak states
errors… and then that mode of coupling resulted from
Me: Grammar errors? the vibration in the thrust force
LENG1: Yes grammar errors, and direction generate vibration in the
then how they quote. The way they thrust and cutting force direction.
quote sometimes… it’s not Amin et al. and Anayet u Patwari
consistent throughout the report. et al. found that the root cause of
Me: Citation techniques? chatter lies in the coincidence of
LENG1: Yes, citation techniques, frequency of instability of chip
yes. (Lines 114 – 121). formation with one of the natural
frequencies of the machine-spindle-
tool system components during end
milling machining operation. (p. 9)
*No year in citations

LENG2 LENG2: So this… basically if we Table 2.1 shows the basic facts of oil
want to produce a literature review, palm. (p. 7)
so we need to have a proper citation.
(Line 118). Table 2.2 shows the grading
LENG2: So everything is cited if standard of FFB according to MPOB
they take figures or references from manual grading. (p. 7)
others. (Line 129).
LENG2: They need to produce the *Both tables do not have references.
references. (Line 132).
Table 28 shows that the EAW lecturers (LEAW3 and LEAW5) and the ENGIN
lecturers (LENG1 and LENG2) used examples from their students’ written assignments
to show the problems indicating the present situation needs (PSA) related to research
183
writing skills. For instance, LEAW3 highlighted some examples (e.g., ‘Research
evidence has shown that’) and related them to the need for students to have
paraphrasing and referencing skills. Similarly, LEAW5 highlighted sentences and
phrases signalling specific purposes in a research paper before she stressed the need for
summarising and paraphrasing skills to overcome students’ problems in writing the
literature review. LENG1 and LENG2 also highlighted the need for students to know
how to apply citation techniques after they saw missing references in their students’
assignments.
4.4.1.2 Conclusion.
In conclusion, it appears that this theme emerged from responses by all parties,
except from HS lecturers. Apparently, this view is mostly associated with EAW
lecturers, ENGIN lecturers and EAW/ENGIN students. Only two EAW/HS students felt
that research writing skills are one of the main present situation needs. Three categories
which were perceived as the most important research writing skills needed by students
are: (1) literature review; (2) paraphrasing and summarising; and (3) citations.
4.4.1.3 Theme 2: Student needs for basic language skills.

This theme was identified after the respondents revealed that students needed
basic language skills. The need was identified as the respondents discussed the
problems in using some basic language skills. These language skills have been
classified into three main categories. The first one is rather general, which is ‘grammar’,
while the other two are actually specific items in grammar, which are ‘tenses’ and
‘subject-verb agreement’. Four EAW lecturers, three HS lecturers, one ENGIN lecturer
and two EAW/HS students specifically mentioned ‘grammar’ upon explaining writing
problems which could be related to present situation needs. As one EAW lecturer said,
“some of them are still grappling in terms of their grammar.” (LEAW2, Lines 116 –
117). In addition, one EAW/HS student said, “I have...I have problem with my writing,
especially on my grammar” (SHS2, Line 40). Two EAW lecturers and one ENGIN
lecturer mentioned ‘tenses’, and three EAW lecturers revealed ‘subject-verb agreement’
as problems related to student needs for basic language skills. Other than these main
categories, there were two other basic language skills mentioned by two respondents
which could be categorised as ‘connectors’ and ‘vocabulary’, but they were not
mentioned by others.
Table 29 shows some examples from the stimulated recall data which indicate
the lecturers’ reference to their students’ written assignments as they described their
students’ needs in terms of basic language skills.
Table 29. Stimulated Recall Data indicating Needs for Basic Language Skills
Respondents Comments Excerpts from assignments
LEAW15 LEAW15: Yes, subject-verb The questionnaires were distributed
agreement. Even though law by hand to 40 respondents. The
students, good graduating Law respondents consisted of 19 students
students, still, they are facing this and three lecturers from Ahmad
kind of problems - subject-verb Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws
agreement. I don't know why. You (AIKOL) and 15 students and three
know, because... because I, actually lecturers from Kulliyyah of
I tell my students all the time. When Economics and Management
it comes to subject-verb agreement, Sciences (KENMS). The students’
it is very, very crucial because, survey was administered in the
subject-verb agreement, the IIUM library, AIKOL Café,
subject... you know, somehow even Economic Café, class and room.
the location itself - subject and verb. While, the lecturers survey were
So verb is next to the subject. If it administered in their office. (p. 8)
doesn't agree to each other, it can be
seen... your sentence is not perfect, According to Amanuddin
as simple as that. So, that's subject- Shamsuddin et al. (2014), he
verb agreement. (Lines 135 – 141). suggested that the personally
administered approach in
distributing and collecting the
questionnaires give an advantages
and opportunity for the researchers
to introduce the research topic and
motivate the respondents to answer
the questions wholeheartedly. (p. 8)
LHS1 LHS1: Even though we tell them What are the benefits gained by the
the difference between a research offspring of mix marriages IIUM
objective statement and how staff and students.
research question should be like, What are the challenges faced by the
they don’t see the difference offspring of mix marriages IIUM
between the statement and the staff and students. (p. 5)
question. (Lines 141 – 142).
LSH1: You see. So I think that *Both research questions do not
185
comes a lot with proficiency in have question marks.

formulating sentences. (Line 144).
LHS2 LHS2: Okay, the problem with a The methods of parenting style will
student's writing is that, they are influence teenagers’ academic
..they don't know how to write. performances whether it become
Err...this is not concerning academic good or bad in their performances.
or research writing. Basic writing Parents who practiced parenting
actually. They don't know. To me, style in meaningful behaviour such
they don't know. Because it seems to as authoritative parenting, it will
me that, within a paragraph, increase the level of academic
they're...they are lost. All right. They performances compared to parents
are lost, they don't know the specific who ignore their responsibilities
point that they need to stress. When which is neglectful parenting.
they write, there is no connecting According to Baumrind,
sentences, there is no connection authoritative parents is who attempt
between preceding and subsequent to direct the child’s activities but in a
sentences, and between paragraphs rational issue oriented manner such
there is no connecting, connectors as giving a support, love, protection
between first paragraph and the and communicate well with their
second paragraph, and everything children (cited from Uji, Sakamoto,
is...seems to be...total haywire, if I Adachi, & Kitamura, 2013).
may use the word, because there's no Neglectful parents is the parent who
connection. When you read, you do not involve the child’s life; it is
cannot make sense. To me, that is associated with children’s social
basic in writing. All right. (Lines 69 competence, especially a lack of
– 76). self-control (Baumrind, 1971, 2012).
(p. 1)
*Paragraph lacks coherence
In Table 29, the EAW lecturer (LEAW15) commented that the subject-verb
agreement is one of the main problems among her students after she noticed the errors
in her students’ work. Additionally, one of the HS lecturers (LHS2) emphasised that the
students need to address their basic language skills, as she was reading her students’
written assignment which had problems of coherence in writing.
4.4.1.4 Conclusion.
In summary, this theme was formed as the respondents discussed the problems
in applying some basic language skills, which is seen as a need for the students. The
idea was shared by respondents from all groups. However, compared to the first theme,
all HS lecturers mentioned this when they discussed their students’ present needs. Three
categories of basic language skills perceived as the most important are: (1) grammar; (2)
tenses; and (3) subject-verb agreement.
4.4.1.5 Theme 3: Students have needs which were unmet by EAW.

This is an interesting finding from the interviews with two of the student
respondents. Both of them described their writing needs, but they either felt that EAW
was not addressing their needs, or they did not see the need for EAW to meet their
needs.
One of them is an EAW/HS student. Despite admitting that grammar was his
problem in writing, he did not think that EAW had met his need to improve his
grammar. He explained this in his response:
Mostly, EAW it didn't...it didn't teach me English. It didn't teach me how to

write or how to what...it just teach me how to do research, the step of doing
research and, just teach me how to write the research, which is… I already...
always do. (SHS2, Lines 137 – 139).
This student viewed EAW as a course that taught research methodology,

something that he had already learned in his faculty. When asked about the writing
skills other than grammar, such as summarising, paraphrasing and synthesising, he
remained consistent in his opinion that he already learned all those skills in his faculty
and that they are all the same thing.
Another student who shared a similar view was an EAW/ENGIN student. He
explained that the nature of writing in his faculty required him to summarise
information from different sources. However, even though he regarded summarising as
his need, and that summarising is taught in EAW, he claimed that it was not difficult for
him to summarise. He also added that he did not need to quote, and he did not have to
do a lot of synthesising and paraphrasing either, as can be seen in this excerpt from the
interview:
187
SENG1: I apply the summarising skills especially. Not from... not a lot from
synthesising and everything... I am not quoting. A lot of summarising. (Lines 49
– 50)
Me: A lot of summarising. Do you find it difficult to summarise? (Line 51)
SENG1: Not really. If I have the right sources, and I have the reliable sources,
then, it's gonna be very easy for me to summarise. (Lines 52 – 53)
When I tried to get him talk about any writing difficulties that he had, he
admitted that writing was difficult, but he related his difficulties to the aspect of the
content of writing:
Me: Ok. So in a way when you said it's difficult to write, can you give examples
what is or what are difficult areas or skills that you have to have to write? (Lines
40 – 41)
SENG1: Because I have to write about what the problem is when I'm conducting
the project. But if I want to make the research about that problem, there's no
specific solution for that problem so I have to take from a lot of sources and
come out with my own answer. (Lines 42 – 44)
4.4.1.6 Conclusion.
This finding revealed that although some respondents described their present
writing needs, they did not see their needs being addressed by EAW. In some cases,
they did not see the need for EAW to meet their needs.
4.4.2 Target Situation Analysis (TSA).

The respondents also explained about their students’ target needs, and the
following is the result of TSA from the interviews. Three major themes were developed
from the responses on the student target needs: (1) applying research writing skills upon
graduation; (2) writing good research reports; and (3) having a higher level of
proficiency in language.
4.4.2.1 Theme 1: Applying research writing skills upon graduation.
Three respondents among the EAW lecturers felt that students needed to have
research writing skills as their target needs as they could apply them even after
graduation. They believed that the students would be able to use the research skills if
they were to continue their studies, and they might also be using the skills in their work,
as illustrated by the responses below:
Because when they graduate, they have to have the ability to write as well as
doing research. I mean, I think we should be able to produce those kinds of
students. Not only just to, you know, know theories, but also be able to write
whatever they have written academically. (LEAW11, Lines 100 – 103);
… some of the components or the skills which are included in EAW, they may
use it when they’re in the workforce. For example, if they... we require them to
create or come up with survey questions, collect data, so even though they are
not researching, maybe once they go to work, they may need to do that as well.
(LEAW1, Lines 50 – 53);
Because especially for those who, for those who have intentions to pursue study
to higher level, especially master students and PhD. I even have many students,
they actually plan to, you know, to climb higher. So yea, of course this course is
totally needed. (LEAW15, Lines 68 – 71).
4.4.2.2 Conclusion.
The responses above were part of EAW lecturers’ answers to the question
investigating student target needs in terms of academic writing in their faculties. Since
academic writing is taught as research writing in EAW, they perceived it as something
that students needed in relation to research writing skills in the future.
189
4.4.2.3 Theme 2: Writing good research reports.

Writing good research reports is another major theme. However, none of the
EAW lecturers viewed this as a target situation that their students had a need for.
Faculty lecturers, on the other hand, perceived the importance of good research reports
so that they could be published and enjoyed by readers reading them. One ENGIN
lecturer mentioned that, “… the ultimate goal is that, if a student can produce a good
report, that their report can be straight away transformed into an article to be submitted
to journal.” (LENG2, Line 214 – 215), and another one from the same faculty said that
she would expect her students “to come out with a report that is not just readable but
err...I can enjoy reading.” (LENG3, Lines 306 – 307). One lecturer from HS shared a
similar view when it comes to target needs as she hoped the students “would be able to
come out with a good proposal.” (LHS3, Line 139). Two students also viewed the
importance of producing good research reports as their target situation needs. When
asked what they would achieve from EAW, an EAW/HS student answered, “a good
research paper” (SHS1, Line 92). Furthermore, an EAW/ENGIN student revealed,
“Probably, if I really concentrate, I probably know how to use... do a research paper,
and probably know the correct format and way to cite my sources, and that will help me
a lot in FYP (final year project) and IDP (integrated design project)” (SENG1, Lines 78
– 80).
4.4.2.4 Conclusion.
It seems interesting that for EAW lecturers who taught research writing in
EAW, none of them perceived writing good research reports as the main target need for
their students. Instead, there were lecturers as well as students from ENGIN and HS
who thought that it was one of the important target needs as far as academic writing was
concerned.
4.4.2.5 Theme 3: Having a higher level of proficiency in language.

Finally, another major theme related to TSA is ‘having a higher level of
proficiency in language’. This theme developed only from HS lecturers’ responses.
According to three of them, students needed to achieve a higher level of proficiency,
especially in writing. One of them said that students should “produce enough level of
proficiency of that language that will enable them to write properly” (LHS2, Lines 170
– 171). She also added:
And then that skill actually cannot stop there, they have to be able to produce
something which is different from the common writing, common writing… just
the normal writing, because they have to get into the academic or research-based
writing. (LSH2, Lines 180 – 182)
Another respondent extended the notion of language proficiency to reading. She

mentioned, “it is not just writing...it’s academic language performance. Okay. So
perhaps also more reading, higher proficiency in language.” (LHS1, Lines 167 – 168)
4.4.2.6 Conclusion.
To conclude, this theme was only developed from responses from HS lecturers.
They seemed to be consistently concerned with their students’ proficiency in English
language and hoped the students would have a higher level of proficiency in the future.
4.4.3 Questionnaire results on EAW lecturers’, faculty lecturers’ and

students’ perceptions of academic writing.
From the questionnaire, I was able to gather additional information on the
research subjects’ perceptions of academic writing. Specifically, I wanted to know the
importance of writing to them, in terms of the skills, academic writing and research
writing (items one, two and three), and to see how important they thought writing in
relation to EAW course objectives (items four, five, six, seven and eight) was. The tool
used to elicit this information in the questionnaire was the Likert scale. The items were
in the form of statements, and the respondents were asked to rate their attitudes towards
the statements by choosing one of the five fixed choice responses to express how much
they agreed or disagreed with the statements. The following analyses in Table 30 and
Table 31 will provide information on the subjects’ perceptions towards academic
writing.
191
Table 30. Importance of Writing to Students: EAW Lecturers’, Faculty Lecturers’

and EAW Students’ Perceptions
Strongly Strongly Row
Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree Total
EAW Freq 0 0 1 15 9 25
Lecturers
(n=25) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 4.00% 60.00% 36.00% 100.00%
1. Writing is ENGIN Freq 0 2 1 13 6 22
the most Lecturers
important (n=22) Row % 0.00% 9.10% 4.50% 59.10% 27.30% 100.00%
language skill HS Lecturers Freq 2 2 0 3 10 17
for students in (n=17) Row % 11.80% 11.80% 0.00% 17.60% 58.80% 100.00%
my EAW/ENGIN
kulliyyah/most Freq 1 9 9 20 7 46
Students
kulliyyahs. (n=46) Row % 2.17% 19.57% 19.57% 43.48% 15.22% 100.00%
EAW/HS Freq 0 0 5 22 18 45
Students
(n=45) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 11.10% 48.90% 40.00% 100.00%
EAW Freq 1 0 0 14 11 26
Lecturers
(n=26) Row % 3.80% 0.00% 0.00% 53.80% 42.30% 100.00%
ENGIN Freq 0 0 0 12 10 22
2. Academic Lecturers
writing is very (n=22) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 54.50% 45.50% 100.00%
important for HS Lecturers Freq 1 0 0 4 11 16
students in my (n=16) Row % 6.30% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 68.80% 100.00%
kulliyyah/most EAW/ENGIN
kulliyyahs. Freq 0 4 9 22 11 46
Students
(n=46) Row % 0.00% 8.70% 19.60% 47.80% 23.90% 100.00%
EAW/HS Freq 0 0 4 22 19 45
Students
(n=45) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 8.90% 48.90% 42.20% 100.00%
EAW Freq 1 2 2 13 8 26
Lecturers
(n=26) Row % 3.80% 7.70% 7.70% 50.00% 30.80% 100.00%
ENGIN Freq 0 0 0 11 11 22
3. Research Lecturers
writing is very (n=22) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 100.00%
important for HS Lecturers Freq 2 0 0 3 12 17
kulliyyah/most EAW/ENGIN
kulliyyahs. Freq 0 1 4 22 18 45
Students
(n=45) Row % 0.00% 2.20% 8.90% 48.90% 40.00% 100.00%
EAW/HS Freq 0 0 5 20 19 44
Students
(n=44) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 11.40% 45.50% 43.20% 100.10%
Table 30 gives us the information on how EAW lecturers, faculty lecturers and
EAW students perceived the importance of academic writing. The first statement was
‘Writing is the most important language skill for students in my kulliyyah/most
kulliyyahs’. In this statement, the emphasis was on writing being ‘the most important
language skill’ needed by the students. For this statement, generally, most respondents
from all four groups revealed that they agreed with the statement; nonetheless, HS
lecturers mostly chose ‘Strongly Agree’ to stress their agreement. There were 15 EAW
lecturers (60%), 13 ENGIN lecturers (59.10%), 20 EAW/ENGIN students (43.48%) and
22 EAW/HS students (48.90%) who selected ‘Agree’ for their answer, whereas 10 or
58.80% of HS lecturers answered ‘Strongly Agree’. None of the EAW lecturers and
EAW/HS students disagreed with this statement. However, we can see that there were
some from other groups who either disagreed or strongly disagreed with it, even though
the number was relatively small. Nonetheless, it can be said that generally, writing was
perceived as the most important language skill for students in their faculties.
The responses to the second statement, ‘Academic writing is very important for
students in my kulliyyah/most kulliyyahs’, were consistent with the first one. The
purpose of asking for their response to this statement was similar to the first one, except
for the specific focus on the type of writing in this second statement, which is ‘academic
writing’. It was thought that the notion of ‘academic writing’ would make writing seem
more related to the students’ needs in their studies. Again, most of them agreed with the
statement, and most HS lecturers again chose ‘Strongly Agree’. Fourteen EAW
lecturers (53.80%), 12 ENGIN lecturers (54.50%), 22 EAW/ENGIN students (47.80%)
and 22 EAW/HS students ( 48.90%) answered ‘Agree’, while 11 HS lecturers (68.80%)
answered ‘Strongly Agree’. Nevertheless, one EAW lecturer and one HS lecturer chose
‘Strongly Disagree’, and four EAW/ENGIN students selected ‘Disagree’. This shows
that, there were some lecturers and students, albeit only a few, who disagreed that
academic writing was the most important language skill for the students.
The last statement read ‘Research writing is very important for students in my
kulliyyah/most kulliyyahs’. Here, the emphasis was on ‘research writing’ in general.
Once again, the responses were similar to the previous two items. It can be seen that the
majority of the respondents were in agreement with the importance of research writing.
193
However, it is interesting to note that all ENGIN lecturers had either chosen ‘Strongly
Agree’ or ‘Agree’, and the number of responses was the same - 11 for both categories.
Other than that, 13 EAW lecturers (50%), 22 EAW/ENGIN students (48.90%) and 20
EAW/HS students (45.50%) answered ‘Agree’, and 12 HS lecturers (70.60%) opted for
‘Strongly Agree’. None of the ENGIN lecturers and EAW/HS students disagreed with
this statement. However, we can see that there were three EAW lecturers, two HS
lecturers and one EAW/ENGIN student who disagreed. On another note, this result can
be related to one of the themes of PSA from the interview results – students’ need for
research writing skills. The results from the interviews and this questionnaire item
suggest that research writing plays an important role for students in their faculties.
In summary, it can be said that the majority of respondents from all five groups
agreed with writing being the most important language skill for students. The majority
also agreed that academic writing and research writing were very important in the
faculties. However, only the majority of HS lecturers strongly agreed with all three
statements. For other groups, even though the majority selected ‘Agree’, the number of
respondents who chose ‘Strongly Agree’ was also big and sometimes close to the
number who answered ‘Agree’.
On the contrary, the number of respondents who disagreed was not great. For the
three statements, only EAW/ENGIN students had the biggest number of responses that
disagreed, with a total of ten (nine or 19.57% ‘Disagree’, one or 2.17% ‘Strongly
Disagree’) with item number one. It is also interesting to note that nine EAW/ENGIN
students were not able to decide their attitudes towards the first and second statements.
EAW/ENGIN students also had the lowest percentage of respondents who agreed with
the first and second statements compared to the other four groups. This may suggest that
perhaps the idea of the importance of writing was less prevalent among students with
the engineering background, even though their lecturers may have an opposite view to
this.
Table 31. Importance of Writing Skills in EAW to Students: EAW Lecturers’,
Faculty Lecturers’ and EAW Students’ Perceptions
EAW Freq 2 0 0 13 11 26
Lecturers
(n=26) Row % 7.70% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 42.30% 100.00%
4. It is ENGIN Freq 0 0 0 6 16 22
important for Lecturers
kulliyyah/most HS Lecturers Freq 2 0 0 2 13 17
kulliyyahs to (n=17) Row % 11.80% 0.00% 0.00% 11.80% 76.50% 100.00%
know how to EAW/ENGIN
cite academic Freq 0 1 3 23 19 46
Students
sources. (n=46) Row % 0.00% 2.20% 6.50% 50.00% 41.30% 100.00%
EAW/HS Freq 0 0 1 14 30 45
Students
(n=45) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 2.20% 31.10% 66.70% 100.00%
EAW Freq 1 0 0 15 10 26
Lecturers
5. It is (n=26) Row % 3.80% 0.00% 0.00% 57.70% 38.50% 100.00%
important for ENGIN Freq 0 0 0 3 19 22
students in my Lecturers
kulliyyah/most (n=22) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 13.60% 86.40% 100.00%
kulliyyahs to HS Lecturers Freq 2 0 0 3 12 17
be able to use (n=17) Row % 11.80% 0.00% 0.00% 17.60% 70.60% 100.00%
appropriate EAW/ENGIN
language to Freq 0 2 2 26 15 45
Students
review the (n=45) Row % 0.00% 4.44% 4.44% 57.78% 33.33% 100.00%
literature. EAW/HS Freq 0 0 0 15 29 44
Students
(n=44) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 34.10% 65.90% 100.00%
EAW Freq 1 0 0 14 11 26
6. It is Lecturers
important for (n=26) Row % 3.80% 0.00% 0.00% 53.80% 42.30% 100.00%
students in my ENGIN Freq 0 0 0 5 17 22
kulliyyah/most Lecturers
be able to HS Lecturers Freq 2 0 0 3 12 17
apply (n=17) Row % 11.80% 0.00% 0.00% 17.60% 70.60% 100.00%
Students
write a (n=45) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 2.20% 62.20% 35.60% 100.00%
research EAW/HS
paper. Freq 0 0 0 18 26 44
Students
(n=44) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 40.90% 59.10% 100.00%
195
EAW Freq 2 0 0 11 12 25
7. It is Lecturers
important for (n=25) Row % 8.00% 0.00% 0.00% 44.00% 48.00% 100.00%
students in my ENGIN Freq 0 0 0 8 13 21
kulliyyah/most Lecturers
be able to HS Lecturers Freq 2 0 0 3 12 17
demonstrate (n=17) Row % 11.80% 0.00% 0.00% 17.60% 70.60% 100.00%
Students
write an (n=44) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 63.64% 31.82% 100.00%
academic piece EAW/HS
of writing. Freq 0 0 0 20 25 45
Students
(n=45) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 44.40% 55.60% 100.00%
8. It is EAW Freq 2 2 6 11 5 26
important for Lecturers
kulliyyah/most ENGIN Freq 0 0 0 5 17 22
kulliyyahs to Lecturers
be able to (n=22) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 22.70% 77.30% 100.00%
apply HS Lecturers Freq 2 0 0 4 11 17
appropriate (n=17) Row % 11.80% 0.00% 0.00% 23.50% 64.70% 100.00%
language to EAW/ENGIN
present Freq 0 0 1 27 17 45
Students
research (n=45) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 2.20% 60.00% 37.80% 100.00%
findings or EAW/HS
academic Freq 0 0 1 19 25 45
Students
papers. (n=45) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 2.20% 42.20% 55.60% 100.00%
Table 31 depicts the respondents’ attitudes towards the importance of writing

skills that were outlined in the EAW course objectives. I was interested to know how
important the specific writing skills taught and expected of the students to achieve in the
EAW course were believed to be, especially among the faculty lecturers and EAW
students. There were five objectives as far as writing in EAW was concerned. The first
objective was included in the first statement, ‘It is important for students in my
kulliyyah/most kulliyyahs to know how to cite academic sources’. Citing academic
sources is one of the research writing skills. Compared to all the items in the table,
generally, this item attracted the most number of respondents to either ‘Agree’ or
‘Strongly Agree’. Thirteen EAW lecturers (50%) and 11 EAW/ENGIN students (50%)
selected ‘Agree’, while 16 ENGIN lecturers (72.70%), 13 HS lecturers (76.50%) and 30
EAW/HS students (66.70%) strongly agreed that citing academic sources was important
for the students. This suggests that most faculty lecturers and EAW/HS students
recognised the importance of this specific skill in research writing for the students in
their studies. Another interesting point is that none of the ENGIN lecturers chose the
other three categories of attitudes, which means that all of them agreed with the
statement.
The second item was a statement consisting of another EAW course objective.
The statement was ‘It is important for students in my kulliyyah/most kulliyyahs to be
able to use appropriate language to review the literature’. Reviewing the literature is
also another skill in research writing. Similar to the first item, even though all groups
agreed with this statement, most of the EAW lecturers (57.70%) and EAW/ENGIN
students (57.78%) chose the category of ‘Agree’. A majority of ENGIN lecturers,
86.40%, chose ‘Strongly Agree’, together with 12 HS lecturers (70.60%) and 29 HS
students (65.90%). Like the first item, none of the ENGIN lecturers selected the other
three categories of attitudes, which shows that they had no doubt this research writing
skill should be taught to their students. In addition, EAW/HS students held similar
views, as all of them either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.
The third statement comprised an EAW course objective highlighting the ability
to use the language for research writing. The responses for the statement, ‘It is
important for students in my kulliyyah/most kulliyyahs to be able to apply appropriate
language to write a research paper’, were again very much the same as the first and
second statements. The largest number of EAW lecturers and EAW/ENGIN students
answered ‘Agree’ while most of the respondents in other groups selected ‘Strongly
Agree’. The ‘Agree’ category was represented by 14 EAW lecturers (53.80%) and 28
EAW/ENGIN students (62.20%), and the latter was represented by 17 ENGIN lecturers
(77.70%), 12 HS lecturers (70.60%) and 26 EAW/HS students (59.10%). Another
similar pattern here is none of the ENGIN lecturers and EAW/HS students chose the
other three answers, indicating their total agreement with the need to have the language
to write a research paper taught to students.
The next statement was ‘It is important for students in my kulliyyah/most
kulliyyahs to be able to demonstrate appropriate language to write an academic piece of
writing’. This statement, although not directly stating a research writing skill, is
regarded as related to research writing as academic language is used in writing research.
197
For this item, the pattern of major responses changed for EAW lecturers, but not for
EAW/ENGIN students. Like the previous item, most of the EAW/ENGIN students gave
‘Agree’ as their response. On the other hand, all other groups including EAW lecturers
mostly chose ‘Strongly Agree’. Twelve EAW lecturers (48%), 13 ENGIN lecturers
(61.90%), 12 HS lecturers (70.60%) and 25 EAW/HS students (55.60%) strongly
agreed with this statement. However, the change in pattern for EAW lecturers was not
really significant as the difference between those who agreed and strongly agreed was
only one lecturer. Just like for the previous two statements, all ENGIN lecturers and
EAW/HS students opted for the ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’ categories.
The last statement in the questionnaire also derived from another EAW course
objective. The item was ‘It is important for students in my kulliyyah/most kulliyyahs to
be able to apply appropriate language to present research findings or academic papers’.
The word ‘present’ in this statement could be interpreted in two ways – verbal
presentation or written presentation. Since it could also be interpreted as a writing skill,
it was chosen to be included as one of the questionnaire items. For this statement, the
results were similar to the major responses to the first three statements – EAW lecturers
and EAW/ENGIN students mainly chose ‘Agree’ (42.30% or 11 lecturers and 60% or
27 students respectively), and the rest of the groups had the majority of respondents in
the ‘Strongly Agree’ category. There were 17 ENGIN lecturers (77.30%), 11 HS
lecturers (64.70%) and 25 EAW/HS students (55.60%) who selected ‘Strongly Agree’.
However, this time ENGIN lecturers were the only group that did not choose any other
answers other than ‘Agree’ and ‘Strongly Agree’. Another interesting pattern in this
result is EAW lecturers had their responses spread out across all categories of answers.
Other than the 11 who agreed, there were five who strongly agreed with the statement;
on the other hand, there were two lecturers in the ‘Strongly Disagree’ and ‘Disagree’
categories, and six lecturers in the ‘Undecided’ category.
To sum up, it was clear throughout the analysis that most respondents in all
groups mainly agreed with the specific research writing skills in the EAW course
objectives. The majority of ENGIN lecturers, HS lecturers and EAW/HS students chose
the ‘Strongly Agree’ option, while EAW lecturers and EAW/ENGIN students most of
the time opted for the ‘Agree’ category, except for once for EAW lecturers. These
results were different from the results of the analysis of Table 30, as only HS lecturers
were inclined towards the ‘Strongly Agree’ category. What can be said from this
analysis is that most faculty lecturers from both ENGIN and HS, as well as EAW/HS
students viewed the specific skills which were taught and expected to be achieved in
EAW as important for the students in their studies. This was even more predominant
among ENGIN lecturers as none of them throughout these statements disagreed or were
undecided about their attitudes. Similarly, EAW/HS students also opted for the ‘Agree’
or ‘Strongly Agree’ categories, except for the last statement. Even though there were
some respondents in other groups who disagreed or were undecided, the number and
percentage were relatively small compared to those who were in the ‘Agree’ and
‘Strongly Agree’ categories.
All in all, it can be said that these results further supported the second theme of
the interview PSA, which was ‘student needs for research writing skills’. The results
from the interviews and this analysis suggest that research writing skills were needed by
students to study in their faculties.
4.5 Conclusion to Research Question 1

The first research question is: ‘1. What are the EAW lecturers’, the faculty
lecturers’, and students’ perceptions of academic writing needs?’. To answer this
research question, data were collected through interviews and questionnaires
administered to EAW, ENGIN and HS lecturers, as well as ENGIN and HS students
who were taking EAW during the time of the survey. From the interviews, the
respondents’ responses were analysed according to the needs analysis framework by
Robinson (1991). As a result, two categories of academic writing needs were developed
– one according to Present Situation Analysis (PSA), and the other according to Target
Situation Analysis (TSA).
From PSA, two major themes emerged to answer the research question, which
are ‘student needs for research writing skills’ and ‘student needs for basic language
skills’. The first theme was more prominent among most respondents except HS
lecturers, while the second one mostly derived from EAW and HS lecturers and
students’ responses. In addition, one rather interesting additional theme was also
199
generated after two of the student respondents shared unfavourable views of EAW. The
theme is ‘students have needs which were unmet by EAW’.
The results from the questionnaires added additional information to the
respondents’ perceptions towards academic writing needs. Two cross-tabulation tables
(Table 30 and Table 31) were used to present the data. Table 30 gives us information on
how EAW lecturers, faculty lecturers and EAW students perceived the importance of
academic writing, and Table 31 depicts their attitudes towards the importance of writing
skills that were outlined in EAW course objectives. It was clear throughout the analysis
that most respondents in all groups mainly agreed with writing being the most important
language skill for students. Most of them also generally agreed with the specific
research writing skills in the EAW course objectives.
To conclude, it can be said that generally, most EAW, ENGIN and HS lecturers
as well as students perceived the research writing skills as important academic writing
needs among the students, and writing as the most important skill for the students in
their studies.

The second research question (RQ 2) is:
2. What are the EAW lecturers’, the EAW/ENG students’ and the EAW/HS
Two subquestions were developed to answer RQ 2:
2.1 What are the EAW lecturers’ perceptions of the EAW course in the context of
EGAP and ESAP?
2.2 What are the EAW lecturers’, the EAW/ENG students’ and the EAW/HS
4.6.1 EAW lecturers’ perceptions of EAW, EGAP and ESAP.
During the interviews, EAW lecturers were asked about their awareness of two
approaches in EAP course design – English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP)
and English for Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP). The knowledge of these two
approaches is deemed important for teachers of EAP, as it has been discussed by many
EAP practitioners in relation to EAP course design and best approaches (e.g.,
Basturkmen, 2003 & 2006; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Jordan, 1997; Hyland, 2006;
Spack, 1988; Widdowson, 1983). Initial responses from all respondents revealed that
none of them knew about the two approaches at all. However, after some explanations
of the meanings and differences between the two, the respondents had an understanding
of what they were. It was not difficult to explain to them as they were quite familiar
with the concept of general approaches and specific approaches to academic writing.
After the lecturers agreed that they understood what EGAP and ESAP were,
they were asked which approach EAW was associated with. Their responses were
categorised as either EGAP or ESAP, and their reasons for their choice were analysed
and referred to as Present Situation Analysis (PSA). Some respondents extended their
responses with suggestions as to which approach EAW should be based on, and these
responses were analysed and referred to as Target Situation Analysis (TSA). Following
the analysis, the responses were categorised into several categories, which were later
used to form the themes to represent the lecturers’ perceptions. Initially, the analysis
showed that more than half of EAW lecturers perceived EAW as using EGAP as its
approach, where 10 out of 15 lecturers provided responses which were congruent with
the notion that EAW is an EGAP course. The rest of the lecturers provided answers
which reflected misunderstandings of the approach used by EAW and thus, were not
included in the findings.
The responses with extended responses were given more focus as they offered
more details to the issue being investigated. Hence, the emerging themes are: (1) EAW
is an EGAP course and should be changed to focus on ESAP; and (2) EAW is an EGAP
course and should be maintained as it is.
201
4.6.1.1 Theme 1: EAW is an EGAP course and should be changed to focus on

ESAP.
Ten EAW lecturers perceived EAW as an EGAP course, and five of them
believed that EAW should be changed to use ESAP in its approach. Each one of them
had a different reason as to why they thought so. One of them asserted that ESAP would
then better cater to different faculties. After describing EAW as an EGAP course, she
continued, “… it can be improved to ESAP so that, you know, we can sort of cater to
different kulliyyah. That would be nice” (LEAW11, Lines 124 – 125). Another lecturer
believed that ESAP would help students according to disciplines. She said, “Yea ESAP.
I mean if we really want to help the students according to their disciplines, we should go
for the formal... that kind of English” (LEAW2, Lines 86 – 87). Moreover, another
respondent was looking further ahead to students’ future career in giving her reason
why EAW should be an ESAP course. She said, “Because in that way, the... they can
learn languages that can be very useful for their future career purpose later” (LEAW8,
Lines 112 – 113). These three lecturers are among the five respondents who believed
that the current EGAP-based EAW should be changed to use ESAP in its approach.
4.6.1.2 Theme 2: EAW is an EGAP course and should remain as it is.

Out of 10 EAW lecturers who perceived EAW as an EGAP course, only two
were of the view that EAW should remain as it is. Their reasons for this were – EGAP-
based EAW would create an awareness of the differences among students, and it is
better to standardise the course. One of them said that,
… for the past three semesters, I’ve been having a classroom of mixed
kulliyyahs. So, I could see how these ENGIN students learn from the humanistic
students. And, yea... and they also are interested to do something else like, other
than... topic related to their kulliyyah. For example, one student from ENGIN,
he did a study on the community - no interaction between international and local
students, because he has always been questioning the interaction between the
international and local students. So, he did the study on that. He did a research
on that. He wrote, he read articles on local and international students’
interactions. And then he made, he wrote a very good paper. (LEAW13, Lines
119 – 127).
In addition, when another lecturer was asked why she believed EAW should remain as
an EGAP course, she responded, “It’s better to standardise it” (LEAW14, Line 112).
Even though not representing the majority of the respondents, these are what these two
lecturers thought that led them to believe, with regard to TSA, that EAW should be
maintained as an EGAP course.
4.6.1.4 Conclusion
In conclusion, the themes that emerged from the responses to the first
subquestion for RQ2, which is ‘What are the EAW lecturers’ perceptions of the EAW
course in the context of EGAP and ESAP?’ revealed mixed feelings among the lecturers
about the approach that the EAW course should adopt. Even though initially they were
not familiar with the concepts of EGAP and ESAP, they were able to compare the
context of EAW with EGAP and ESAP once they were given an explanation about the
two approaches. The theme that emerged from most respondents is ‘EAW is an EGAP
course and should be changed to focus on ESAP’.
4.6.2 EAW lecturers’, EAW/ENGIN students’ and EAW/HS students’

perceptions of EAW and student needs.
This is one of the most important parts of the issue that this research is trying to
investigate. The answers to this question are hoped to shed light on the issue of the role
of EAW in catering to the students’ academic writing needs at their faculties. For the
lecturers, they were specifically asked about the relevance of EAW to academic writing
and the relevance of research writing skills in EAW to academic writing needed by
students in their faculties, whereas for the students, they were asked whether they could
apply what they learned in EAW to what they had to do in their faculties, whether EAW
in any way helped them with their writing in their faculties.
Four themes emerged from their responses in the interviews. One of the themes,
which emerged from the majority of the respondents’ responses, represents a positive
203
view of EAW, while the other three are more critical of the course. The themes are: (1)
the student need for EAW is due to their need to do research; (2) EAW could meet
student needs but only in some ways; (3) EAW caters to student needs only for some
faculties; and (4) students need an EAW course that focuses more on language.
4.6.2.1 Theme 1: The student need for EAW is due to the need to do research.
This theme emerged from most of the respondents’ responses from both EAW
lecturers and students. A total of 13 respondents - nine out of 15 lecturers and four out
of eight students - shared the perception that students need EAW as they need to do
research. During the analysis, four categories comprising similar responses became
apparent. The categories are ‘EAW for research writing’, ‘EAW for students to continue
doing research’, ‘EAW for students who enjoy doing research’, and ‘EAW for exposure
to research’.
The category that consists of most responses is ‘EAW for research writing’.
Responses from four lecturers and four students were grouped in this category. Below
are some of the examples of responses given by the lecturers when they were asked
about the relevance of EAW to student academic writing:
First of all, I think most of the students here, they are required to write a final
year project or research paper, in which, what I found is that, we have students
who produce good projects. But it was written terribly. They don't know the
proper key words, vocabulary, structure, so it was all over the place - based on
what I have read, my students' work. So, I think, this course is very much
relevant to what they are doing. (LEAW10, Lines 97 – 101);
It's a medium. It's a good medium because if you want to take academic writing
per se, then you have to suit the academic writing for each. If you talk about
academic writing in formal writing, right, then you have to suit formal writing
according to kulliyyahs, because each kulliyyah have their own different way,
ok. But if you do research, somehow or rather, everyone does research.
(LEAW6, Lines 73 – 77);
Because, in their kulliyyah courses they have to do research, they have to do
assignment. (LEAW5, Lines 124 – 125).
In addition, responses from four students also reflected the same idea. Three out
of four EAW/HS students expressed this view. The other one was an EAW/ENGIN
student. When the EAW/ENGIN student was asked whether the research skills in EAW
were relevant to his course, he responded,
Just for the writing of the research. Because if I'm... for my FYP I have to do a
lot of simulations on computers and things, and it doesn't - EAW does not really
help me with those things. But for writing the report and writing the research
that I've done, it will help me a lot (SENG1, Lines 123 – 126).
When one EAW/HS student was asked whether she was able to relate what she
learned in EAW to what she needed in her studies, she answered, “I think just for…
how to write the research. Maybe it's just the writing - how we want to develop our
writing skill. Just only writing. There's no more” (SHS4, Lines 127 – 128). Another
student gave examples how EAW met her needs to apply research writing techniques in
her faculty subjects. She said, “I can apply the citation techniques, how to do the data
analysis, the graph, the references, the introduction, what should I put, the gap, and
when I cite, I have to comment. So, that really helps in my studies. Because my studies
really... also concern about that thing” (SHS3, Lines 141 – 144).
For the second category, ‘EAW for students to continue doing research’, three
lecturers shared similar ideas in their responses which placed them in this category. In
responding to the question asking about the relevance of EAW to student academic
writing need, one EAW lecturer said, “… I think it's relevant and students need this,
especially if we want, we intend for them to continue this study, write papers, produce...
and do their own research” (LEAW1, Lines 44 – 45). Another lecturer expressed a
similar view as she said, “… because especially for those who erm... for those who have
intentions to pursue study to higher level, especially master students and PhD. I even
205
have many students, they actually plan to, you know, to climb higher. So yea, of course
this course is totally needed” (LEAW15, Lines 68 – 71).
The other two categories - ‘EAW for students who enjoy doing research’ and
‘EAW for exposure to research’ - actually represent responses from only two lecturers;
one lecturer believed that students needed EAW as they could experience the
excitement of doing research, and the other simply said that EAW was relevant to
student academic writing as it exposed students to research.
4.6.2.2 Theme 2: EAW could meet student needs but only in some ways.
This is one of the three themes that can be considered critical of EAW. This
theme derived from responses from one EAW lecturer and three EAW/ENGIN students
– the majority out of four EAW/ENGIN students. The lecturer, although initially
claiming that EAW was relevant to academic writing, admitted that the course was only
related to some of the needs but not really to research. He expressed his view as shown
below:
Research per se I would say that... that is not very much related. But what comes
after that would be... or what comes before that would be much related. For
example, how do you prepare, how do you plan, and then your objectives and
everything. Ok. And then how you analyse... that would be very much related.
But the research itself, maybe not... not very relevant to what we are doing. But
of course we don't look at the research by itself. We look at... as a whole.
(LEAW7, Lines 75 – 80).
One EAW/ENGIN student found it hard to explain why she thought EAW was
only helpful in some ways. In her explanation, she said, “The formatting is kind of
different, but for some students, they can manage to relate. But for the degree level, you
know, in the degree level you want to see something that you can relate directly. But
when I take that course, I can... I can relate but I need to tweak it a little bit. It is kind of
helpful, but not so much. I can't describe” (SENG3, Lines 79 – 82). On the other hand,
another EAW/ENGIN described EAW as not being specific to the topics in his faculty.
He said, “… it is relevant but it's not specific. It's not specific to my kulliyyah. So let's
say for example, if it's under the kulliyyah, then the topic will be more specific or more
scientific, so will involve more numbers, and more quantitative analysis, maybe using
different software for analysing. That if it is specific to my kulliyyah. But it's that, right
now it's more, much, much more general” (SENG4, Lines 75 – 79).
4.6.2.3 Theme 3: EAW caters to student needs only for some faculties.
This is another theme that is also critical of EAW. Three EAW lecturers shared
similar views that expressed this theme. One lecturer responded to the question on the
relevance of research writing skills in EAW to academic writing needed by students in
the faculties by saying,
So I believe... in term, if you look at in the general perspective... all kulliyyahs

will... somehow find it important, but in certain erm... particular programs you
know they may, students may not find the relevance. (LEAW4, Lines 100 –
103).
On the other hand, another lecturer who shared this view gave examples of the
faculties that might find the course relevant to their needs and vice versa. She said,
In the kulliyyahs? Not all kulliyyahs though. For instance, for Human Sciences,
or people in IRKHS kulliyyah, they really, really need this. That's why also in
the kulliyyah it's compulsory for them to take research methodology. But unlike
students in, yes, again, Engineering, or maybe some other... some other
kulliyyahs I am not aware of, ok, maybe they don't really require this. They don't
really see the need to have this... this course. (LEAW8, Lines 81 – 85).
4.6.2.4 Theme 4: Students need an EAW course that focuses more on

language.
The final theme that is also critical of EAW emerged from responses by only
two lecturers - the smallest number of respondents who shared the same view. Both of
207
them viewed EAW as focusing on the research part more than the language bit. One of
them said,
… they have got to change some aspects of it in order to make it more relevant,
you know. In the sense that erm... we’re mis-shooting things, I think. Because
their priority now is on the research, quite not so much on the language part. We
really have to go on the language part. (LEAW12, Lines 58 – 61).
The other lecturer also perceived teaching research more than language as an
issue in the relevance of EAW to student academic writing needs. She asserted,
It is not hundred per cent relevant. Maybe about fifty to sixty per cent. Well,
they need... they do need some sort of a format but you don't exactly... kind of,
you know, push them to follow the format of a research paper. What we should
be looking at would be, you know, are supposed to use this word instead of that
word, that's it, that's it basically. But we are not doing that right now. (LEAW9,
Lines 95 – 99).
4.6.2.5 Conclusion.
In short, to answer this second subquestion of RQ 2 - What are the EAW
lecturers’, the EAW/ENGIN students’ and the EAW/HS students’ perceptions of the
EAW course and student needs? - EAW lecturers and students were asked how they
perceived EAW as a writing course that is relevant in meeting the students’ academic
writing needs. The analysis of the respondents’ responses yielded four themes. The
themes are: (1) the student need for EAW is due to their need to do research; (2) EAW
could meet student needs but only in some ways; (3) EAW caters to student needs only
of some faculties; and (4) students need an EAW course that focuses more on language.
These findings can be categorised as target needs (TSA) as they generally focus more
on the outcomes of learning. It is important to stress that even though only the first
theme reflects a positive view of EAW, the theme emerged from the responses of the
most number of respondents. This is considered significant in thematic analysis as
looking at repetition has been one of the most common criteria for establishing a theme
(Ryan & Bernard, 2003, as cited in Bryman, 2012).
4.6.3 Questionnaire results on EAW lecturers and students’ perceptions of

the EAW course.
This part of the questionnaire was only included in the EAW lecturers’ and
EAW students’ questionnaire, as they were the ones who were directly involved in
EAW. It aims to investigate what EAW lecturers and EAW students from ENGIN and
HS thought of EAW as a course that taught English language for academic writing. It
contained attitudinal statements that required students to choose one option from five
options on a Likert-scale format. The results are presented in Table 32.
Table 32. The EAW Course: EAW Lecturers’ and EAW Students’ Perceptions

EAW Freq 0 0 2 18 6 26
Lecturers
(n=26) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 7.70% 69.20% 23.10% 100.00%
1. The
EAW/ENGIN Freq 0 1 7 33 6 47
objectives of
Students
EAW are
(n=47) Row % 0.00% 2.10% 14.90% 70.20% 12.80% 100.00%
clear.
EAW/HS Freq 0 1 4 30 10 45
Students
(n=45) Row % 0.00% 2.20% 8.90% 66.70% 22.20% 100.00%
EAW Freq 0 0 0 22 4 26
Lecturers
(n=26) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 84.60% 15.40% 100.00%
2. The content
of EAW is in
Students
line with its
(n=47) Row % 0.00% 2.13% 10.64% 68.09% 19.15% 100.00%
objectives.
EAW/HS Freq 0 1 5 28 10 44
Students
(n=44) Row % 0.00% 2.30% 11.40% 63.60% 22.70% 100.00%
EAW Freq 0 2 4 19 1 26
3. The
Lecturers
materials used
(n=26) Row % 0.00% 7.70% 15.40% 73.10% 3.80% 100.00%
in EAW (e.g.,
notes, books,
Students
etc.) are
(n=47) Row % 0.00% 8.50% 4.30% 72.30% 14.90% 100.00%
effective to
EAW/HS Freq 0 1 8 24 12 45
achieve its
Students
objectives.
(n=45) Row % 0.00% 2.20% 17.80% 53.30% 26.70% 100.00%
209
EAW Freq 0 7 4 13 2 26
Lecturers
(n=26) Row % 0.00% 26.90% 15.40% 50.00% 7.70% 100.00%
4. The amount
of materials
Students
used in EAW
(n=45) Row % 2.22% 8.89% 11.11% 64.44% 13.33% 100.00%
is sufficient.
EAW/HS Freq 0 1 11 24 9 45
Students
(n=45) Row % 0.00% 2.20% 24.44% 53.33% 20.00% 100.00%
EAW Freq 2 11 1 11 1 26
Lecturers
(n=26) Row % 7.70% 42.30% 3.80% 42.30% 3.80% 100.00%
5. The time
allocated for
Students
EAW per week
(n=46) Row % 0.00% 2.20% 6.50% 71.70% 19.60% 100.00%
is sufficient.
EAW/HS Freq 1 4 3 27 10 45
Students
(n=45) Row % 2.20% 8.90% 6.70% 60.00% 22.20% 100.00%
6. The EAW Freq 0 4 2 19 1 26
assessment Lecturers
(e.g., (n=26) Row % 0.00% 15.40% 7.70% 73.10% 3.80% 100.00%
assignments, EAW/ENGIN Freq 0 3 5 34 5 47
exams, etc.) in Students
EAW is (n=47) Row % 0.00% 6.38% 10.64% 72.34% 10.64% 100.00%
effective to EAW/HS Freq 1 2 7 24 9 43
achieve its Students
objectives. (n=43) Row % 2.30% 4.70% 16.30% 55.80% 20.90% 100.00%
EAW Freq 0 0 3 20 3 26
Lecturers
(n=26) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 11.50% 76.90% 11.50% 100.00%
7. I/The
lecturers know
Students
exactly what to
(n=47) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 2.10% 61.70% 36.20% 100.00%
teach in EAW.
EAW/HS Freq 0 0 5 21 17 43
Students
(n=43) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 11.63% 48.84% 39.53% 100.00%
EAW Freq 0 0 1 20 5 26
Lecturers
8. I am/The (n=26) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 3.80% 76.90% 19.20% 100.00%
lecturers are EAW/ENGIN Freq 0 0 0 25 21 46
able to teach Students
EAW (n=46) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 54.30% 45.70% 100.00%
confidently. EAW/HS Freq 0 0 2 22 21 45
Students
(n=45) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 4.40% 48.90% 46.70% 100.00%
EAW Freq 0 2 3 13 8 26
9. EAW is
Lecturers
relevant to my
(n=26) Row % 0.00% 7.70% 11.50% 50.00% 30.80% 100.00%
studies in my
kulliyyah/the
Students
students'
(n=46) Row % 0.00% 2.20% 6.50% 78.30% 13.00% 100.00%
academic
EAW/HS Freq 0 0 6 23 13 42
studies in their
Students
kulliyyahs.
(n=42) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 14.30% 54.80% 31.00% 100.00%
EAW Freq 0 0 1 13 12 26
Lecturers
10. EAW and
(n=26) Row % 0.00% 0.00% 3.80% 50.00% 46.20% 100.00%
academic
studies in
Students
kulliyyahs
(n=47) Row % 0.00% 2.10% 10.60% 66.00% 21.30% 100.00%
should be
EAW/HS Freq 0 1 3 25 15 44
related.
Students
(n=44) Row % 0.00% 2.30% 6.80% 56.80% 34.10% 100.00%
In Table 32, the first statement was ‘The objectives of EAW are clear’. All
EAW lecturers and students should have been provided with the EAW course outline
which comprised the course objectives. In fact, the lecturers were supposed to explain to
the students about the course objectives at the beginning of the course. The results
revealed that all three groups had the majority of the respondents choosing ‘Agree’ as
their answer. There were 18 (69.20%) EAW lecturers who chose this option. Six
strongly agreed with the statement, and two were undecided. This came as quite a
surprise as I thought most of them would strongly agree with the statement, as EAW
lecturers were expected to be the ones who would know the objectives of the course
they were teaching more than anyone else. Thirty-three EAW/ENGIN and 30 EAW/HS
chose this option. Each group had one student who disagreed with this statement. This
suggests that EAW course objectives were not made very clear to the people involved in
it. It may also be because some lecturers and students either found it hard to understand,
or were ignorant of the objectives, at least in the case of the research subjects.
The second statement was ‘The content of EAW is in line with its objectives’.
This statement is actually an extension of the first one. I wanted to know if the
respondents perceived what was being taught in EAW as matching with what was
outlined in the course objectives. The results were similar to the first one; the majority
of respondents in all three groups chose ‘Agree’. There were 22 or 84.60% from the
EAW lecturers’ group, 32 or 68.09% from the EAW/ENGIN students’ group, and 28 or
63.60% from the EAW/HS students’ group in this category. There were also nine
students in the EAW/ENGIN group and ten students in the EAW/HS group who
strongly agreed with the statement. This time all EAW lecturers either agreed or
strongly agreed with the statement, but one student in the EAW/ENGIN and EAW/HS
groups disagreed, and five in each group were undecided. However, in general, we can
211
say that most respondents found what was being taught in EAW reflected the objectives
of the course.
The third statement was ‘The materials used in EAW (e.g., notes, books, etc.)
are effective to achieve its objectives’. Again, this statement was also related to the
subjects’ knowledge of the course objectives. During the semester when the study was
conducted, there were no specific text books used for the course. The lecturers were
provided with notes, which they shared with the students via an open-source learning
platform, known as Moodle. The results were again similar to the previous two
statements. The majority in all groups still chose the ‘Agree’ option. Nineteen EAW
lecturers or 73.10% of them were in this category, together with 34 or 72.30%
EAW/ENGIN students and 24 or 53.30% EAW/HS students. There were also a number
of people in categories other than ‘Agree’ and ‘Strongly Agree’. Two EAW lecturers
disagreed and four were undecided. There were four EAW/ENGIN students who
disagreed and two who were undecided, whereas eight EAW/HS students were
undecided and one disagreed. Even though on the whole we can say that the materials
used in the course were perceived useful to achieve the course objectives, the results
also suggest that there are possibly some issues with the materials that could be looked
into.
The next statement, ‘The amount of materials used in EAW is sufficient’,
revealed more diverse results in all the groups. This statement was aimed at
investigating whether EAW lecturers and students thought they had enough materials in
the course. The results showed that, similar to the previous items, most of the
respondents chose ‘Agree’ in all groups. From the EAW lecturers’ group, 13 of them or
50% were in this category. Twenty-nine or 64.44% of EAW/ENGIN students together
with 24 or 53.33% of EAW/HS students felt this way. Two EAW lecturers strongly
agreed, but there were four who were undecided and seven, which was quite a big
number for the group of 26 lecturers, who disagreed. The EAW/ENGIN group had one
who strongly disagreed, in addition to four who disagreed, five who were undecided and
six who strongly agreed. For EAW/HS students, the second biggest number was in the
group of ‘Undecided’, with 11 students in this category. Other than that, there was one
who disagreed and nine who strongly agreed. The diverse results indicating various
attitudes towards the amount of materials in EAW suggests something could be done by
CELPAD to look at this matter.
The fifth statement was on time allocation (‘The time allocated for EAW per
week is sufficient’). For this statement, interestingly, the pattern of response from EAW
lecturers changed. There was the same number of respondents who agreed and
disagreed. Eleven lecturers, or 42.30%, were in each category. This rather strongly
suggests that there was quite an issue with the time allocation for EAW classes per
week among EAW lecturers. During the study, students had two sessions of EAW per
week, and each session was one and a half hours long. In addition, two lecturers
strongly disagreed with this, compared to only one who strongly agreed. One was
undecided on this statement. On the other hand, most EAW/ENGIN and EAW/HS
students chose ‘Agree’ to represent their attitudes. Although there were some other
respondents in other categories, especially the ones for those who disagreed, the number
was small. Most of them apparently thought that the duration for EAW per week was
already sufficient.
The next statement was on the assessment. The respondents were asked for their
attitude towards this statement: ‘The assessment (e.g., assignments, exams, etc.) in
EAW is effective to achieve its objectives’. At the time of the study, there were four
types of assessment. Students had to sit for a mid-semester examination (20% of the
overall marks), produce a research paper (25% of the overall marks), do a multimedia
oral presentation of the research paper (15% of the overall marks), and sit for the final
examination (40% of the overall marks). Even though the final examination had the
greatest weightage of the assessment, the main thing that the students worked on
throughout the whole semester was the research paper. In fact, the students not only had
to write the research, but they also had to present it, which gives us a total of 40%
weightage as well if both marks were added together. For this statement, the majority of
all groups chose ‘Agree’ as their answer. There were 19 lecturers or 73.10% in the
EAW lecturers’ group, 34 students or 72.34% in the EAW/ENGIN students’ group, and
24 students or 55.80% in the EAW/HS students’ group. The rest of the respondents’
responses were in various categories. Four EAW lecturers, three EAW/ENGIN students
and two EAW/HS students disagreed with the statement. The EAW/HS group had the
213
most diverse responses as one also strongly disagreed, seven were undecided and nine
strongly agreed with the assessment in EAW. The results generally show that most
respondents felt that the assessment managed to reflect the objectives of EAW, but the
number of respondents who did not think so or were undecided suggests it may be
worth reviewing.
The next two statements were about what EAW lecturers thought of themselves,
and what the students thought of EAW lecturers with regard to EAW. The statements
were ‘I/The lecturers know exactly what to teach in EAW’ and ‘I am/The lecturers are
able to teach EAW confidently’. For the first statement, out of 26 lecturers, 20 lecturers
(76.90%) agreed and 3 lecturers (11.50%) strongly agreed with the statement. This
means that the majority of EAW lecturers believed that they know exactly what to teach
in EAW. None of the EAW lecturers disagree with the statement, but there were three
who were undecided about it. Even though not many, the fact that there were lecturers
who were undecided could suggest a few things – inadequate training and lecturers’
incompetence could be two of them. From the perspective of the students, none of the
EAW/ENGIN and EAW/HS students disagreed with the statement. The majority of
them agreed with it. The EAW/ENGIN group had 29 (61.70%) who agreed and 17
(36.20%) who strongly agreed, while EAW/HS had 21 (48.84%) and 17 (39.53%) who
strongly agreed. However, one EAW/ENGIN student and five EAW/HS students were
undecided about their attitudes towards the statement.
The majority in all three groups also agreed with the statement ‘I am/The
lecturers are able to teach EAW confidently’. There were 20 EAW lecturers or 76.90%
who answered ‘Agree’, and five or 19.20% who chose ‘Strongly Agree’. This indicates
that a large number of lecturers were comfortable in delivering the lessons in the course.
There was one, however, who was undecided. All EAW/ENGIN students perceived
EAW lecturers as confident in teaching the course. In fact, quite a number of them
strongly agreed with this, as 21 or 45.70% chose ‘Strongly Agree’. The number who
agreed was just slightly higher, with 25 or 54.30%. EAW/HS students also shared quite
similar results, except that there was one who was undecided. Twenty-two of them
(48.90%) selected ‘Agree’, and 21 students (46.70%) answered ‘Strongly Agree’. What
these results tell us is that, generally, EAW lecturers managed to appear confident when
they taught EAW, a positive trait which should have contributed to a smooth delivery of
the course.
The last two statements were to determine the subjects’ attitudes towards EAW
and its relationship to the students’ studies. The statements were ‘EAW is relevant to
my studies in my kulliyyah/the students' academic studies in their kulliyyahs’ and
‘EAW and academic studies in kulliyyahs should be related’. Although the majority of
all respondents agreed with the first statement, there were also a small number of
responses that expressed disagreement and uncertainties. Among the EAW lecturers, 13
(50%) and eight (30.80%) were in the ‘Agree’ and ‘Strongly Agree’ categories
respectively. Even though they might not have a concrete knowledge of what their
student writing needs in their faculties were, they believed that what was being taught in
EAW was able to fulfill the needs of their students in terms of writing in their faculties.
Two lecturers answered ‘Disagree’ and three lecturers were undecided. On the students’
side, a majority of 36 students (78.30%) from the EAW/ENGIN group agreed with this
statement. One student disagreed and three students were undecided. The EAW/HS
group had a majority of ‘Agree’ (23 students/54.80%) and quite a large number of
‘Strongly Agree’ (13/31%) responses. None of them disagreed, but there were six who
were undecided about this statement. If we compare the three groups, EAW/HS students
were the group that showed the most positive attitude towards the statement.
The last statement also had the majority of respondents in all groups choosing
‘Agree’ to represent their attitudes. Most of them agreed that EAW should be related to
the students’ academic studies in their faculties. Thirteen EAW lecturers or 50% of
them chose ‘Agree’, while 12 or 46.20% had ‘Strongly Agree’ as their choice. There
was only one who was neither in agreement nor disagreement, but was in the
‘Undecided’ category. EAW/ENGIN and EAW/HS students were similar, except that
they had one student in each group who disagreed. Thirty-one or 66% of EAW/ENGIN
students agreed, apart from ten who strongly agreed and five who were undecided. For
EAW/HS students, there were 25 or 56.80% of them who agreed. There were also
fifteen who strongly agreed and three who were undecided. It can be well understood
why the majority of respondents in all groups would agree on this statement, but the
existence of some who disagreed and were undecided could be the basis for further
215
investigation.

The second research question is: ‘2. What are the EAW lecturers’, the
EAW/ENGIN students’ and the EAW/HS students’ perceptions of the EAW course?’.
This research question has been divided into two subquestions: ‘2.1. What are the EAW
lecturers’ perceptions of the EAW course in the context of EGAP and ESAP?’; and
‘2.2. What are the EAW lecturers’, the EAW/ENGIN students’ and the EAW/HS
students’ perceptions of the EAW course and student needs?’.
For the first subquestion, the emerging themes from the interviews with EAW
lecturers are: (1) EAW is an EGAP course and should be changed to focus on ESAP;
(2) EAW is an EGAP course and should remain as it is. The themes were developed
after the lecturers gave extended responses to the question about whether they thought
of EAW as an EGAP or ESAP course. In general, more than half of EAW lecturers
perceived EAW as using EGAP as its approach. Out of 10 who had this perception, half
of them believed that it should be changed to be based on ESAP.
For the second subquestion, the analysis of EAW lecturers and students’
responses in the interviews yielded four themes. The themes are: (1) the student need
for EAW is due to their need to do research; (2) EAW could fulfill student needs but
only in some ways; (3) EAW caters to student needs only of some faculties; and (4)
students need an EAW course that focuses more on language. The first is the only
theme that reflects a positive view of EAW. However, it emerged from the responses of
the most number of respondents.
Furthermore, questionnaires were administered to EAW lecturers as well as
EAW/ENGIN and EAW/HS students to investigate their perceptions towards EAW. In
general, it can be said that most of them had a positive view towards the course, as most
of them agreed with how EAW was delivered as a course to teach English for academic
writing.
The third research question (RQ 3) is:
3. How do the EAW lecturers’, the faculty lecturers’, and students’ perceptions
of EAW indicate power relations?
This research question is addressed using Benesch’s (2001a) rights analysis as a

lens to uncover underlying elements of power relations. Similar to Helmer (2013), the
present study did not create rights analysis instruments per se, but used the framework
to interpret the interview data. The following findings revealed evidence of power
relations in EAW from the perspectives of the lecturers and students in this study. They
will be discussed according to two main themes that emerged from the data. The themes
are: power struggles and power relationships.
4.8.1 Theme 1: Power struggles.

The first theme, power struggles, emerged from the EAW lecturers’ and the
students’ interview data. Power struggles can be related to the notion of “the classroom
as a site of struggle” (Benesch, 1999, p. 315) and “English as a site of struggle and
resistance” (Benesch, 2001a, p. 55), where questioning is an area of struggle over who
is in control. According to Benesch (2001a), the notion ‘power struggles’ derives from
Foucault’s concepts of power relations. Foucault views power in terms of the
relationship between power and resistance – they coexist and they are counterparts. His
view challenges the traditional assumption that views power in terms of the relationship
between a party dominating its subordinates. In this present study, the theme ‘power
struggles’ represents the struggles of the lecturers and students in an academic setting.
Other than power struggles, the analysis also looked for evidence of resistance. The
findings from this rights analysis revealed that power struggles were evident between
the stakeholders, but the resistance was not translated into actions, such as questioning
(Benesch, 1999) or negotiation (Starfield, 2013).
In the context of this study, power struggles can be interpreted as how the
stakeholders indicated their dissatisfaction and problems with the EAW course (power
217
struggles), and how they responded to them (resistance). The relationships between
power and resistance could be identified in situations involving the stakeholders from
different levels of the hierarchy. In particular, power struggles were indicated by the
EAW lecturers (with the management), and the students (with the lecturers). During the
interviews, they shared dissatisfaction and problems related to EAW even when they
showed positive attitudes towards the topics. On the surface, their dissatisfaction and
problems appeared as comments about the course. However, consistent occurrence of
similar comments from many lecturers and students (their dissatisfaction, particularly)
indicated an underlying element of power relations – power struggles. Power struggles
can also be translated as their powerlessness to question the people who occupy a higher
level in the institutional hierarchy. In terms of resistance, it was discovered that in
dealing with dissatisfaction, they persisted without taking any actions signalling
resistance. Despite the power struggles, they did not do anything to challenge the
practices or indicate resistance. There was no indication of questioning nor negotiation
from the people who were at the lower level of the hierarchy in their interaction with
higher level people. The fact that this involves many stakeholders shows that power
struggles were evident, although not explicitly, in the academic setting of the university.
The two following subthemes discuss the EAW lecturers’ power struggles with
the management, and the students’ power struggles with the EAW lecturers. Evidence
of power struggles is presented in some excerpts from the interviews. For ease of
reference, parts in the excerpts which contain the central ideas are underlined.
4.8.1.1 EAW lecturers’ power struggles.

As mentioned in section 1.2.2, the main decisions pertaining to the EAW course
(especially what should be taught) were taken by the senate, which is the university top
management (The International Islamic University Malaysia, 2017). Most of the EAW
lecturers that I interviewed had revealed their opinions about teaching EAW after the
format was changed by the management back in 2011 (see section 1.2.2). Many of the
lecturers’ responses revealed consistent negative perceptions towards the course. The
lecturers, who were from different levels of experience, shared their opinions when they
were asked about their experience teaching EAW and their comments about the course.
Below are the excerpts from the interviews.
1. It started with erm... when I first started teaching in 2000... it was EAP at that
time. Erm... it seemed a bit more clear. But, in the past few years, when it was
restructured, and it became the research course, and that’s when things became a
bit haywire. Because we ourselves are not researchers, and we are supposed to
teach a research course. Erm... so EAW for me now is a bit, I don’t know, off,
because... is it a writing course? Or is it a research course?
(LEAW12, Lines 40 – 45)
2. Erm... but they have got to change some aspects of it in order to make it more
relevant, you know. In the sense that erm... we're misshooting things, I think.
Because their priority now is on the research, quite not so much on the language
part. We really have to go on the language part.
(LEAW12, Lines 58 – 61)
3. Right now EAW has to change its focus. More on writing instead on the
research. So the instructors know what they are doing, instead of, you know,
because it's like the blind, sometimes, it's like the blind leading the blind. I'm not
talking about all, alright. But some of us feel that way. Erm... because of, again,
that drastic changes that were made erm... in a very short span of time, you
know.
(LEAW12, Lines 122 – 126)
On the surface, the excerpts above revealed the EAW lecturers’ dissatisfaction
and problems with the EAW course. In the first excerpt, LEAW12 revealed her opinions
about EAW. With 12 years of experience teaching EAP/EAW, she can be considered as
an expert in teaching the course. Her struggle was indicated by some comments
suggesting her dissatisfaction for having to teach despite not having sufficient
knowledge. Her comments like: “we ourselves are not researchers, and we are supposed
219
to teach a research course”; “we're misshooting things”; and “it's like the blind leading
the blind” are strong statements that indicate dissatisfaction and powerlessness.
Additionally, when she said “they have got to change some aspects of it” and “Right
now EAW has to change its focus”, it suggests that despite her frustration, she could
only hope for changes (by the management). There was no indication that she had
voiced her opinions on the matter to the management. Here, her power struggle was
indirectly demonstrated by her comments, which show dissatisfaction and
powerlessness.
4. Erm... generally it is a good course but challenging, ok, and I myself not
satisfied. Every semester I teach, I'm not satisfied because I cannot cater to their
need ok, especially in terms of language proficiency. They made a lot of
mistakes but we don't have time to specifically yea I mean, of course they can
come and see me to discuss but just that they don't have time.
(LEAW5, Lines 240 – 243)
5. Erm...define easy [giggled]. Ok. Err... ok, let's talk about the one that we are
doing now. Erm... I think after the third semester, the third to fourth semester,
then only I was quite... erm... I found it very comfortable teaching it. Before
that, it was quite a struggling experience, because erm... you know, doing
something that you are not really an expert. It took me quite a number of
digging, you know, doing homework, discussing with other collegues so...
(LEAW11, Lines 35 – 40)
LEAW5 is another lecturer who shared a similar situation. She had taught
EAP/EAW for 13 years, which makes her an expert like LEAW12. However, despite
being a highly experienced and a senior member of the staff at the language centre, she
also faced the same situation where she had to accept the teaching responsibility,
although she was not satisfied with the course. She stated, “Every semester I teach, I'm
not satisfied because I cannot cater to their (students’) need ok, especially in terms of
language proficiency”. Another very experienced lecturer, LEAW11, with 10 years’
experience in EAP/EAW, also shared her struggle, “it was quite a struggling experience,
because erm... you know, doing something that you are not really an expert”. These
lecturers represented the most experienced writing lecturers whom can be categorised as
experts in EAP/EAW at the language centre. In fact, all of them held important
positions at the centre. Nonetheless, their comments suggest that they were powerless
when it comes to questioning the higher level people who decided what they had to
teach.
6. … I think when we changed to EAW, the research form, I think at the

beginning everybody was in a total shock. So, most of us were not very familiar
back then.
(LEAW10, Lines 23 – 24)
7. It's just that a lot of things to be covered and to be remembered. So I won't say
it's (the EAW course) easy. It's definitely not easy of course.
(LEAW7, Lines 28 – 29)
8. Err... initially it (teaching EAW) was not (easy). It was very taxing and then it
was very... stressful because they are a lot of things that I did not know about
this especially when you have to teach them the methods, you know... the
research itself when they changed this course into writing a research paper, that
one. Because we ourselves are not used to writing for research paper, right? I
mean for journal to... as if you are publishing in a journal. So, you had to learn
as you are teaching. (LEAW13, Lines 31 – 36)
LEAW10, who had taught EAW for eight years, and LEAW7 and LEAW13,
who both had four years’ experience teaching the course, also indicated power struggles
from their views about EAW. Describing their experience teaching the course,
LEAW10 said, “…when we changed to EAW, the research form, I think at the
beginning everybody was in a total shock. So, most of us were not very familiar back
then”, while LEAW7 stated, “It's just that a lot of things to be covered and to be
221
remembered”. These comments representing dissatisfaction and problems can be

interpreted as indicating power struggles. Similarly, LEAW13 also struggled to teach
EAW as though it was forced upon her. Her comments “It was very taxing and then it
was very... stressful because they are a lot of things that I did not know about this
especially when you have to teach them the methods”, and “we ourselves are not used
to writing for research paper” indicate her struggles with teaching the course.
9. Erm... currently, this course is more research-based. Perhaps we should make

it more language-based, because we are language teachers. And we ourselves are
not aware of err research methodology. Teaching this course sometimes makes
you think that you are teaching research methodology. So, I think it should be
converted into a purely, academic, English for academic writing course.
(LEAW14, Lines 146 – 150)
10. Ermm... ok. Well, for me, academic writing is basically an opinion essay
with references included in it. That's it. It's not like what we are teaching the
students is actually... it's... it's like... Ok, for me, when you talk about academic
writing, it will have to be on your opinion on a certain topic. Alright. But you
have references. Meaning that you have to either quote or summarise from other
authors. Just to support your own idea. That's it. But, what we are doing, sorry to
say this, it's more towards like a thesis, which I don't really think the students
need because they are already taught in the kulliyyahs, the format of a thesis.
And since we... they come from different kulliyyahs, they have different format.
What are we supposed to be doing here, EAW, English for Academic Writing,
we are supposed to be focusing on the language, not on the format.
LEAW14 and LEAW9, who also had four years of experience teaching EAW,
also shared their struggles teaching the EAW course. LEAW14 revealed her concern of
the course as she felt that she was teaching research methodology when teaching EAW.
She commented, “And we ourselves are not aware of err research methodology.
Teaching this course sometimes makes you think that you are teaching research
methodology”. LEAW9, also shared her dissatisfaction with EAW. She said, “But, what
we are doing, sorry to say this, it's more towards like a thesis, which I don't really think
the students need because they are already taught in the kulliyyahs, the format of a
thesis. And since we... they come from different kulliyyahs, they have different format.
What are we supposed to be doing here, EAW, English for Academic Writing, we are
supposed to be focusing on the language, not on the format”. Here, power struggles can
be inferred from her dissatisfaction of having to teach a course which she believed was
not catering to her student needs.
11. With the subject. At first, I wasn't really that confident. It was like, a bit like
shooting in the dark [giggled]. Because I didn't really know what to expect, what
are the things that they are... you know, what the students expect me to do, what
are the coverage, because I... to tell you the half-cut truth, I didn't really... like to
see this [pointing at the course outline].
Finally, LEAW8, who only had three years of experience teaching the course,
also expressed similar struggles. She summarised her experience in her comment, “It
was like, a bit like shooting in the dark”, showing her frustration of not achieving
something out of her teaching. Even though her teaching experience was the least
compared to other lecturers, her similar opinions about EAW with the more experienced
lecturers suggest that power struggles were a common issue affecting the lecturers
regardless of levels of experience.
All in all, these lecturers shared similar comments about the course, that they
had difficulties teaching it because of the focus on research rather than language. Their
responses revealed dissatisfaction and problems, which imply power struggles, but no
one indicated any signs of resistance as a response to their power struggles. Even
though many of them related the difficulties at the beginning of teaching EAW, none of
them indicated any actions which suggest questioning or negotiation with the party who
imposed the changes – the top management. They continued teaching the course while
223
coping with the situation. Therefore, the underlying meaning that can be inferred from
this is that the EAW lecturers had power struggles with the top management of the
university, but no resistance was manifested.
4.8.1.2 Students’ power struggles.

During the interview with the students, some of them gave some responses that
indicated power struggles. They indicated this when they responded to questions about
the EAW course. As is the case of the EAW lecturers, on the surface, some responses
revealed the students’ dissatisfaction and problems. These dissatisfaction and problems
can imply underlying meanings indicating power struggles. The excerpts from the
interviews below contain instances of the students’ power struggles with their lecturers.
1. But when I’m in class, I don’t really understand what the lecturer is giving
me. I don’t really understand what she’s talking about. So I have... I’m doing it
but I’m doing it by myself most of the time.
(SENG1, Lines 86 – 88)
2. But I don’t know if this is a lecturer thing or not, but I wish I have more
exercises to... because I have no experience at all before this to... in academic
writing.
(SENG1, Lines 145 – 146)
3. … in the earlier parts of the course, you know, in the semester, the first half of
it. I don’t understand anything about it. I don’t understand what EAW was
about. I don’t know how to cite anything. But then, I have to study it for myself
but, if I have more exercises in the beginning and getting more comfortable with
the subject I think I could have done better, earlier on.
(SENG1, Lines 171 – 175)
The first three instances are from SENG1, a fourth year mechanical automotive
engineering student whom I interviewed to investigate his academic writing needs.
However, as indicated above, there were three different times during the interview
where he talked about how he struggled to cope with the EAW lesson. The first excerpt
showed the first time that he was having a struggle, although at this point, it could be
seen as a normal student problem. There was no mentioning of the lecturer’s part in this
situation. However, he did hesitantly mention at the end of this excerpt, “I’m doing it by
myself most of the time” which may suggest absence of the lecturer’s help in coping
with his problem.
On the other hand, in the first line of the second excerpt, he said, “But I don’t
know if this is a lecturer thing or not, but I wish I have more exercises…”. This can be
interpreted as a suggestion that he wanted to say something about the lecturer. In the
third excerpt, he shifted the focus back to himself as he said, “But then, I have to study
it for myself…” which was a repetition of what he had said earlier on. This may suggest
a restatement of dissatisfaction or frustration. In short, it could be assumed that the
student was struggling not just to cope with his studies, but perhaps the struggle has
something to do with the lecturer, and it might be indicating questioning the lecturer and
the lecturer’s pedagogic choices, something which he was not prepared to do in class.
Similar to the EAW lecturers, SENG1 also faced a power struggle but did not reveal
any resistance.
4. In my opinion, I don’t think it helps me in my writing, in my English.

(SHS2, Line 103)
5. I think EAW is more on research… it is more on the methods, not on writing.

(SHS2, Line 110)
6. Mostly, EAW it didn’t...it didn’t teach me English. It didn’t teach me how to

write or how to what...it just teach me how to aaa...to...to do research....the...the
step of doing research and, just teach me how to write the...the...the research,
which is I already...(always do)...
(SHS2, Lines 137 – 139)
225
The fourth, fifth and sixth excerpts are taken from the interview with SHS2, a
fourth year human sciences student, majoring in sociology and anthropology. There was
also an indication of a power struggle when he tried to relate the course to his needs.
However, in contrast to SENG1 who indicated his power struggle with his lecturer,
SHS2 referred to his struggle with the EAW course. During the interview, he
complained that the course did not teach him much. On the other hand, this can also
imply his struggle with his lecturer, since it was the lecturer who taught the course.
There were at least three times where he said something indicating his frustrations about
the course. Firstly, in the fourth excerpt, he said, “In my opinion, I don’t think it (EAW)
helps me in my writing, in my English”. Then, in the fifth one, he stated, “I think EAW
is more on research… it is more on the methods, not on writing”. Lastly, in the sixth
excerpt, he mentioned, “It didn’t teach me how to write or how to what...it just teach me
how to aaa...to...to do research…which is I already...(always do)”. He consistently
conveyed the same idea in his comments, and these three comments indicating his
frustrations can be interpreted as his power struggle with the lecturer, as he believed the
lecturer was not addressing his needs in the course. On the other hand, like SENG1, he
did not raise the issue with his lecturer, indicating a power struggle without resistance.
7. Err... mainly the irrelevant part is the... how do I say this... it's like erm... like I
said before, English... I mean EAW subject, they focus on more general things,
not something that you have to study so deep about. And then... the one we are
studying in our kulliyyah, we have to find... like we have to do very deep
research on the science things. You know science things are not things that you
can make up yourself. You have to like, study, you have to do experiments,
things like that. So... did I answer your question [giggled]?
(SENG2, Lines 90 – 95)
8. Err... I think... I mean, the subject is good, the subject... it is good actually...
and... but I think that's about it. I mean they have to offer the subject more to the
first and second year students. Because they don't know anything about general
studies. I didn't know anything about general articles... what... academic writing.
I did not know about these things when I was back in first and second year. But
now that I reach final year, I've learnt about this since last semester, since last
year. So, to me, honestly, it's quite a waste of time because we're like... learning
the same thing, over and over again. So, if... the subject is good, the subject is
very good, but you need to offer it more for first and second year students.
(SENG2, Lines 111 – 118)
SENG2 is a fourth year biotech engineering student. Similar to SHS2, she also
shared her dissatisfaction with the EAW course. Although she did not explicitly refer to
her lecturer, it can be implied that her power struggle involved the lecturer, the person
who taught the course. She struggled in the course because she did not take any action
to cope with her struggle, such as questioning or negotiating with the lecturer, when she
felt that the course was not related to her as she said, “mainly the irrelevant part is the...
how do I say this... it's like erm... like I said before, English... I mean EAW subject, they
focus on more general things, not something that you have to study so deep about… the
one we are studying in our kulliyyah, we have to find... like we have to do very deep
research on the science things”. She indicated her struggle in her comment, “So, to me,
honestly, it's quite a waste of time because we're like... learning the same thing, over
and over again”.
9. I was... struggling with my research paper in EAW because the format is

different. So I took the past report samples that my lecturer from EAW gave,
and then I followed the techniques that the past seniors did. I followed exactly. I
didn’t copy any word. I do my own work but I followed the techniques, the
structure. And then, when I submit it, he was like... he called me... didn’t return
my paper. He called me after the class, he said like, “It was too good. I didn’t
find any mistake. It is a miracle. It is PhD level”. So I was like, ok, is it a
compliment or anything. I was thinking, why he looked mad. Suddenly he said I
need to change my topic. Because he didn’t believe I did that. And he wanted
me to redo it. And he wanted me to downgrade the level. He said “Make it look
more like a degree level”. So, first thing, I don’t know how to do. So I need, I
227
need a good sample. So what I did, I took a sample from the course, and then I
follow how they did. I don’t know how to do it. But, I follow the structure. So, I
was like, I don’t know how to do, so I follow good example, and then I got
problem from it. So, it’s kind of annoying. Because he didn’t really teach us how
to do it. He teach but, I don’t know. When I did, he said many things.
(SENG3, Lines 88 – 101).
10. As far as I'm concerned, he didn't teach us on how to summarise. He said we

have to, like make it, you know, the short is better. But I didn't think he teach us
how to do it. I think it's more to the technical aspect like, how to start the
literature review, there's a key word, like you have to use that key word. He
teaches the... like how to... the technical part I think.
(SENG3, Lines 110 – 113)
11. I have high expectation when I took English. Many of my friends told me
that it's not related but I didn't think about that. I really want to take it because I
really need help on my writing. So like, when I took it, my expectation, like, it
was not fulfilled. I was disappointed.
(SENG3, 195 – 198)
The next three excerpts revealed another example where a power struggle was at
play. This example can be regarded as a serious case of a power struggle for a student
with her lecturer. SENG3, a final year engineering (electronic-computer and IT)
student, revealed her struggle with the EAW course. She shared an incident where she
was not given a chance by her lecturer to justify or defend her position. She revealed her
opinion about the course and the incident in one lengthy statement, shown in the ninth
excerpt. She began by saying, “I was... struggling with my research paper in EAW
because the format is different”. Then, she continued by explaining the incident where
she was scolded by her lecturer who suspected the originality of her work. She said the
lecturer claimed that her paper was too good for her level and instructed her to redo it.
Some of her lecturer’s words are, “It was too good. I didn’t find any mistake. It is a
miracle. It is PhD level”. She continued explaining about the incident, “…he (the
lecturer) looked mad. Suddenly he said I need to change my topic. Because he didn’t
believe I did that. And he wanted me to redo it. And he wanted me to downgrade the
level”.
SENG3’s explanation about the incident indicated a serious power struggle.
Moreover, she also complained about the lack of teaching by her lecturer, which
indicated her further dissatisfaction with the course. There are two comments about her
lecturer which show this: the first one is about her problem understanding the lecturer,
“Because he didn’t really teach us how to do it. He teach but, I don’t know”; the second
one is her claim that her lecturer did not teach summarising, “As far as I'm concerned,
he didn't teach us on how to summarise. He said we have to, like make it, you know, the
short is better. But I didn't think he teach us how to do it”. Finally, she revealed her
disappointment with EAW for not fulfilling her expectations. She said, “So like, when I
took it, my expectation, like, it was not fulfilled. I was disappointed”. Her
dissatisfaction with the course suggested evidence of a power struggle. In particular, her
incident with her lecturer was a direct instance of a power struggle. During the incident,
the lecturer was not showing any signal that that he was willing to negotiate with her. At
the same time, she did not question her lecturer to show her dissatisfaction. So, even
though SENG3 was facing a power struggle in that particular situation, she did not
create any resistance as a response to it.
12. Yes I am. Yes I'm happy. Ok maybe there's one suggestion is, I feel like we
have free time, a lot of free time in the course. There is room to put some more,
ok. But maybe we are so pressured, so this course is easy. Ok I'm gonna find real
example since no one's gonna hear this. So sometimes, we just come to class and
she will just check the draft and that's it. Then we have to leave. And yea... so
there is time which means you can add something else. Since the whole course is
about writing a research paper, so it seems that we have more than enough time
to write.
(SENG4, Lines 136 – 142)
229
Finally, SENG4, a fourth year chemical biotechnology engineering student, also

shared his comment about his lecturer, whom he described as good but needed to
optimise the class hours more. Even though he was pleased with the course, he
commented about his lecturer, “Ok I'm gonna find real example since no one's gonna
hear this. So sometimes, we just come to class and she will just check the draft and
that's it. Then we have to leave”. This comment indicating his dissatisfaction about the
lecturer also implies a power struggle. However, similar to SENG3, he did not do
anything that indicated resistance.
To conclude, it can be seen from the findings that all engineering students who
took the EAW course described power struggles with the EAW lecturers, compared to
only one human sciences student. One engineering student (SENG3) had a direct
experience of a power struggle with her lecturer, compared to others whose power
struggles can only be inferred from their dissatisfaction and problems with the course.
Nonetheless, none of them responded to the struggles with resistance – an important
element in the concept of power relations by Foucault. They did not reveal any evidence
of questioning or negotiation with the lecturers over their dissatisfaction or problems,
which gives the impression that they have not played their role as active participants,
but rather as compliant subjects (Benesch, 1999). According to Benesch, rights analysis
sees EAP students as active rather than compliant participants. She states,
Rights are not a set of pre-existing demands but a conceptual framework for
questions about authority and control, such as: what are students permitted to do
in a particular setting? How do they respond to rules and regulations? How are
decisions about control and resistance made? Rights analysis does not assume
that students are entitled to certain rights or that they should engage in particular
types of activities but that the possibility for engagement exists. (p. 315)
In the context of the situations discussed above, it can be said that the students were
deprived of their ‘rights’ to know what to do or how to respond in the particular setting.
On the other hand, the lecturer’s roles in the situations can also be related to “being too
identified with traditional academic culture” (Benesch, 1999, p.322), where the
textbook-driven lecture course is the common approach in teaching and learning.
4.8.2 Theme 2: Power relationships.
The second theme emerging from the rights analysis is ‘power relationships’.
This theme is different from the first theme which focuses on the EAW lecturers’ and
students’ struggles. ‘Power relationships’ is about how power is exercised among the
stakeholders in the institutional hierarchy. In the context of this study, the findings
indicating power relationships can be used to pose questions addressing the power
exercised between the stakeholders of an academic writing course in IIUM.
The following subthemes are created to discuss power relationships. Some parts
in the interview excerpts which are considered important are underlined for ease of
reference.
4.8.2.1 Power relationships: the management.

In Foucault’s theory of power, instead of identifying the heads and
administrators in an organisation, studying power should involve questioning how and
why decisions are made. Thus, these findings revealed how decisions were made in the
context of academic writing in IIUM. This theme emerged after the responses from a
former EAP/EAW course coordinator revealed how power was exercised by the
university top management. Below are the excerpts of the interview between the
interviewer (I) and the former EAP/EAW course coordinator (LEAW6):
1. LEAW6: Err like I said, there was, err the needs analysis was done almost
whenever we change, all right? But needs analyses were done, results, I don’t
know where [laughed].
I: So, was there really... what we call that, err... the results wasn’t really... were
not really... (analysed)?
LEAW6: (There were not disclosed). No, it was analysed, it was analysed. But it
was not disclosed.
I: Disclosed? Okay.
LEAW6: It was not disclosed. It was just between the top management. And then,
whenever we had academic review, it was just mentioned - okay, based on the
needs analysis... they just summarised it. And that’s it.
231
(LEAW6, Lines 79 – 103)
2. LEAW6: Ah... they did, like I said, okay, they had... this is under... they went...
every time when there's changes they go through senate, all right. And then the...
the feedback would come from the deans. So, by the time they said that the
deans also like the idea of research, because they are all going for research,
right, with the research university status and all that, and then erm... some
feedback came around, all right, but, there was a lot of feedback coming from
AIKOL, Law kulliyyah, err because they wanted, they... they noticed that their
students' English, because AIKOL demands a high level of English, so erm...
they noticed that their level, the students' level of English has deteriorated from,
between year one to year four. So, erm they wanted to see if EAW, there was a
request once, requested that perhaps EAW would erm... move towards more into
language rather than research, erm... but all the other, if I'm not mistaken, the
other deans as well as our dean at that time, err said that we wanted to, they
wanted to stick to this, so err then they suggested if we had, we could have
another course between pre-sessional and LE4000.
(LEAW6, Lines 265 – 277)
LEAW6, a former EAP/EAW course coordinator, was one of the pioneers in the
early EAP courses in CELPAD, and had been coordinating and teaching the courses
until the inception of EAW. She had taught for more than 15 years at the language
centre. During the interview, she was asked about the needs analysis for the EAP/EAW
course. She indicated her awareness of it, but revealed that the findings never reached
her or the language centre. During the interview, she said, “…the needs analysis was
done almost whenever we change, all right? But needs analysis were done, results, I
don’t know where [laughed]”. Regarding the findings, she added that, “It was not
disclosed. It was just between the top management. And then, whenever we had
academic review, it was just mentioned - okay, based on the needs analysis... they just
summarised it. And that’s it”. These comments indicated that the top management,
comprising the people at the highest level of the university hierarchy, exercised its
power in its relationships with the language centre, in the way that dominant members
in the society have over subordinate members, which contradicts how Foucault sees
power as coexisting with resistance. In this case, the language centre, instead of
exercising resistance by questioning about the needs analysis and engaging in the
mechanism of powers, became objects of its control by submitting to the power
imposed by the top management, which was presented as non-negotiable.
When she was asked about how decisions pertaining to the EAP or EAW
courses were made, LEAW6 explained that the decisions were made at the university’s
top management level, the senate. She said “…every time when there's changes they go
through senate, all right. And then the... the feedback would come from the deans”. She
also explained about the decision for the EAW course to use research as a tool in
teaching academic writing, “… the deans also like the idea of research, because they are
all going for research, right, with the research university status and all that”. The
decision was made by considering the opinions of the members in the management
instead of basing it on the findings from needs analysis. In addition, even though there
was a request from the law faculty for EAW to focus more on language rather than
research, it was not accepted because all other deans preferred the focus on research in
the EAW course. On the other hand, they suggested another course to cater to this need.
This also implies how power was exercised among the members in the top management.
The management members had their own perceived needs and negotiated these needs to
reach a decision.
In conclusion, power relationships in the management can be described as how
the people in the top management exercised their power to decide on behalf of the
members of the lower level in the hierarchy. Power and resistance, although coexisting,
were not indicated in the relationships between the levels. There was no indication of
the language centre’s involvement in decision making, at least with regard to needs
analysis. On the other hand, the relationships among the members of the management
showed evidence of negotiation, which can be related to the aspect of resistance to
power.
233
4.8.2.2 Power relationships: the language centre and the faculties.

According to Benesch (2001a), to talk of ‘rights’ is to regard academic life as
“contested, with various players exercising power for different ends” (p. 62). Interviews
with the former and current EAP/EAW coordinators and faculty lecturers revealed the
power relationships between the people at the language centre and the faculty. This is
reflected in the following interview excerpts:
1. I: Okay. Was there any help by any kulliyyah in terms of maybe, you know,
erm... providing us with some specific information, or maybe even erm... sending
people or personnel to... to discuss with us, and to help us in terms of, you know,
in terms of the... the... the design... in terms of designing of the course maybe.
Anything, any help or no, or any assistance...
LEAW6: Unfortunately, no… No, they have not. For EAW they would prefer
that we do it.
(LEAW6, Lines 278 – 282)
2. I: Hmm....mmm...okay. Do you agree with having one and the same EAW
course for all kulliyyahs?
LEAW1: I think it is easier to manage, yes, definitely.
I: Okay. Erm any other reasons why you think so?
LEAW1: Err... well, to get everyone, to have the same understanding, be on the
same page basically. Let say the kulliyyahs need more erm specific or err
slightly fine-tuned version of the EAW then they would come, they should come
out with it, I mean on their own. But as a basic level, I think that everyone
should do EAW of the same format, and if they need to move into something
more detailed, then respective kulliyyahs should handle that instead.
The first two excerpts are from the interviews with the former and current
EAP/EAW coordinators. Their opinions represented the administrative level at the
language centre. During the interview with the former EAP/EAW coordinator, LEAW6,
she was asked whether there was any assistance from the faculties with regard to the
EAP/EAW course design. Her reply, “Unfortunately, no”, although brief, can be
interpreted as an indication of power exercised between the faculties and the language
centre. The word ‘unfortunately’ sends a negative signal of the relationship with the
faculties. Her following comment, “No, they have not. For EAW they would prefer that
we do it” indicates that she just accepted the decision by the faculties without any
questions. Additionally, while the faculties might not have realised their potential roles
to assist the EAW course, there was no initiative taken by the language centre to
approach the faculties for that reason.
The second excerpt is from the interview with LEAW1, the current EAW course
coordinator. Her comments can be related to LEAW6’s. LEAW1 did not see the need to
involve the faculties in the EAW course. Her comments, “Let say the kulliyyahs need
more erm specific or err slightly fine-tuned version of the EAW then they would come,
they should come out with it, I mean on their own”, and “… if they need to move into
something more detailed, then respective kulliyyahs should handle that instead”,
indicate a subtle exercise of power in the relationships between the language centre and
the faculties; there is a sense of authority in her statement that shows she is not going to
negotiate about this. She commented that the faculties should do it on their own if they
wanted to have a course that suited them.
3. I: So what is the technique that you are using?

LENG3: Erm..we usually...in this kulliyyah we usually use APA or IEEE.
I: Okay.
LENG3: But then, when I look at their report, erm..I am not familiar with all the
styles, it’s just that, it’s different. And sometimes, some of the lecturers said "Oh,
this is wrong!"
(LENG3, Lines 179 – 183)
4. LENG3: But, I am not sure whether it’s...it’s their mistake or what they have
learned, because they said that what they have learned, they put all the names of
the writer for in-text citation. They say, what they learn, if it’s not more than
235
three, then you can put everybody.

I: Everybody there..ah..ha..
LENG3: So...but I didn’t go and find what kind of...
I: But that is quite common, you mean more than (one student does that)?
LENG3: (Yea more than one...more than one student) and when I ask "Where
did you learn this?" They said "in English class". So I was quite surprised
actually [laugh].
(LENG3, Lines 191-198)
The two excerpts above are from the interview with a faculty lecturer. The
excerpts reveal the faculty lecturer’s response to the interviewer’s question on the
technical aspects of academic writing at her faculty. LENG3, a biotechnology
engineering lecturer, was referring to an occasion where she discovered that her
students were not using appropriate referencing techniques. She said she was surprised
when the students told her that they learned these referencing techniques in their
English class (EAW class). This does not indicate much about how power relations are
displayed, but it can be inferred that the reaction of surprise (with laughter) suggests
that she considered herself in the right and was an authority on referencing in a way the
EAW lecturers were not. This is first reflected when she said, “But then, when I look at
their report, erm..I am not familiar with all the styles, it’s just that, it’s different. And
sometimes, some of the lecturers said ‘Oh, this is wrong!’”. Then, she continued her
comment with, “when I ask ‘Where did you learn this?’ They said ‘in English class’. So
I was quite surprised actually [laugh]”.
5. LENG2: I think we can erm..ask...ask the student on what are the

related...errr...I mean short research that they have to do (in Engineering) so that
they are exposed and they have..they can, they can immediately relate with their
background and culture in the...in the kulliyyah.
I: (Emm..hmm) Okay
LENG2: Yea. I think erm..for example, let say they are...instead of giving them
to do survey because somehow they will not use it later on, so give something
that they are going to be using it later on in...especially in FYP.
(LENG2, Lines 190 – 196)
The last excerpt is from the interview with LENG2, a mechatronics engineering
lecturer. On the surface, her suggestion on what the language centre could do to cater to
her student needs can be regarded as ordinary. Part of her suggestion is, “… instead of
giving them to do survey because somehow they will not use it later on, so give
something that they are going to be using it later on in...especially in FYP (Final Year
Project)”. Nevertheless, it can be inferred from her suggestion that despite her
awareness of the impracticality of the research (survey) taught in EAW, she had not
taken the initiative to approach the language centre on this matter. This may be related
to the notion of power relationships between the faculty and the language centre. The
faculty lecturer may have realised that the language centre was the party providing a
service for the faculty, thus placing them as lower-status members of the academic
hierarchy (Benesch, 2001a). The fact that she had not approached the centre was
perhaps due to her impression that it was the obligation of the language centre to make
the move.

The third research question is: ‘3. How do the EAW lecturers’, the faculty
lecturers’, and students’ perceptions of EAW indicate power relations?’. It was
discovered that power relations from the perceptions of the stakeholders in the study can
be discussed in two main themes: power struggles and power relationships.
First, power struggles can be interpreted from the stakeholders’ dissatisfaction
and problems with the EAW course (power struggles), and their responses to their
struggles (resistance). This theme is further divided into two subthemes, which focus on
the EAW lecturers’ power struggles with the management, and the students’ power
struggles with the EAW lecturers. The EAW lecturers’ power struggles are related to
their dissatisfaction and problems teaching EAW due to the focus on research rather
237
than language. Nonetheless, no resistance was indicated. On the other hand, there are
two types of evidence of the students’ power struggles. One student experienced a
power struggle directly with her lecturer, while other students’ power struggles can only
be inferred from their dissatisfaction and problems with the course. Nevertheless,
similar to the EAW lecturers, none of them responded to the struggles with resistance.
The second theme is power relationships. This theme is related to the exercise of
power among the stakeholders in the institutional hierarchy. The theme is also divided
into two subthemes. The first subtheme reveals how power was exercised by the
university top management. Power relationships in the management were evident in the
way the top management exercised its power to decide for those at the lower level in the
hierarchy. However, although power and resistance coexist, they were not indicated in
the relationships between the members of the same level in the hierarchy. The second
subtheme is about the power relationships between the lecturers at the language centre
and the faculty. Neither the language centre nor the faculties had taken any initiative to
collaborate, suggesting power being exercised by players in academic life. Another
inference that can be made is that the faculty lecturers viewed the language centre as a
lower-status member of the academic hierarchy.
All in all, it can be concluded that the EAW lecturers’, the faculty lecturers’, and
students’ power relations are in the forms of power struggles and power relationships.
4.10 Discussion
This study investigates academic writing in the context of student academic
writing needs in the EAW course in IIUM. The discussion of the findings will be done
by situating the main findings into the main frame of academic writing at the university.
In the case study, the five subunits of analysis, or the stakeholders, are: (1) EAW
lecturers; (2) EAW/ENGIN students; (3) EAW/HS students; (4) ENGIN lecturers; and
(5) HS lecturers. The themes will serve as the platforms for the discussion to relate the
findings to the literature in this thesis. A summary of the findings will be presented first.
Table 33. Summary of Findings
RESEARCH QUESTIONS (RQ) FINDINGS/THEMES SOURCES
1. What are the EAW lecturers’, the Student needs for research EAW lect, ENGIN lect,
faculty lecturers’, and students’ writing skills. EAW/ENGIN std, EAW/HS
perceptions of academic writing needs? std
Student needs for basic language PSA ENGIN lect, HS lect,
*Findings from questionnaires: The skills. EAW/ENGIN std, EAW/HS std
majority of the stakeholders viewed Students have needs which were EAW/HS std, EAW/ENGIN std
academic writing as the most important unmet by EAW.
language skill for students. The majority Applying research writing skills EAW lect
also agreed that academic writing and upon graduation.
research writing were very important in Writing good research reports. ENGIN lect, HS lect,
TSA
the faculties. EAW/ENGIN std, EAW/HS std
Having higher level of HS lect
2. What are the 2.1. What are the EAW is an EGAP course and should be changed to focus on ESAP.
EAW lecturers’, EAW lecturers’
the EAW/ENGIN perceptions of the
students’ and the EAW course in the
EAW is an EGAP course and should remain as it is.
EAW/HS context of EGAP
students’ and ESAP?
perceptions of
the EAW 2.2. What are the The student need for EAW is due EAW lect, EAW/ENGIN std,
course? EAW lecturers, the to the need to do research. EAW/HS std

EAW/ENG students EAW could meet student needs EAW lect and EAW/ENGIN std
and the EAW/HS but only in some ways.
students’ EAW caters to student needs only EAW lect
perceptions of the for some faculties.
EAW course and Students need an EAW course EAW lect
TSA
student needs? that focuses more on language.
* Findings from
questionnaires: The
majority had a
positive view
towards EAW.
239
3. How do the EAW lecturers’, the EAW lecturers’ power struggles. EAW lect
faculty lecturers’, and students’ Students’ power stuggles. EAW/ENGIN std, EAW/HS
perceptions of EAW indicate power std
relations? Power relationshsips: the management. EAW lect
Power relationships: the language centre EAW lect, ENGIN lect,
and the faculties
Note: lect = lecturers; std = students;
It can be seen from Table 33 that each research question has generated more
than one theme. The column ‘SOURCES’ shows the participants who were associated
with the themes. The participants highlighted in bold were the main sources of the
themes since the majority in their group gave similar responses from where the themes
emerged. For ease of discussion, the main ideas in each research question are extracted
and presented in separate diagrams. However, whenever necessary references will be
made to Table 33 during the discussion.
EAW lect, ENGIN

Research writing lect, EAW/ENGIN
skills (PSA)
std
Academic writing Basic language

needs skills (PSA) HS lect
Higher level of
proficiency (TSA) HS lect
Figure 14. Student academic writing needs
Figure 14 shows the main findings of RQ 1. In terms of the student present

needs (PSA), EAW and ENGIN lecturers, as well as EAW/ENGIN students perceived
‘research writing skills’ as the skills that the students were mostly lacking. On the other
hand, the majority of the HS lecturers perceived basic language skills as the most
important skills that their students needed while they were studying. They were also the
only group (see Table 33) that had a shared perception that students needed to achieve a
higher level of proficiency in academic writing (TSA). Additionally, with regard to the
student TSA, one of the identified target needs in Table 33, ‘Applying research writing
skills upon graduation’, only emerged in the theme from EAW lecturers’ responses.
Next, the main findings of RQ 2 are presented in Figure 15.
1. EAW: EGAP or ESAP EGAP to ESAP
2. EAW Course and student

needs For research (TSA)
Figure 15. Perceptions of the EAW course and student needs
Figure 15 shows the main findings of RQ 2. The first refers to the EAW
lecturers’ understanding of the two approaches in EAP: EGAP and ESAP. This question
was only addressed to the EAW lecturers as they were the only group that taught the
EAW course. It appears that even though none of the EAW lecturers were aware of the
two terms, most of them were familiar with the concepts after the explanation had been
given. The majority of the EAW lecturers perceived the EAW course as an EGAP
course. This perception was congruent with the EAW course which focuses on research
writing skills, a feature of an EGAP course where a set of common language skills can
be transferred across contexts (Hyland, 2006). Ten out of 15 lecturers shared this
241
perception, and out of this number, half of them believed that EAW should be changed
to focus on ESAP.
The second finding, which was the answer to the second subquestion of RQ 2,
was rather anticipated as EAW was a research-based course. The majority of the
participants consisting of the EAW lecturers, the EAW/ENGIN and the EAW/HS
students mentioned doing research as the main reason for taking the course. The next
main idea is presented in Figure 16.
EAW lecturers'
power struggles EAW lect
Students' power EAW/ENGIN std,

struggles EAW/HS std
Power relations
Power relationships:
the management EAW lect
Power relationships:
the language centre EAW lect, ENGIN lect
and the faculty
Figure 16. Power relations among stakeholders
It can be seen from Figure 16 that all of the groups, except the HS lecturers,
spoke of power relations in terms of power struggles and power relationships. Power
struggles were revealed by nine EAW lecturers, all four EAW/ENGIN students as well
as one EAW/HS student. The themes were generated by inferring from the lecturers’
and students’ dissatisfaction with the EAW course. Power relationships were uncovered
from two EAW lecturers’ and two ENGIN lecturers’ responses. They referred to the
exercise of power between the EAW lecturers and the university management, and
between the EAW lecturers and the faculty lecturers.
In summary, the findings have revealed the answers to the research questions in
the forms of themes. However, the themes, as they stand, are rather detached from
serving as the answers to the general aim of this research, that is to understand academic
writing in IIUM. Therefore, the themes on the student needs and the EAW course, and
the elements of power relations among the stakeholders will be discussed before they
are situated back in the context of academic writing in IIUM.
At the beginning of this thesis, academic writing was discussed in terms of its
importance in higher learning institutions. With the aim to understand academic writing
as a phenomenon at the university, relevant issues have been discussed in the context of
the EAW course and student needs. Further discussions in Chapter Two have given
some background of the developments of academic writing. Discussions also covered
the controversial subjects in EAP (EGAP and ESAP; the study skills, academic
socialisation and academic literacies; pragmatic and critical EAP).
4.10.1 Student academic writing needs at the university.

The findings in this study have been reported in terms of the student needs as
target needs (also Target Situation Analysis – TSA), or present needs (also Present
Situation Analysis – PSA). According to Robinson (1991), TSA is to elicit information
regarding the students’ English language requirements during their studies (e.g., what is
required to achieve learning objectives), or the stage where the students start working
(e.g., what skills the students need to have to do well in work). PSA, on the other hand,
is to assess the students’ strengths and weaknesses at the start of their language course.
The findings from the needs analysis on academic writing in EAW (RQ 2.2)
have revealed that generally, the majority of the EAW lecturers and students had a
positive view towards the course. With regard to the importance of academic writing
and research writing (RQ 1), the EAW lecturers, faculty lecturers as well as the students
felt that they were important skills in the faculties (TSA). This can be compared to the
studies by Casanave and Hubbard (1992), Dehnad et al. (2010), Jenkins et al. (1993)
and Zhu (2004) that found that academic writing was important for the students.
Most of the EAW lecturers, ENGIN lecturers, EAW/ENGIN and EAW/HS
students perceived research writing skills as their present situation needs (PSA), with
243
specific needs for the skills to write the literature review, paraphrase, summarise and
write citations. In addition, there was a consistency between their present needs and
their target needs (TSA), which are writing good research reports (ENGIN lecturers,
EAW/ENGIN and EAW/HS students) and applying research writing skills upon
graduation (EAW lecturers).
However, the findings from the interviews revealed that, unlike other
stakeholders, HS lecturers did not perceive research writing skills as the most important
skills. On the other hand, they believed that students needed more improvement in their
basic language skills due to their current writing problems (PSA) to achieve a higher
level of language proficiency (TSA). This finding is interesting because the
questionnaire findings indicated that HS lecturers were among the majority of the
respondents who strongly agreed with the importance of research writing in the
faculties. With regard to student present needs, HS lecturers felt that the main problems
among the students were grammar, tenses and subject-verb agreement. In comparison,
grammar was also perceived as an important need in the studies by Sarudin et al.
(2009), Mehrdad (2012), Abiri (2013), Casanave and Hubbard (1992) and Huang
(2010).
The discrepancies between the stakeholders’ perceptions can be compared with
several studies. It was evident in the studies by Yildrim and Ilin (2009) and Huang
(2010) that writing instructors and students had similar and different views about
student writing needs. Moreover, the faculties in the studies by Casanave and Hubbard
(1992), Jenkins et al. (1993) and Zhu (2004), albeit acknowledging the importance of
writing, differed in their emphasis on writing. Furthermore, Dehnad et al. (2010) also
found that the stakeholders in their study had similarities and differences in their
perceptions of student needs.
Needs analyses in other contexts with a non-writing focus also revealed different
perceptions among their subjects. Eslami (2010) found that humanities and engineering
students’ perceptions of language proficiency problems differed from medical students’
perceptions, whereas Akyel and Ozek’s (2010) study indicated a discrepancy between
instructors’ and students’ perceptions of student needs. Liu et al. (2011) also discovered
that listening, speaking, reading and writing needs on an ESP/EAP course were not
equally perceived by the students. On the other hand, there were stakeholders in some
studies who shared the same perceptions regarding student needs, such as the ones by
Mehrdad (2012), Abiri (2013) and Sarudin et al. (2009).
The main findings at this point have provided evidence from the stakeholders’
perspectives indicating that academic writing is the most important skill in the
engineering and human sciences faculties in IIUM. The EAW course, which focused on
research writing, has also been acknowledged as fulfilling its objectives. All of the
stakeholders agreed with the importance of research writing for students, except for
some lecturers from the human sciences faculty who perceived basic language skills as
more important. However, on a different note, I agree with Benesch’s (2001a) criticism
that Robinson’s (1991) needs analysis does not address the political and subjective
nature of needs analysis, and it provides results that are descriptive in nature. The
outcome of needs analysis is limited to identifying and fulfilling target expectations,
when in reality learners’ needs are also impacted by the political nature of education, as
education is political and never neutral (Benesch, 2001b; Pennycook, 1989; Shor,
1992).
Additionally, relying only on needs analysis might not elicit the students’ actual
needs as the sources might not be the most reliable (Basturkmen, 2006). Benesch (1996,
1999, 2001a) has been critical of traditional needs analysis in ESP which she describes
as purportedly neutral, although in reality it cannot be neutral. Despite the claim that
needs analysis is neutral, it can be used by the institutions to get others to conform to its
communicative practices (Basturkmen, 2006). Therefore, the use of rights analysis was
deemed necessary to address this gap. This is related to the issues of power relations in
the institutional hierarchy, which needs analysis should take into account. Placing all
the stakeholders in the same dimension in needs analysis has neglected power – an
instrumental element which may play a significant part in the stakeholders’ evaluations
of needs. The next section will discuss the power relations at the university where the
study took place.
245
4.10.2 Power relations at the university.

The third research question (RQ 3) has placed academic writing in the context of
power. Foucault (1980) sees power as “always already there” (p. 141, as cited in
Benesch, 1999, p. 315). In addition, Benesch (1993, 2001b), Pennycook (1989) and
Shor (1992) assert that ESL instruction and EAP are ideological, as education is
political and never neutral. In the context of the EAW course, the university senate is
the highest authority that makes the main decisions on matters pertaining to curriculum
and pedagogy. This can be related to the notion that education is political, since
decisions about what is taught, and to whom, how, when, and where the teaching takes
place are made at high levels of the political hierarchy (Pennycook, 1989; Shor, 1992).
In other words, the decision-making process in the senate meeting is where power
exists.
The first evidence of power relations revealed that power struggles were
indicated between the stakeholders from different levels of the hierarchy, but the
resistance was not translated into action. Power struggles were consistently evident
among most EAW lecturers, who indirectly indicated their struggles through their
dissatisfaction with the university management that imposed the changes on the EAW
course. Students, especially from the engineering faculty, also expressed their
dissatisfaction with the course and also the lecturers, thus revealing their forms of
power struggles.
These findings can be compared with the findings by Noori and Mazdayasna
(2015) who conducted their rights analysis in the Iranian context. In particular, they
found that most students who were not satisfied with their pre-academic EFL instruction
were reluctant to challenge their lecturers and did not question them, similar to the
present study. These matching findings indicate the existence of power struggles in an
EFL or EAP classroom, and the absence of resistance by the students. Nevertheless,
Noori and Mazdayasna did find some students who expressed their dissatisfaction to
their lecturers, which shows signs of resistance as a response to power. In contrast,
despite the power struggles, the present study did not identify any resistance from the
stakeholders. This perhaps can be related to Benesch’s (2001a) statement, that
resistance does not eliminate one’s susceptibility to regulation. Nonetheless, these
findings revealed the traditional assumption that is still taking place in higher learning
institutions, the assumption that positions certain stakeholders as powerless and passive
recipients who have to accommodate themselves to the institutional demands (Benesch,
2001a; Hyland, 2006).
The second evidence of power relations is the exercise of power between the
stakeholders in the institutional hierarchy, referred to as power relationships in this
study. This was manifested by one EAW lecturer (former course coordinator) who
revealed the imposition of power from the university management in the decision-
making process regarding the course. In addition, EAW lecturers and ENGIN lecturers
have also revealed how power was exercised between the two parties.
These findings can be compared with a few studies from the literature. First,
Helmer (2013) found that the students in her study, who were mostly immigrants in a
college in the US, faced learning ‘gaps’ which was caused by a lack of programme
cohesion, consistency and oversight. Calling it programme neglect, she pointed out that
the same-level courses at the college had prepared the same-level students unequally,
which suggests power relations. In terms of teaching practice, there was a lack of
cohesion between EAP professors and writing tutors.
Similarly, Noori and Mazdayasna (2015) also discovered power relations in their
study. In particular, they discovered unequal relations in the EAP programmes in Iran.
They found that the exercise of power and control had been a long-standing practice in
the institution, and had not just affected students, but lecturers as well. Noori and
Mazdayasna stated that the content specialists had instilled “a sense of professional
authority and hierarchical status in the students, making them accept that the instructor
is the best source of knowledge from whom they can learn best” (p. 51). This particular
evidence of power relations can be related to one example in the present study, where a
student (SENG3) had to accept her lot when her EAW lecturer indirectly doubted the
authenticity of her assignment and asked her to redo it.
Finally, Khany and Tarlani-Aliabadi (2016) found an imbalanced relationships
between students, teachers and curriculum developers in their study in the Iranian
higher education system, as there was hardly any communication among the students,
teachers and department officials in curriculum development and classroom practices.
247
Students had a passive and powerless role in the decision-making process regarding
curriculum and pedagogy. In comparison to the findings of this study, the course
coordinators and the EAW lecturers were also not involved in the decision-making
process of the significant changes that the EAW course underwent. As such, it can be
said that in the institutional hierarchy, students and teachers are bound to be implicitly
perceived as powerless. These findings reflect what Benesch (1996, 2001a) explains
about the hierarchical concept in EAP. She states that, instead of looking at how people
at the bottom level can have greater power, the concept of hierarchy in EAP designates
teachers as lower-status members, and students as novices who have to surrender to the
demands of the target community.
On a different note, I view the existence of power relations especially between
the language lecturers and faculty lecturers as related to the status of the language
lecturers in my institution. According to Shor (1992), certain departments like arts can
be overshadowed by other departments like technical departments, which he refers to as
‘institutional clout’. This means that, certain departments or groups in an institution
may possibly have dominance over others. Language lecturers as myself usually regard
faculty lecturers as superior, and this leads us to perceive social inequalities between us
and the faculty lecturers. Hence, although social inequalities are usually related to the
phenomenon among students in schools (Cherryholmes, 1988), I see them as a
phenomenon among the language and faculty lecturers in my institution.
To begin with, drawing on my personal experiences, being a language lecturer
sometimes exposed me to politicising experiences (Crookes, 2013). In the context of my
institution, the politicising experience is not just about getting frustrated over not getting
promoted after advancing our professional qualifications with higher academic degrees,
as exemplified by Crookes (2013). The language lecturers at my institution are
generally placed on a lower status position among the academics by our lower salary
scheme. This is due to the fact that the university adopts the Malaysian Remuneration
System (The International Islamic University Malaysia, 2017), where language lecturers
who begin working with a first degree qualification are put under a salary scheme which
is different from faculty lecturers who can only start working with a master’s degree.
The faculty lecturers’ salary scheme (DS scheme) is generally higher than the language
lecturers’ salary scheme (DG scheme), if compared in terms of the starting salary and
the last salary (Malaysian Public Service Department, 2013).
Since a higher salary generally indicates a higher status position, the difference
in status may indirectly cause the language lecturers to feel unequal or even inferior to
the faculty lecturers. I have an experience of being patronised by an academic who was
a university administrator during a meeting to discuss the need for the English language
course to be prioritised in the faculties. He made a remark that English language
programmes should not be considered a priority since English language is a
‘byproduct’, suggesting that students can acquire it indirectly as they learn the subjects
in their disciplines. Although status was not directly referred to in this particular event,
being a language lecturer made me feel affected by such a remark, which I could not
help but associate it with my status. This kind of ‘treatment’ indicating power relations
is not new as other language lecturers whom I knew also had their share of similar
experiences. Unfortunately, it is a sad reality that the exercise of power still exists as
reflected in the findings of this study, and no resistance has taken place, at least as
indicated by the absence of dialogue between the stakeholders. Thus, even though
Freire (2003) discusses dialogue as the essence of true education in a teacher-student
context, I believe all stakeholders need to have dialogue to avoid from being in the
‘oppressor-oppressed’ relationship as theorised by Freire. Social differences can be
reduced with dialogue before existing practices become standard and ‘dehumanise’ us
by making us to adapt to social oppression in the institutional structures “while
remaining silent about the exercise of power within those structures” (Cherryholmes,
1988, p. 186).
To conclude, the findings from the rights analysis in this study have given a
different value to the findings from the needs analysis. The underlying data that
emerged from the interviews have revealed ‘a different side of the story’, proving that
“there are no positions of absolute neutrality available for anyone on any issue”
(Canagarajah, 2002, p. 18). In contrast to the findings from needs analysis which
provided information on academic writing needs and the EAW course, these findings
uncovered controversial realities from the stakeholders who have otherwise been
regarded as content with their life at the university. It cannot be denied, however, that
249
the findings from the needs analysis are useful in many ways. Nonetheless, the
contradictory meanings to the findings that each of them revealed have highlighted the
benefits of juxtaposing needs analysis and rights analysis to allow for a two-way
strategy – fulfilling target goals and searching for alternatives (Benesch, 2001a). In
other words, needs analysis enables the institutions to identify and focus on meeting
student target needs, whereas rights analysis opens up opportunities for institutional
change.
The discussion in the next subsection will relate the findings to the concepts and
approaches associated with EAP described earlier to situate academic writing in IIUM.
4.10.3 Situating academic writing.

In my effort to understand academic writing in IIUM, I situate academic writing
in the context of the EAW course and student needs. I first will begin by trying to relate
the EAW lecturers’ perceptions of the course and student needs to the concepts and
approaches in EAP reviewed and discussed previously. The results of the needs analysis
can be said to place academic writing as a central focus of EAP. First, most EAW
lecturers viewed the EAW course as an EGAP course. This is not surprising as the
nature of the course fulfills the criteria of an EGAP model (see section 2.4). In fact, the
course outline itself specifically refers to the transferable skills in the EAW course as
part of its content (see Table 34) – reflecting the characteristics of an EGAP model
which most EAP courses are based on (Hyland, 2002, 2006). Table 34 shows an excerpt
of the course outline which states the inclusion of specific transferable skills in the
EAW course: practical skills and critical thinking skills.
Table 34. Transferable Skills in the EAW Course Outline
Skills Skill development Assessment

Transferable Skills:
(corresponding to LOs) techniques method
Skills and how they are developed
Presentations, library Formative and
19 and assessed. Project and practical Practical skills
skill, writing skills summative
experience and internship
Formative and
Critical thinking skills Critical reading skills

summative

It is important to note that during the interviews, none of the EAW lecturers
were aware of the term EGAP, although EGAP has become a popular approach in EAP
(Basturkmen, 2006). However, they were able to relate to its meaning once the
explanation was given. Despite not knowing the term, the lecturers were used to the
idea of transferable skills as stated in the course outline. This suggests that the lecturers’
perceptions of what a language course entails have been shaped by the concept of
EGAP, at least subconsciously. Relating this to my own experience teaching academic
writing at the language centre, I was mainly exposed to the pedagogy which reflected an
EGAP approach: teaching language skills common to all disciplines; showing the
relationships between the skills; and transferring the general skills across contexts and
purposes (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Jordan, 1997; Hyland, 2002), even though
the concepts were not introduced to me as EGAP. The EAW course sits well with every
feature of wide-angle EGAP. The use of one set of general skills, such as research
writing skills in EAW, is a trait of ‘wide-angle courses’, EAP courses with a concept
similar to English for general purposes courses (Basturkmen, 2006; Widdowson, 1983).
On a different note, the EGAP approach can be associated with the study skills
model of student writing, which looks at specific study skills and more general types of
skills, like strategies that students need to transfer to the contexts of their studies
(Hyland, 2006; Lea & Street, 1998). The research skills applied in academic writing in
the EAW course can also be regarded as part of study skills (Jordan, 1997). The study
skills approach was established to accommodate student writing. Study skills such as
organising, synthesising and using information can contribute to academic competence
in academic settings (Gettinger & Seibert, 2002). In the context of EAW, the nature of
the course is to accommodate the students to the writing competency required by their
faculties.
The approaches in EGAP and the study skills model have been embedded in the
EAW course, and this has limited the understanding of academic writing, at least in
terms of pedagogy. It is with this limited context in mind that the EAW lecturers made
their comments and suggestions about the course. Their explanations about the students’
problems and teaching practices in EAW were all related to the notions of general skills
251
needed by the students to meet the faculty requirements, and their roles as the provider.
In all interviews, none of them shared views reflecting the notions in ESAP such as
disciplinary specificity or specialism. Working closely with subject specialists, a
practice in ESAP, was also not seen as an option by any of the lecturers. It shows that
academic writing at the language centre in this study is only associated with the EGAP
and the study skills model of student writing. Additionally, there was also no indication
of the notions of the academic socialisation and academic literacies models being
applied in the course, even by the senior lecturers. For example, ideas to induct students
into the culture of the faculty, the use of genres in teaching (academic socialisation) and
power relations in discourse practices (academic literacies) were never mentioned or
suggested. This limited perspective calls for a new orientation to expand the course to
encompass other perspectives, at least as far as academic writing is concerned.
The EAW course took a pragmatic perspective. This position is particularly
revealed by the findings from rights analysis and can be expanded to the larger context
of the university in this study. To begin with, pragmatism in EAP posits that “students
should accommodate themselves to the demands of academic assignments, behaviours
expected in academic classes, and hierarchical arrangements within academic
institutions” (Benesch, 2001a, p. 41). The findings from the rights analysis have shown
that pragmatism is evident at different levels in the university where this study was
conducted. First, at the students’ level, they are to play their roles as students and fit
unquestioningly in their courses. This is evident from the interviews with students, who
seemed to only play a passive and acquiescent role even when they were having issues
with their academic writing course. Secondly, at the teachers’ level, they represent the
traditional EAP teachers who are expected to be a conduit for providing knowledge
rather than an activist who can encourage questioning among students (Benesch,
2001a). The lecturers’ perseverance in teaching academic writing despite their struggles
suggests their acceptance of the role. On the other hand, at the management level,
pragmatism can be implied by looking at the responses from those at the lower levels to
the ones at the higher level of the hierarchy. For example, the decision made at the
higher level with regard to the changes in the EAW course was shown to be taken in a
positive or at least an acquiescent way. The absence of resistance shows that
pragmatism as a model or approach has been in the practice in the university in a larger
context than just academic writing.
In conclusion, situating academic writing in the context of an EAP course and
student needs has expanded my understanding of academic writing in a larger academic
context in IIUM. The journey to understand academic writing has revealed the culture
that has been shaping the writing practitioners and other stakeholders in the university.
The theoretical proposition of this case study is that it would give me an understanding
of academic writing from the perceptions of student academic writing needs in the
context of an EAP course. In one aspect, the research findings have shown how the
mainstream models or approaches in EAP have been embedded in the EAW course. The
approaches in EGAP, study skills and pragmatic EAP have been reflected in the EAW
course through the stakeholders’ attitudes. Additionally, the concepts in pragmatic EAP,
or pragmatism, have been embraced at different levels of the university hierarchy,
transcending academic writing. My understanding of academic writing in IIUM can
thus be summarised as, ‘academic writing in IIUM has not expanded from the context
of traditional EAP that builds on EGAP, study skills and pragmatic EAP, to venture into
other realms of ESAP, academic literacies and critical EAP’.
4.10.4 Implications of the study.

There are several implications of this case study. First, the pragmatic nature of
the EAW course calls for the critical EAP approach to balance the power relations and
instill a humanistic value of education in the course. Benesch (2001a) mentions that the
absence of dialogue in education denies the teachers and students the opportunities to
become more fully human. Dialogue, which is one of the important tenets in critical
EAP, should be promoted to the extent of involving any stakeholders including students
in curricular and pedagogical decision-making process (Benesch, 2001a). Despite its
acknowledged role in teaching research writing to fulfill the students’ academic writing
needs, the lecturers’ and students’ perceptions have indicated that the course appears to
be monologic in nature. In fact, it was evident not just at the course level but also at
different levels of the hierarchical structure of the university. In addition, other than for
educational purposes, implementing critical EAP is also a way to constitute a balance in
253
the hierarchical structure of the university. It is hoped the findings, particularly on

power relations among the stakeholders, will pave the way for the responsible
stakeholders to consider employing a critical approach in the curricular and pedagogical
aspects of the EAW course. As argued by Freire, not engaging students in a dialogue is
unethical as it leaves the students only with one choice, that is compliance (Benesch,
2001a). Freire (2003) also asserts that, “Without dialogue there is no communication,
and without communication there can be no true education” (pp. 92-93). Critical EAP is
proposed to be integrated in the curriculum and pedagogical practices of the EAW
course, so that a dialogic culture can be instilled among the stakeholders in the
university.
Secondly, the findings have shown that academic writing in IIUM has been
practised in the realm of the mainstream models or approaches in EAP. The nature of
the EAW course is related to the concepts in EGAP, the study skills model of student
writing and pragmatic EAP. In spite of their advantages, it is proposed that the EAW
course should take initiatives to incorporate at least some concepts from other models or
approaches, which are deemed appropriate. For example, a partnership with subject
specialists, a practice in ESAP which involves communication and cooperation with the
content specialists (i.e., the faculties) can be promoted in the EAW course. It can be
implied from the findings that collaborations between the language centre and the
faculties may impact the language course positively. It is foreseen that with the input
from the faculties, the language centre will be able to have a clearer direction in their
curriculum and pedagogical approaches. This is hoped to be one of the ways to address
the issues among the students who need to relate what they learn in the EAW course to
their needs in the faculties. The use of EGAP as the main model in the language course
can be complemented with a small-scale collaboration project to initiate the move.
Thirdly, in a bigger context, the present needs (PSA) and the target needs (TSA)
that have been identified from the findings can be used as a source of information for
other language centres for their academic writing courses. As a start, since the findings
also relate the identified needs with specific faculties (engineering and human sciences),
this information can be used as a guide to determine the syllabus of a writing course for
the related faculties. In addition, the findings on power relations can be used as a
reference to show how power is exercised in an academic community. It was revealed in
this study that the findings on power relations were uncovered after rights analysis was
conducted on the interview data from needs analysis. This has proven the usefulness of
rights analysis to get to the underlying meanings of existing data. The findings from
needs analysis can be used to identify student needs and invent ways to fulfill the needs,
whereas the findings from rights analysis are useful to find alternatives to the existing
practice that may need attention. Thus, in the context of ESP/ EAP, this study can be
used as a reference to conduct research in needs analysis and rights analysis. The
common approach to needs analysis usually looks at the target needs and present needs
of the learners; on the other hand, this case study juxtaposes needs analysis with rights
analysis to identify requirements and to discover possible areas of change (Benesch,
2001a).
Finally, the overarching aim of this research is to understand academic writing
in a public university. Academic writing has been commonly practised and made
subject at higher learning institutions. On the other hand, academic writing itself is a
dynamic subject, which is open to different interpretations of how to go about doing it.
Apart from identifying student writing needs, this research has situated academic
writing in the context of a language course to uncover the interpretations and underlying
issues in that context. This aim has been achieved and has given a bigger understanding
to the researcher about the academic culture at the university where the study took
place. In the context of EAP, this research has found that there are bigger issues
surrounding academic writing which should be considered to allow for a more
‘democratic’ practice of academic writing.
255
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION
5.1 Introduction
This case study had been conducted with careful thought and planning. The
decision to approach the case using needs analysis and rights analysis was to investigate
academic writing, with the aim to understand academic writing in the context of student
academic writing needs and the EAW course in IIUM. Apart from understanding
academic writing and discovering student needs, the study intended to uncover the
elements of power relations among the stakeholders at the university. In terms of
methodology, the study employed the complementarity mixed-method design (see
3.3.4.2) and made use of questionnaires and interviews to obtain the findings, as some
other studies in needs analysis had done (e.g., Akyel & Ozek, 2010; Dehnad et al.,
2010; Abiri, 2013). To further strengthen the triangulation of data, students and
lecturers were used as participants (e.g., Sarudin et al., 2009; Akyel & Ozek, 2010;
Eslami, 2010; Dehnad et al., 2010; Abiri, 2013). In addition, since many studies in the
literature only looked at target needs, the present study explored power relations among
the participants. This has given a different perspective to the findings from the needs
analysis. This chapter will present the summary of the study, limitations, suggestions for
future research, and concluding remarks.
5.2 Summary of the Study

This case study was done to investigate academic writing at a public university,
in relation to student writing needs and the context of academic writing in a writing
course, English for Academic Writing or EAW and the faculties. It was done at IIUM, a
public university in Malaysia. The study employed the complementarity mixed-method
design, where questionnaires and interviews were used to collect the data. The total
number of respondents for the questionnaire was 157. There were 26 EAW lecturers
(N=26, response rate 53%), 39 faculty lecturers (N=39) consisting of 22 from the
engineering faculty (n=22, response rate 5.2%) and 17 from the human sciences faculty
(n=17, response rate 6%), and 92 EAW students (N=92) consisting of 48 from the
engineering faculty (n=47, response rate 15%) and 45 from the human sciences faculty
(n=45, response rate 15%). It should be noted that the response rate for the
questionnaire was relatively low; thus, the results were not considered as the main
findings of the study. The participants of the case study who were interviewed were 15
EAW lecturers, three ENGIN lecturers, four HS lecturers, four EAW/ENGIN students
and four EAW/HS students. Reputational case selection, a method of purposive
sampling, was used to recruit the participants.
The data collection for the case study was done in two stages. The first stage
involved the administration of online questionnaires via SurveyGizmo to students who
were taking EAW at CELPAD in Semester 2, academic year 2014/2015, and interviews
with the EAW lecturers. In the second stage, interviews were done with the engineering
(ENGIN) lecturers and human sciences (HS) lecturers, as well as engineering students
who were taking EAW (EAW/ENGIN students) and human sciences students who were
taking EAW (EAW/HS students). Furthermore, online questionnaires were also
administered to EAW lecturers, ENGIN lecturers and HS lecturers. The questionnaires
were administered by emailing the questionnaire URL to all EAW, ENGIN and HS
lecturers.
The research questions of the case study were as follows:
1. What are the EAW lecturers’, the faculty lecturers’, and students’ perceptions
of academic writing needs?
2. What are the EAW lecturers’, the EAW/ENGIN students’ and the EAW/HS
2.1 What are the EAW lecturers’ perceptions of the EAW course in the context of
EGAP and ESAP?
2.2 What are the EAW lecturers’, the EAW/ENGIN students’ and the EAW/HS
3. How do the EAW lecturers’, the faculty lecturers’, and students’ perceptions of
EAW indicate power relations?
257
The results of the case study revealed that the EAW lecturers, ENGIN lecturers,
HS lecturers, EAW/ENGIN students and EAW/HS students had similar and different
perceptions with regard to student academic writing needs. The identified present needs
(PSA) were: (1) student needs for research writing skills; (2) student needs for basic
language skills; and (3) students have needs which were unmet by EAW. In addition,
the student target needs (TSA) were identified as: (1) applying research writing skills
upon graduation; (2) writing good research reports; and (3) having a higher level of
Secondly, the majority of the EAW lecturers and students have a positive view
towards the EAW course. In terms of academic writing needs in the EAW course, the
study identified four target needs (TSA): (1) the student need for EAW is due to the
need to do research; (2) EAW could meet student needs but only in some ways; (3)
EAW catered to student needs only for some faculties; and (4) students need an EAW
course that focuses more on language.
The case study also revealed that the EAW lecturers had different perceptions of
the EAW course in the context of EGAP and ESAP. Most of them felt that EAW was an
EGAP course. Out of 10 of them who shared this perception, five of them believed that
EAW should be changed to be based on ESAP. The rest of them who felt that EAW
should remain as an EGAP course. Finally, evidence of power relations was identified
from the perceptions of the stakeholders in the study. They can be divided into two
main themes: power struggles and power relationships.
Finally, the overarching aim of this research is to understand academic writing
in the context of student academic writing needs and the EAW course in IIUM. It can be
concluded from the findings that, ‘academic writing in IIUM has not expanded from the
context of traditional EAP that builds on EGAP, study skills and pragmatic EAP, to
venture into other realms of ESAP, academic literacies and critical EAP’.
5.3 Limitations of the Study

There were several limitations that may have affected this research in one way
or another. First, the study only involved two faculties (ENGIN and HS) other than the
language centre (CELPAD). Since the case study intended to investigate academic
writing of the students in IIUM, it is believed that including more faculties would have
contributed to better findings.
Second, the case study only employed questionnaires and interviews as the
instruments for collecting the data. Even though participant observations were
considered at the beginning of the study, they were not carried out. The rationale was
that since the study was investigating academic writing needs of students in their
faculties, it was difficult to see how an observation to identify writing needs could be
done. Firstly, their courses did not require the students to write for their assignments of
project papers in class. Secondly, even if they had done so on certain occasions, it
would have been logistically difficult to set the time and date for the observation.
Third, the use of questionnaires turned out to be unsuccessful. The response
rates of the student questionnaires and the faculty lecturer questionnaires were relatively
low, despite prompts and reminders to complete the questionnaires. Requests were
made to all the lecturers to ask their students to complete the questionnaires, and the
URL of the questionnaire website was put on the main university student Facebook
group. A second email was sent to the faculty lecturers as a follow-up to remind them to
do the questionnaire. Nevertheless, the response rates did not improve and hence, the
results of the questionnaire were not considered as the main findings of the study.
Fourth, the participants for the study also may have not been the best informants.
Even though criteria were made (EAW lecturers of different levels of experience,
faculty lecturers who mostly required students to write, engineering and human sciences
students who did well and not so well in EAW) and the participants were recruited after
consulting the key participants, there was always a possibility that they may have not
been a reliable source of information. Similarly, as a researcher, even though I tried my
best in conducting my research, I was limited by being human. According to Merriam
(1998), “the investigator as human instrument is limited by being human – that is,
mistakes are made, opportunities are missed, personal biases interfere. Human
instruments are as fallible as any other research instrument” (p. 20). I may have tried to
follow the guidance for conducting certain procedures, but my weaknesses as a human
being might have affected the process in conducting them.
259
5.4 Suggestions for Future Research

This case study adopted Robinson’s (1991) needs analysis and Benesch’s
(2001a) rights analysis to investigate academic writing needs. According to Benesch,
the integration of needs analysis and rights analysis reflects a critical EAP approach.
Future research can consider using this approach to look at other aspects of student
needs and explore elements of power. In addition, this study did not create a specific
instrument for right analysis per se. Instead, it applied rights analysis as the lens to
uncover underlying elements of power relations from the interview data. Therefore,
future research can consider developing specific instruments for rights analysis.
Secondly, this study only employed survey questionnaire and interviews as its
methods of data collection. Even though the justifications for the selection of the
methods have been given, and the study did use multiple sources to increase the validity
and reliability of the data, it is recommended that future research can consider using
multiple methods and sources as one of the ways to further enhance the quality of the
findings.
Finally, the present study was done in the context of a public university in
Malaysia. Other than one language centre, only two faculties were involved: the
engineering and human sciences faculties. Therefore, future research can consider
conducting similar research in a different context, and/or involve more faculties. The
selection of faculties can also be made to represent different disciplines.
5.5 Concluding Remarks

This study was an attempt to integrate two models in needs analysis: Robinson’s
(1991) needs analysis and Benesch’s (2001a) rights analysis to investigate academic
writing at a public university in Malaysia. According to Benesch (1999), needs analysis
has been the main method for identifying the content of ESP/EAP curricula. The initial
stage of this research had focused only on the needs analysis employing questionnaires
and interviews, with the expectations that both instruments would yield sufficient data
to identify student academic writing needs. The questionnaires were administered to
three groups of stakeholders – the EAW lecturers, faculty lecturers (engineering and
human sciences) and EAW students – where their attitudes towards writing needs and
how they were addressed by the language course were elicited. Semi-structured
interviews were also conducted with participants from the three groups to gauge their
opinions regarding academic writing and student needs.
However, the research had taken a change of direction from its focus on the
needs analysis to the application of the rights analysis in analysing the interview data.
The change was due to two factors. First, the questionnaire method did not harvest
sufficient and meaningful data. This was unfortunately because of the low response rate
and the lack of interpretations that could be made from the analysed data to offer an
insightful meaning to the phenomenon being studied. Second, the interview data
revealed evidence of dissatisfaction suggesting power relations among the stakeholders,
which was not primarily anticipated. This development had prompted me as a
researcher to analyse this new evidence using a different lens – the critical approach to
needs analysis or rights analysis. Further reading and analysis using this approach had
led me to reflect on my own role as a language teacher and connect power relations not
just to the context of the EAW course but also the hierarchical structure in my
institution.
The findings on power relations have given me a new insight of the phenomenon
in the academia where power transcends across the institutional hierarchy. Since
education can be regarded as “a contested terrain where people are socialized and the
future of society is at stake” (Shor, 1992, p. 13), I consider these findings as impactful
to education in general and ESP/EAP in particular. As the future of a society is greatly
influenced by education, educational issues caused by the people’s diversity should not
be ignored, and one of the significant issues is power. Since power can be related to
student needs, this study shows that educators or ESP/EAP practitioners can utilise the
needs analysis and rights analysis to understand the relationship between them. To my
knowledge, at the point when the research was conducted, the number of studies that
employed rights analysis was sparse. It is hoped that in the future, more research
opportunities will pave the way for the application of rights analysis for the
development of ESP/EAP.
261
References
Abiri, F. (2013). Exploration of English needs according to teachers and learners in

the psychology major in Iranian universities. Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 70, 821-826.
Akyel, A. S. & Ozek, Y. (2010). A language needs analysis research at an English
medium university in Turkey. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 969-
975.
Allison, D. (1994). Comments on Sarah Benesch's “ESL, ideology, and the politics of
pragmatism”: A reader reacts. TESOL Quarterly, 28(3), 618-623.
Allison, D. (1996). Pragmatist discourse and English for academic purposes. English for
Specific Purposes, 15(2), 85-103.
Armstrong, M., Dannat, J. & Evans, A. (2012). The development of, and response to,
an academic writing module for electrical engineers at the University of Bath.
Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Special Edition:
Developing Writing in STEM Disciplines, 1-15.
Baik, C., & 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.
Bailey, G., & Peoples, J. (2013). Essentials of cultural anthropology. Belmont, CA:
Cengage Learning.
Barber, C. L. (1962). Some measureable characteristics of modern scientific prose. In
J. M. Swales (Ed.), Episodes in ESP. (pp. 1-14). Exeter, England: Pergamon.
Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one
community. London, England: Routledge.
Basturkmen, H. (2003). Specificity and ESP course design. RELC Journal, 34(1), 48-
63.
Basturkmen, H. (2006). Ideas and options in English for specific purposes. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual
enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham, England: McGraw-Hill
Education.
Belcher, D. D. (2006). English for specific purposes: Teaching to perceived needs and
imagined futures in worlds of work, study, and everyday life. TESOL
Quarterly, 40(1), 133-156.
Benesch, S. (1993). ESL, ideology, and the politics of pragmatism. TESOL
Quarterly, 27(4), 705-717.
Benesch, S. (1996). Needs analysis and curriculum development in EAP: An example
of a critical approach. TESOL Quarterly, 723-738.
Benesch, S. (1999). Rights analysis: Studying power relations in an academic
setting. English for Specific Purposes, 18(4), 313-327.
Benesch, S. (2001a). Critical English for academic purposes. London, England:
Blackwell.
Benesch, S. (2001b). Critical pragmatism: A politics of L2 composition. In T. Silva &
P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 161-172). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Benesch, S. (2009). Theorizing and practicing critical English for academic
purposes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(2), 81-85.
Braine, G. (1989). Writing in science and technology: An analysis of assignments
from ten undergraduate courses. English for Specific Purposes, 8(1), 3-15.
Braine, G. (2002). Academic literacy and the nonnative speaker graduate student.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 59-68.
Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Brown, J. D. (2016). Introducing needs analysis and English for specific purposes.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
263
Buzzi, O., Grimes, S., & Rolls, A. (2012). Writing for the discipline in the discipline?
Teaching in Higher Education, 17(4), 479-484.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). Critical academic writing and multilingual students.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Casanave, C. P., & Hubbard, P. (1992). The writing assignments and writing
problems of doctoral students: Faculty perceptions, pedagogical issues, and
needed research. English for Specific Purposes, 11(1), 33-49.
Chambers, F. (1980). A re-evaluation of needs analysis in ESP. The ESP Journal,
1(1), 25-33.
Cherryholmes, C. H. (1988). Power and criticism: Poststructural investigations in
education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Chun, C. W. (2016). Addressing racialized multicultural discourses in an EAP textbook:
Working toward a critical pedagogies approach. TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 109-
131.
Coffin, C., & Donohue, J. P. (2012). Academic Literacies and systemic functional
linguistics: How do they relate? Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
11(1), 64-75.
Coolican, H. (1995). Introduction to research methods and statistics in psychology (2nd
ed.). London, England: Hodder & Stoughton.
Cowling, J. D. (2007). Needs analysis: Planning a syllabus for a series of intensive
workplace courses at a leading Japanese company. English for Specific
Purposes, 26(4), 426-442.
Coxhead, A. (2012). Academic vocabulary, writing and English for academic
purposes: Perspectives from second language learners. RELC Journal, 43(1),
137-145.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crookes, G. V. (2013). Critical ELT in action: Foundations, promises, praxis. New
York, NY: Routledge.
David, A. R., Thang, S. M., & Azman, H. (2015). Accommodating low
proficiency ESL students' language learning needs through an online writing
support system. e-BANGI, 10(1), 118-127.
Dehnad, A., Bagherzadeh, R., Bigdeli S., Hatami, K. & Hosseini, F. (2010). Syllabus
revision: a needs analysis study. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9,
1307-2312.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed methodologies. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Drury, H. (2004). Teaching academic writing on screen: a search for best practice.
In L. J. Rayelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing:
Contextualized frameworks (pp. 233-253). London, England: Continuum.
Dudley-Evans, T. & St John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specific
purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Duff, P. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York, NY:
Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis.
Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 169-192.
Durkin, K., & Main, A. (2002). Discipline-based study skills support for first-year
undergraduate students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(1), 24-39.
Dwyer, S. C., & Buckle, J. L. (2009). The space between: On being an insider-
outsider in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,
8(1), 54-63.
Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London, England:
Pinter.
Elander, J., Harrington, K., Norton, L., Robinson, H., & Reddy, P. (2006). Complex
skills and academic writing: a review of evidence about the types of learning
required to meet core assessment criteria. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 31(1), 71-90.
Erzberger, C., & Prein, G. (1997). Triangulation: Validity and empirically-based
hypothesis construction. Quality and Quantity, 31(2), 141-154.
Eslami, Z. R. (2010). Teachers’ voice vs. students’ voice: a needs analysis approach
265
to English for academic purposes (EAP) in Iran. English Language Teaching,

3(1), 3-11.
Fairclough, N. (2012). Critical discourse analysis. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 9-20). Oxon,
England: Routledge.
Flowerdew, L. (2013). Needs analysis and curriculum development in ESP. In B.
Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes
(pp. 325-346). West Sussex, England: Wiley & Sons.
Freire, P. (2003). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th ed.). New York, NY:
Continuum.
Gettinger, M., & Seibert, J. K. (2002). Contributions of study skills to academic
competence. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 350-365.
Grabe, W. (2001). Notes toward a theory of second language writing. In T. Silva &
NJ: Erlbaum.
Greene, J., & McClintock, C. (1985). Triangulation in evaluation: Design and analysis
issues. Evaluation Review, 9(5), 523-545.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual
framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.
Greene, S., & Higgins, L. (1994). Once upon a time”: The use of retrospective
accounts in building theory in composition. Speaking about writing:
Reflections on research methodology, 8, 115-140.
Gustafsson, M. (2011). Academic literacies approaches for facilitating language for
specific purposes. Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para
Fines Específicos (AELFE), 22, 101-122.
Halliday, M A. K., McIntosh, A. & Strevens, P. (1964). The linguistic sciences and
language teaching. London, England: Longman.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2011). What Is EAP? In H. Eli (Ed.), Handbook of research in second
language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 89-105). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Hansen, J. G. (2000). Interactional conflicts among audience, purpose, and content
knowledge in the acquisition of academic literacy in an EAP course. Written
Communication, 17(1), 27-52.
Harwood, N., & Hadley, G. (2004). Demystifying institutional practices: Critical
pragmatism and the teaching of academic writing. English for Specific Purposes,
23(4), 355-377.
Helmer, K. A. (2013). Critical English for academic purposes: Building on learner,
teacher, and program strengths. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 12(4), 273-287.
Herrington, A. J. (1985). Writing in academic settings : A study of the contexts for
writing in two college chemical engineering courses. Research in the Teaching
of English, 19(4), 331-361.
Hewings, A. (2004). Developing discipline-specific writing: an analysis of
undergraduate geography essays. In L. J. Rayelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing
academic writing: Contextualized frameworks (pp. 131-152). London, England:
Continuum.
Hobbs, V. (2014). Accounting for the great divide: Features of clarity in analytic
philosophy journal articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 15, 27-
36.
Huang, L.S. (2010). Seeing eye to eye? The academic writing needs of graduate and
undergraduate students from students’ and instructors' perspectives. Language
Teaching Research, 14(4), 517-539.
Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning-
centred approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity revisited: how far should we go now? English for
Specific Purposes, 21, 385-395.
Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book.
Oxon, England: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2013a). Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary
writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 240-253.
Hyland, K. (2013b). Writing in the university: education, knowledge and reputation.
267
Language Teaching, 46(1), 53-70.

Hyland, K. (2013c). ESP and writing. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The
handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 95-113). West Sussex, England:
Wiley & Sons.
Hyland, K. & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: issues and directions. Journal of English
for Academic Purposes, 1, 1-12.
Ibrahim, N., & Nambiar, R. M. (2012). Scaffoldings in academic writing: The role of
intercultural rhetoric and genre analysis in academic socialization. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 438-442.
Ismail, N., Hussin, S., & Darus, S. (2012). ESL students’ attitude, learning problems,
and needs for online writing. GEMA: Online Journal of Language Studies,
12(4), 1089-1107.
Irvin, L. L. (2010). What is “academic” writing?. In C. Lowe & P. Zemliansky (Eds.),
Writing spaces: reading on writing (Vol. 1, pp. 3-17). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor
Press.
Jacobs, C. (2005). On being an insider on the outside: New spaces for integrating
academic literacies. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(4), 475-487.
James, M. A. (2010). An investigation of learning transfer in English-for-general-
academic-purposes writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19,
183-206.
Jasso-Aguilar, R. (1999). Sources, methods and triangulation in needs analysis: A
critical perspective in a case study of Waikiki hotel maids. English for Specific
Purposes, 18(1), 27-46.
Jenkins, S., Jordan, M. K., & Weiland, P. O. (1993). The role of writing in graduate
engineering education: A survey of faculty beliefs and practices. English for
Johns, A. M. (2013). The history of English for specific purposes research. In B.
Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes
(pp. 5-30). West Sussex, England: Wiley & Sons.
Johns, A. M. & Makalela, L. (2011). Needs analysis, critical ethnography, and
context: perspectives from the client – and the consultant. In D. Belcher, A. M.
Johns & B. Paltridge (Eds.), New directions in English for specific purposes
research (pp. 6-24). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Jordan, R. R. (1989). English for academic purposes (EAP). Language Teaching,
22(3), 150-164.
Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: a guide and resource book for
teachers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kanuha, V. K. (2000). “Being” native versus “going native”: Conducting social work
research as an insider. Social Work, 45(5), 439-447.
Kassim, H., & Ali, F. (2010). English communicative events and skills needed at the
workplace: Feedback from the industry. English for Specific Purposes, 29(3),
168-182.
Khany, R., & Tarlani-Aliabadi, H. (2016). Studying power relations in an academic
setting: Teachers' and students' perceptions of EAP classes in Iran. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 21, 72-85.
Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms
in educational contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26-41.
Lea, M. R. (2004). Academic literacies: A pedagogy for course design. Studies in
Higher Education, 29(6), 739-756.
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic
literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157-172.
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (2006). The “ academic literacies ” model : Theory and
applications. Theory Into Practice, 45(4), 368-377.
Leopold, L. (2010). Teaching writing within the disciplines: a viable approach for
English for academic purposes (EAP) instructors. The Catesol Journal, 22(1),
167-188.
Lillis, T. (2003). Student Writing as “Academic Literacies”: Drawing on Bakhtin to
Move from Critique to Design. Language and Education, 17(3), 192-207.
Lillis, T., & Scott, M. (2007). Defining academic literacies research: issues of
epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 5-32.
Liu, J. Y, Chang, Y. J., Yang, F. Y. & Sun, Y. C. (2011). Is what I need what I want?
269
Reconceptualising college students’ needs in English courses for general and

specific/academic purposes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 271-
280.
Long, M. H. (2005). A rationale for needs analysis and needs analysis research. In M.
H. Long (Ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 1-16). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Luke, A. (2004). Two takes on the critical. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical
pedagogies and language learning (pp. 21-29). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Malaysian Public Service Department (2013). Pekeliling perkhidmatan bilangan 36
tahun 2013 [Service circular no. 36 2013]. Retrieved from
http://docs.jpa.gov.my/docs/pp/2013/pp362013.pdf
McKay, S. L. (2006). Researching second language classrooms. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Mehrdad, A. G. (2012). A subjective needs assessment of EGP students. Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 546-554.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education:
Revised and expanded from ‘case study research in education’. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(2nd ed.). San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A
methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Monroe, J. (2008). Writing, assessment, and the authority of the disciplines. L1
Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 8(2), 59-88.
Morgan, B. (2009). Fostering transformative practitioners for critical EAP: Possibilities
and challenges. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(2), 86-99.
Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological
implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76.
Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic
communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 573-603.
Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design: a sociolinguistic model for
defining the content of purpose-specific language programmes. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Noori, M., & Mazdayasna, G. (2015). EAP programs in a nonnative context: A critical
approach. International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 46-
53. Retrieved from http://www.ijlal.ir.
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2004). Critical pedagogies and language learning: An
introduction. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and
language learning (pp. 1-17). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Paltridge, B. (2004). Academic writing. Language Teaching, 37(02), 87-105.
Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of
language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 589-618.
Pennycook, A. (1997). Vulgar pragmatism, critical pragmatism, and EAP. English for
Peoples, J., & Bailey, G. (2012). Humanity: An introduction to cultural anthropology
(9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Reynolds, A. (1992). Charting the changes in junior faculty: Relationships among
socialization, acculturation, and gender. The Journal of Higher Education,
63(6), 637-652.
Robinson, P. (1991). ESP today: A practitioner’s guide. Hertfordshire, England:
Prentice Hall.
Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and words combining quantitative
and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation
Review, 9(5), 627-643.
Russell, D. R., Lea, M., Parker, J., Street, B., & Donahue, T. (2009). Exploring
notions of genre in 'academic literacies' and 'writing across the curriculum':
Approaches across countries and contexts. In C. Bazerman, A. Bonini & D.
Figueiredo (Eds.) Genre in a changing world. Perspectives on writing (pp. 459-
491). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse.
271
Santos, T. (1992). Ideology in composition: L1 and ESL. Journal of Second Language

Writing, 1(1), 1-15.
Santos, T. (2001). The place of politics in second language writing. In T. Silva &
NJ: Erlbaum.
Sarudin, I., Zubairi, A. M., Nordin, M. S., & Omar, M. (2008). The English language
proficiency of Malaysian public university students. In Enhancing the quality of
higher education through research: Shaping future policy (pp. 40-65). Retrieved
from http://irep.iium.edu.my.
Sarudin, I. H., Zubairi, A. M., & Ali, A. M. (2009). A comparative analysis of
engineering students’ problems in speaking and writing. In Proceedings of the
2nd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (pp. 1-8). Retrieved
from https://my.laureate.net.
Serafini, E. J., Lake, J. B., & Long, M. H. (2015). Needs analysis for specialized
learner populations: Essential methodological improvements. English for
Specific Purposes, 40, 11-26.
Shah, M. I. A., Ismail, Y., Esa, Z., & Muhamad, A. J. (2012). Language learning
strategies of English for specific purposes students at a public university in
Malaysia. English Language Teaching, 6(1), 153-161.
Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Spack, R. (1988). Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community:
how far should we go? TESOL Quarterly, 22(1), 29-51.
Spence, P., & Liu, G. Z. (2013). Engineering English and the high-tech industry: A
case study of an English needs analysis of process integration engineers at a
semiconductor manufacturing company in Taiwan. English for Specific
Purposes, 32(2), 97-109.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. New York, NY: Sage.
Starfield, S. (2013). Critical perspectives on ESP. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.),
The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 461-479). West Sussex,
England: Wiley & Sons.
Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development,
ethnography and education. Oxon, England: Routledge.
Swales, J. M. (1985). Episodes in ESP. Exeter, England: Pergamon.
Swales, J. M. (1997). English as Tyrannosaurus rex. World Englishes, 16(3), 373-382.
Swales, J. M. (2000). Languages for specific purposes. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 20, 59-76.
Swales, J. M., Barks, D., Ostermann, A. C., & Simpson, R. C. (2001). Between critique
and accommodation: Reflections on an EAP course for masters of architecture
students. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 439-458.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2005). Academic writing for graduate students:
Essential tasks and skills (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Tajino, A., James, R., & Kijima, K. (2005). Beyond needs analysis: soft systems
methodology for meaningful collaboration in EAP course design. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 4(1), 27-42.
Tarone, E., Dwyer, S., Gillette, S. & Icke, V. (1981). On the use of the passive in
astrophysics journal papers. In J. M. Swales (Ed.), Episodes in ESP (pp. 188-
205). Exeter, England: Pergamon.
The International Islamic University Malaysia (n.d. -a). Centre for languages and pre-
university academic development. Retrieved from
http://www.iium.edu.my/kulliyyah/celpad
The International Islamic University Malaysia (n.d. -b). Kulliyyah of engineering.
Retrieved from http://www.iium.edu.my/kulliyyah/koe
The International Islamic University Malaysia (n.d. -c). Kulliyyah of Islamic revealed
knowledge and human sciences. Retrieved from
http://www.iium.edu.my/kulliyyah/kirkhs
The International Islamic University Malaysia (2011). LE4000: English for Academic
Writing. [Course outline].
The International Islamic University Malaysia (2017). IIUM staff handbook. Retrieved
from
273
http://www.iium.edu.my/media/19249/IIUM%20STAFF%20HANDBOOK%20
V2.pdf
Thesen, L. (2001). Modes, literacies and power: A university case study. Language
and Education, 15(2-3), 132-145.
Turner, J. (2012). Academic literacies: Providing a space for the socio-political
dynamics of EAP. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 17-25.
West, R. (1994). Needs analysis in language teaching. Language Teaching, 27(01), 1-
19.
Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learning purpose and language use. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Wingate, U. (2012). Using academic literacies and genre-based models for academic
writing instruction: A “literacy” journey. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 11(1), 26-37.
Wingate, U., & Tribble, C. (2012). The best of both worlds? Towards an English for
academic purposes/academic literacies writing pedagogy. Studies in Higher
Education, 37(4), 481-495.
Winthrop, R. H. (1991). Dictionary of concepts in cultural anthropology. Westport, CT:
ABC-CLIO.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M., (2001). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory
and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical
discourse analysis (pp. 1-33). London, England: Sage.
Yang, Y., & Badger, R. (2015). How IELTS preparation courses support students:
IELTS and academic socialisation. Journal of Further and Higher Education,
39(4), 438-465.
Yildirim, R., & Ilin, G. (2009). Tutors’ and students' perceptions of what makes a
good undergraduate research paper. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
1(1), 1636-1640.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Zhu, W. (2004). Faculty views on the importance of writing, the nature of academic
writing, and teaching and responding to writing in the disciplines. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 13(1), 29-48.
275
Appendices
Appendix A EAP Course Outline
277
Appendix B EAW Course Outline (Semester 1, 2011/2012)
INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA

COURSE OUTLINE
1 Kulliyyah/Institute CELPAD
2 Department/Centre English Language Division
3 Programme All
4 Name of Course / Mode English for Academic Writing
5 Course Code LE 4000
Name(s) of Academic staff /

6 TBD
Instructor(s)
Rationale for the inclusion of the To equip students with the necessary English language skills for academic
7
course / module in the programme writing
8 Semester and Year Offered Semester 1 & 2, Year 3 & 4
9 Status Required
10 Level Undergraduate
11 Proposed Start Date Semester 1, 2011/2012
12 Batch of Students Affected Semester 1, 2011/2012
Teaching Related Assessment Related

Independent Learning
Activities Activities
Total Guided and
Practical
Tutorial
Lecture
Others
Total Student Learning Time

13
(SLT)
42 69 111

14 Credit Value (hours) 3

279
15 Pre-requisites (if any) Pass EPT
16 Co-requisites (if any) None

The objectives of this course are to produce students who can:
4. use the language for research writing
17 Course Objectives 5. apply critical reading skills when reading academic texts
6. use appropriate techniques in citing sources
By the end of the course, students should be able to:

1. use appropriate language to review the literature (C3)(CTPS3)
2. apply appropriate language to write a research paper (C3)
3. demonstrate appropriate language register to write an
18 Learning Outcomes
academic piece of writing (A3)(LL2)
4. apply appropriate register to present research findings or
academic paper (C2)(CTPS3)
Skills Skill development Assessment

Transferable Skills:
(corresponding to LOs) techniques method
Skills and how they are developed
Presentations, library Formative and
19 and assessed. Project and practical Practical skills
skill, writing skills summative
experience and internship
Formative and
Critical thinking skills Critical reading skills

summative

Teaching-learning strategy Assessment strategy
Students are taught to appraise and

summarise relevant information from Reading
Teaching-Learning and Assessment different reading sources.
20 Students are taught to write (paraphrase,
Strategy Writing
summarise, synthesize, comment).
Students are taught how to prepare an
outline of presentations, correct tone and Presentation
techniques.
Students write a topic based on relevant
Term paper

reading areas identified.
This course is designed for students to experience a step-by-step approach in

writing an academic research paper through critical reading and thinking.
21 Course Synopsis
Students are also required to present their findings using multimedia
presentation.
22 Mapping of course / module to the Programme Learning Outcomes

Learning outcome of the course Programme Outcomes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 knowledge to use appropriate
language to review the
literature
2 knowledge on to apply
appropriate language to write a
research paper
3 ability to demonstrate
appropriate language register to
write an academic piece of
writing
4 ability to extend appropriate
register to present research
findings or academic paper

Content outline of the course / module and the SLT per topic
Weeks Tasks Learning Hours

Introduction to the course
1 • Format and layout of the research 3
• Choosing a topic
Describing aims and objectives
• Expressing purpose
o Infinitives
2 3
o Future & present tenses
• Writing definitions
o Present tenses
Describing aims and objectives-Statement of problem & research questions
• Expressing certainty and doubt
o Modal auxiliary – past and present
o Hedging: adverbs, adjectives, verbs
3 3
o Boosters: adverbs, adjectives, verbs
23 • Questioning
o Wh-questions (or information questions) – What is
o Yes/No questioning
• Expressing reasons and explanation
o Cause and effect
4 o Subordinators 3
o Conjunctions
• Expressing development and changes
o Transition
5 • Describing a sequence of events/time relations 3
• Describing developments and changes
Writing Literature Review
• Critical reading
6 3
o Making notes and writing up notes
• Quoting
Writing Literature Review
7 3
• Paraphrasing active and passive, style
281
synonyms and antonyms

• Summarizing sequence of information
grammatical structure
• Synthesizing word forms & sentence structure
• Citing – language expression
• Writing a list of references
Presenting and discussing results
• Classifying / categorizing
o Nouns, tenses
• Giving examples
o For instance, for example, as such..
8 3
• Expressing degrees of certainty
o Adverbs of degree
• Describing graphs and charts
o Selected tenses (present, past, continuous, modals)

• Supporting an argument
9 o Illustrating and exemplifying ideas 3
• Refuting arguments, ideas and opinions
o To + infinitive, transitions)
• Expressing reasons and explanations
o Cause and effects
• Offering evaluative comments on opinions and arguments
o Tenses, useful expressions
10 3
• Reporting and narrating
o Reported speech
o Passive & active
o Tenses
• Presentation skills
Drawing conclusions
11 • overview of conclusion 3
o modal auxiliary
Drawing conclusions
12 • writing conclusion and abstract 3
o tenses
Accuracy: Revising, editing & proofreading
o Punctuation
13 o Spelling 3
o Format
o Subject-verb agreement
Accuracy: Revising, editing & proofreading
o Run-on sentences
14 o Fragments 3
o Misplaced modifiers
o Choppy sentences

Appendix C EAW Student Questionnaire
STUDENTS' NEEDS & PERCEPTIONS OF EAW
SCHOOL OF ENGLISH, THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD, UK
Dear respondent,
The purpose of this survey is to investigate the students' needs and perceptions of
English for Academic Writing (EAW) at the International Islamic University Malaysia.
Please complete the survey as truthfully as possible. There are only 40 questions in this
survey which will only take about six to ten minutes to answer. Your responses will be
strictly CONFIDENTIAL and used for the purpose of this research only. By taking part in
this survey, you are giving your consent to the researcher to have access to your
anonymised responses and use the data in future research. Your identity will not be
linked with the research materials, and you will not be identified or identifiable in the
report or reports that result from the research. Should you not wish to answer any
particular question or questions, you are free to decline and withdraw from taking part
in this survey.
Thank you for your time and cooperation.
Shahrul Nizam Mohd Basari

PhD candidate
The University of Sheffield, UK
Phone no: +447442982462
Email: snmohdbasari1@sheffield.ac.uk
283
Background information
MATRIC NO:
*
1. Age:
< 17 years old 17
- 19 years old
20 - 22 years old
23 - 25 years old
26 - 28 years old
> 28 years old
2. Gender:
Male
Female
Other
Malay
Indian
Other
AIKOL
KOED
KENMS
KAED
KICT
KOE
KIRKH
S KAHS
KOM
KON
KOS
KOP
KOD
KLM
285
6. Year of study:
First year Second
year Third year
EPT
IELTS
TOEF
Linguistic information
8. I have a good command of English language generally.

9. I am able to speak English very fluently.
10. I am able to write in English very fluently.
11. My English has been good even before I took EAW.

287
12. Please rank the following language skills according to your own current
the
strongest and last being the weakest):
Drag items from the left-hand list into the right-hand list to order them.
Reading
Writing
Perceptions of EAW
13. I understand what EAW is all about.
14. The objectives of EAW are clear.

15. The content of EAW is in line with its objectives.
16. The materials used in EAW (e.g. notes, books, etc.) are effective to
17. The amount of materials used in EAW is sufficient.
18. The time allocated for EAW per week is sufficient.

289
19. The assessment (e.g. assignments, exams, etc.) in EAW is effective to
20. The lecturer knows exactly what to teach in EAW.
21. The lecturer is able to teach EAW confidently.
22. I have a better understanding of academic writing now compared to

before I took EAW.
24. EAW has improved not just my skills in academic writing, but also my
25. EAW allows me to use kulliyyah-related materials in the course.
26. I can benefit from EAW in my studies in my kulliyyah.

291
27. EAW is relevant to my studies in my kulliyyah.
28. EAW and academic studies in my kulliyyah should be related.
EAW:
EAW is a 'general-academic-purposes' course that deals with the
Perceptions of academic writing

33. It is important for students in my kulliyyah to know how to cite academic
sources.
34. It is important for students in my kulliyyah to be able to use appropriate

293
35. It is important for students in my kulliyyah to be able to apply appropriate

language to write a research paper.
36. It is important for students in my kulliyyah to be able to demonstrate

39. Please rank the following language skills according to its importance for a
being the
most important and lastbeing the least important):
Reading
Writing
40. Please write your opinion/comments on EAW in the box below, if you have any.
Appendix D EAW Lecturer Questionnaire

295
CELPAD LECTURERS' PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS' ACADEMIC WRITING NEEDS AND EAW
Dear respondent,
The purpose of this survey is to investigate the students' needs and perceptions of English for Academic Writing
(EAW) at the International Islamic University Malaysia. Please complete the survey as truthfully as possible. There
are only 41 questions in this survey which will only take about eight to ten minutes to answer. Your responses will
be strictly CONFIDENTIAL and used for the purpose of this research only. By taking part in this survey, you are
giving your consent to the researcher to have access to your anonymised responses and use the data in future
research. Your identity will not be linked with the research materials, and you will not be identified or identifiable
in the report or reports that result from the research. Should you not wish to answer any particular question or
questions, you are free to decline and withdraw from taking part in this survey.

PhD candidate
Phone no: +447442982462
1. Age:
< 25 years old 25
- 34 years old
35 - 44 years old
45 - 54 years old
> 54 years old
2. Gender:
Male
Malaysian
Female
Other (please state)

PhD
Master's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
6. Years of teaching experience in EAW/EAP in CELPAD:

More than 20 years
16 - 20 years
11 - 15 years
6 - 10 years
Less than 6 years
Perceptions of EAW
297
7. The objectives of EAW are clear.
8. The content of EAW is in line with its objectives.
9. The materials used in EAW (e.g. notes, books, etc.) are effective to
10. The amount of materials used in EAW is sufficient.

11. The time allocated for EAW per week is sufficient.
12. The assessment (e.g. assignments, exams, etc.) in EAW is effective to
13. I know exactly what to teach in EAW.
14. I am able to teach EAW confidently.

299
15. EAW is relevant to the students' academic studies in their kulliyyahs.
16. EAW and academic studies in kulliyyahs should be related.
17. In the context of IIUM, EAW should be taught as one and the same
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree
18. Please give your reason(s) for your response to item no. 17.
19. Please choose which statement represents your opinion on the current EAW:
EAW is a 'general-academic-purposes' course that deals with the
EAW is a 'specific-academic-purposes' course that is concerned with the specific

needs of students in a particular discipline.
Perceptions of EAW students
20. Generally students understand what EAW is all about.

301
23. Students can benefit from EAW in their studies in their respective
kulliyyahs.
24. Students should be taught on how to write a research paper.
26. The most important current writing needs among my EAW students is to
Other - Write In
28. As far as writing in this course is concerned, what matters most is that
have a higher level of proficiency.
Other - Write In

303
30. Writing is the most important language skill for students in most
kulliyyahs.
34. It is important for students in most kulliyyahs to be able to use appropriate
35. It is important for students in most kulliyyahs to be able to apply

305
37. It is important for students in most kulliyyahs to be able to apply
38. Below is a statement that best represents my understanding of academic
Academic writing is a formal form of writing.
Other - Write In
40. Please rank the following language skills according to its importance for
Reading
Writing
41. Please write your opinion/comments on EAW in the box below, if you have any.
307
Appendix E Faculty Lecturer Questionnaire
LECTURERS' PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS' ACADEMIC WRITING NEEDS
Dear respondent,
The purpose of this survey is to investigate the students' needs and perceptions of English for Academic Writing
(EAW) at the International Islamic University Malaysia. Please complete the survey as truthfully as possible.
There are only 26 questions in this survey which will only take about five to seven minutes to answer. Your
responses will be strictly CONFIDENTIAL and used for the purpose of this research only. By taking part in this
survey, you are giving your consent to the researcher to have access to your anonymised responses and use
the data in future research. Your identity will not be linked with the research materials, and you will not be
identified or identifiable in the report or reports that result from the research. Should you not wish to answer any
particular question or questions, you are free to decline and withdraw from taking part in this survey.

PhD candidate
Phone no: +447442982462
1. Age:
< 25 years old 25
- 34 years old
35 - 44 years old
45 - 54 years old
> 54 years old
2. Gender:
Male
Female
Malaysian

309
Malay
Indian
AIKOL
KOED/EDUCATION
KENMS
KICT
KOE/ENGINEERING
KIRKHS
KLM
PhD
Master's Degree
Bachelor's Degree

More than 20 years 16
- 20 years
11 - 15 years
6 - 10 years
Less than 6 years
8. Below is a statement that best represents my understanding of academic
Academic writing is a formal form of writing.
Other - Write In

311
10. Writing is the most important language skillfor students of my kulliyyah.
13. It is important for students in my kulliyyah to know how to cite academic

sources.
14. It is important for students in my kulliyyah to be able to use appropriate

language to write a research paper.
16. It is important for students in my kulliyyah to be able to demonstrate

313

language to present research findings or academic paper.
18. Undergraduate students in my kulliyyah should be taught on how to write

a research paper.
19. Please explain briefly on your response to item no. 18.

20. The most important current writing needs among my students is (choose one):
Other - Write In
22. As far as writing is concerned, what matters most is that ultimately my students
are able to (choose one):
have a higher level of proficiency.
Other - Write In
315
Reading
Writing
25. With regard to academic language performance, what do you expect your
students to achieve? Please be as specific as possible.
(untitled)
316
[Type text]

26. In the list below, please click on the type/types of

written works your students have to produce in the
course that you teach. You may click on more than one
type.
Case study (e.g. company report, organization analysis, patient
report)
Critique (e.g. academic paper review,

interpretation of results, legislation evaluation)
Design specification (e.g. application design,

product design, website design)
Empathy writing (e.g. information leaflet, job application, news

report)
Essay (e.g. commentary, discussion, factorial)
Exercise (e.g. data analysis, short answers, statistic exercise)
Explanation (e.g. business explanation,

methodology explanation,
site/environment report)
Literature survey (e.g. annotated bibliography,

literature review, review article)
Methodology recount (computer analysis report, field report, lab

report)
Narrative recount (e.g. accident report, biography, reflective

recount)
Problem question (e.g. business scenario, law

peoblem question, logistics simulation)
Proposal (e.g. business plan, legislation reform, research

proposal)
Research report (e.g. research article, student

research project, topic- based dissertation)
317
Appendix F Student Interview Questions

Interview questions

a) Academic Writing
1. Thinking about listening, speaking, reading and writing in English, is there one type
of skills that is more important than others to you in your study? If yes, which one,
and why others are not so important?
2. How important are writing skills (English) in your study?
3. What do you think is the best way to learn to write effectively in your study?
4. What is your understanding of academic writing?

b) The EAW Course
5. What is your understanding of EAW?
6. What do you think you will achieve in EAW?
7. What do you think of having one EAW for all faculties?
8. Are you able to relate what you learn in EAW to what you need in your study?
Please explain your answer.
9. What do you think of the relevance of research writing skills in your study?

c) Stimulated Recall
10. Looking at your written works (and your lecturers’ comments), can you please
explain which area, in relation to academic writing, you need to improve to make it
better?
11. So far, do you think you get to learn to improve this in EAW?
12. How would you suggest EAW to be, to improve your academic writing skills?
13. What is your opinion or comment on EAW?

• At the end of each interview, ask them:
- if they have any problem to understand any question.
- if there are questions that should be asked.
Appendix G EAW Lecturer Interview Questions

318
[Type text]

Interview questions

a) Background
1. May I know what your last academic qualification is?
2. How long have you taught EAW in CELPAD?
3. Have you got any training on teaching EAW? Could you briefly explain about the
training?
4. Do you feel confident when you teach EAW? Why?
5.
b) Academic Writing and the EAW Course
7. What is your understanding of the EAW course in CELPAD?
8. In terms of academic writing, what do you think your students will achieve in
EAW?
9. Do you think EAW is relevant to academic writing? Why?
10. Do you think the research writing skills in EAW are relevant to academic writing
needed by students in the kulliyyahs (faculties)? Why?
11. Do you agree with having one and the same EAW course for all kulliyyahs
(faculties)? Why?

c) EAW as an EGAP or ESAP Course
12. Do you know about ESAP and EGAP? (If ‘yes’, what are they? If ‘no’, define to
respondents)
13. In your opinion, is CELPAD’s EAW an ESAP, or EGAP course? Why?
14. In your opinion, do you think EAW should be an ESAP or EGAP course? Why?

d) Stimulated Recall
15. Looking at your students’ written works (and the lecturer’s comments), can you
please explain which area, in relation to academic writing, relate to the
objectives and learning outcomes in the EAW Course Outline?
16. Generally, in terms of academic writing in EAW, what kind of problems do you
see among your students?
17. Do you have any suggestions on EAW to improve your students’ academic
writing skills? Could you explain?
319
18. Finally, do you have any opinion or comment on EAW? Could you please explain?

Additional questions for EAW coordinator:
1. How long have you been the Coordinator of EAW in CELPAD?
2. Have you got any trainings on EAW or EAP? Could you briefly explain about the
trainings?
3. Do you have any specific training on coordinating EAW? Could you briefly
explain about it?
4. Do you think EAW lecturers are well-trained to teach EAW? Why?
5. Are there any training provided to EAW lecturers? Could you please explain
about it?
6. EAW is a course taught to students from all kulliyyahs (faculties) in IIUM. Has
there been any collaboration or any contact with any kulliyyah regarding the
course? Could you please explain about it?
7. Finally, as a coordinator, what do you think about EAW?


Appendix H Faculty Lecturer Interview Questions

Interview questions
a) Background
1. Can you tell me your last academic qualification please?
2. What is the course you are teaching now in your kulliyyah?
3. How long have you taught your course in your kulliyyah?
4. Could you please briefly explain about the course you are teaching?
320
[Type text]

b) Academic writing
5. Thinking about listening, speaking, reading and writing in English, is there a focus on
any one of these more than others in the course you teach? If yes, which one, and
why others are not so important?
6. Are writing skills important in the course you teach? Could you please explain a little
bit more?
8. What is your opinion on research writing and academic writing?
9. Do you think research writing should be taught to undergraduate students in your
kulliyyah?
10. Looking at the learning outcomes and objectives in the course outline, which
part/parts, in your opinion, is/are related to academic writing?

c) Stimulated Recall
11. Looking at your students’ written works (and the lecturer’s comments), can you
please explain which area, in relation to academic writing, the students need to
improve to make it better?
12. Generally, what kind of problems do you see in your students’ academic writing?
13. In your opinion, what do you think your students need in terms of academic writing?
14. Do you have any suggestion how your students can be taught to write effectively in
the course you teach?
15. Finally, in general, what do you expect your students to be able to do in terms of
academic language performance?

Title: Assessing EAP Needs: A Comparative Genre-Based Study
321
Appendix I Consent Form
Consent Form for Interviews
Please Initial box:

322
[Type text]

I confirm that I have read and understood the information sheet dated
[dd/mm/yyyy] and have had the opportunity to ask questions.
I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw

at any time without giving any reason and without there being any negative
consequences. In addition, should I not wish to answer any particular question
or questions, I am free to decline.
I understand that my responses will be kept strictly confidential. I understand

that my name will not be linked with the research materials, and will not be
identified or identifiable in the report or reports that result from the research.
I agree for this interview to be tape-recorded. I understand that the audio

recording made of this interview will be used only for analysis and that
extracts from the interview, from which I would not be personally identified,
may be used in any conference presentation, report or journal article
developed as a result of the research. I understand that no other use will be
made of the recording without my written permission, and that no one outside
the research team will be allowed access to the original recording.
I agree that my anonymised data will be kept for future research purposes such
as publications related to this study after the completion of the study.
I agree to take part in this interview.
________________________ ________________
___________________
323
Name of participant Date Signature
Shahrul Nizam Mohd Basari __________________

_____________________
Principal Investigator Date Signature
To be counter-signed and dated electronically for telephone interviews or in

the presence of the participant for face to face interviews
Copies: Once this has been signed by all parties the participant should receive
a copy of the signed and dated participant consent form, and the information
sheet. A copy of the signed and dated consent form should be placed in the
main project file which must be kept in a secure location.
Appendix J Participant Information Sheet

The University of Sheffield Assessing EAP Needs: A Comparative Genre-Based Study
School of English

Researcher

Purpose of the research
Generally, the study attempts to assess the students' and lecturers' perceptions on student
needs and the relevance of EAW as an EAP course to undergraduate students at the
International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM), and also investigate the Laws and
324
[Type text]

Education students’ and lecturers’ perceptions of academic writing and see if there is any
indication of writing practice in Laws and Education that corresponds with the type of
writing expected of students in EAW.

Who will be participating?
The study involves undergraduate students and lecturers from eight faculties/centres
(Architecture, Economics, Education, Engineering, Islamic Revealed Knowledge and Human
Sciences, Information and Communication Technology, Laws and Centre for Languages and
Pre-University Academic Development) at the International Islamic University Malaysia
(IIUM).

What will you be asked to do?
The participants will be asked to complete questionnaires, involve in semi-structured
interviews, and (for students) submit written assignments.

What are the potential risks of participating?
The participants may face a potential psychological distress in terms of having to spend time
to answer questionnaires, involve in interviews and hand in written assignments, but this is
believed to be at a minimum level as the instruments are designed to be clear and concise,
and the subjects addressed are common to them.

What data will we collect?
The data will be obtained by collecting participants’ responses in online questionnaires,
conducting and recording participants’ responses in semi-structured interviews, and
collecting written assignments from students.

What will we do with the data?
The data will be analysed quantitatively and qualitatively and used for the purpose of the
study only. Some parts of the data will be used in the writen or oral presentation of the
study, but the respondents’ identity will be kept confidential at all times.

Will my participation be confidential?
The data will be anonymised and coded in the computer files with a random number. No
identifying information will be retained.

What will happen to the results of the research project?
The results of this study will be included in my PhD’s thesis, which will be publicly available
at the University of Sheffield, and may be reported in journal papers and presented at
conferences or seminars.

I confirm that I have read and understand the description of the research project, and that I
have had an opportunity to ask questions about the project.

I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time
without any negative consequences.

I understand that I may decline to answer any particular question or questions, or to do any
of the activities. If I stop participating at all time, all of my data will be purged.

325
I understand that my responses will be kept strictly confidential, that my name or identity
will not be linked to any research materials, and that I will not be identified or identifiable in
any report or reports that result from the research.

I give permission for the researcher to have access to my anonymised responses.

I give permission for the researcher to re-use my data for future research as specified
above.

I agree to take part in the research project as described above.

Participant Name Participant Signature

Researcher Name Researcher Signature

Date

Note: If you have any difficulties with, or wish to voice concern about, any aspect of your participation in this
study, please contact Miss Emma Bradley, Research Ethics Administrator, School of English, The University of
Sheffield (E.F.Bradley@sheffield.ac.uk) or to the University Registrar and Secretary.

Appendix K EAW Student’s Term Paper (LEAW5)

326
[Type text]

Appendix L EAW Student’s Term Paper (LEAW3)

327
Appendix M EAW Student’s Term Paper (LEAW8)

328
[Type text]

Appendix N ENGIN Student’s Project Paper (LENG1)

329
Appendix O ENGIN Student’s Project Paper (LENG2)

330
[Type text]

Appendix P HS Student’s Project Paper (LHS1)

331
Appendix Q Interview Transcript: Student
TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH STUDENT 3 (ENGINE) SENG3

332
[Type text]

Date: 17 April 2015
Length: 16 minutes 46 seconds
I: Ok. What is the course you are doing now at KIRKHS? (Ah sorry... Engineering).
Raf: (I'm in Engineering). Engineering, Electronic Computer and IT.
I: Ok. Which year are you in now?
Raf: Fourth year.
I: Fourth year. Ok erm... in your study, thinking about the four skills in English - listening, speaking,
reading and writing - is there one type of skills that is more important than others to you?
Raf: [Pause].
I: Erm... if we look at the four skills - reading, writing, listening and speaking - is there one of these
skills that is more important to you in your study?
Raf: in my study?
I: Yes.
Raf: It would be... probably writing.
I: Writing? Ok. Why?
Raf: Because I need to do my final year project and I have to write a report about it.
I: Ok. So, in your study, final year project is a course or...
Raf: It's a course.
I: Where you have to do a lot of writing?
Raf: I have to, yea.
I: Ok. Is there any other... projects, assignments or courses where it requires you to do...
Raf: Yes. Seminar, IDP. Most of the projects that we do, we have to do a report about it. So basically,
there's a lot of project, and there's a lot of lab report that you have to write.
I: Ok. So, IDP stands for?
Raf: Err... Integrated Design Project.
I: And FYP is?
Raf: Final Year Project.
I: Ok now, what about other skills... err why they are not so important as compared to writing?
333
Raf: Because engineers... for listening... they need it, to understand the course in class. For speaking...
we don't talk a lot, because we solve problems most of the time in class. We calculate, we do
something else, not speaking. And what... reading. Reading... yea, it's important to read the slides and
to understand the books and articles.
I: Ok. But maybe not as important as writing?
Raf: Yea.
I: Ok. Ok so for now do you have any problems with your writing in your course when you do those,
you know, projects, when you take those courses in the kulliyyah?
Raf: Probably on the format and citation...
I: Citation techniques?
Raf: Techniques yea.
I: Ok. So it's the format, the technical aspects of it?
Raf: Yea.
I: What about the writing itself, the language...
Raf: The language... I think I'm ok with it.
I: Ok good. Erm... what have you done to overcome the problems that you mentioned just now in
writing?
Raf: I look into past reports of my seniors, and look how they do it. Like the techniques they use... so I
just...do.
I: Erm... so those are the ways you have taken to overcome the problems. Any way that you can think
of that can also help to solve the problem that maybe you have not done but you think it's good to
do?
Raf: Asking my lecturer about it.
I: Ok. All right. Ok erm... now, what is your understanding of academic writing?
Raf: My understanding?
I: Yea, your own understanding. Your own opinion. When you say academic writing...
Raf: Write about paper, academic paper, any reports, journals, articles... related to academics.
I: So it is a kind of writing... which what... which is used for writing specific formats, you mean? When
you say reports... is that what you mean? It's the kind of writing that requires specific formats?
Raf: Yea.
I: Ok. Are you taking EAW at the moment?

334
[Type text]

Raf: Yea.
I: Yes. Err... now, what is your understanding of EAW?
Raf: Understanding?
I: I mean, if I were to ask you to describe what EAW is, how would you describe EAW?
Raf: It's a course that teaches the students how to write a research paper. But for some other
kulliyyah, not Engineering [laughed].
I: Ok. Ok. But... but err... when you take the course, I mean, since you are taking it now, you're still
required to write a research paper, right?
Raf: Yea. And I'm required to learn new things, which is not related to my kulliyyah. and it's kind of...
not...
I: Ok, ok. Err... at the moment, you mentioned that, it's not related to what you are doing... in EAW,
it's not related to your kulliyyah but is there any areas where it helps you to overcome your problems
that you mentioned just now, when you do your projects in the course?
Raf: Yea.
I: Can you give some examples, maybe, how it helps you to overcome your problems?
Raf: The formatting is kind of different, but for some students, they can manage to relate. But for the
degree level, you know, in the degree level you want to see something that you can relate directly.
But when I take that course, I can... I can relate but I need to tweak it a little bit. It is kind of helpful,
but not so much. I can't describe.
I: Ok. Erm... ok, can give me your... your opinion, you know, what do you think about the research
writing skills in EAW? And maybe, you know you have mentioned that it's not related to the course
you are taking, but can you... let's talk a bit more on that, you know. Because since you said it's not
related, so... maybe just compare a bit the research that you do for your subjects and courses and the
research that you do for EAW.
Raf: I was... struggling with my research paper in EAW. Because the format is different. So what I did, I
took the past report samples that my lecturer from EAW gave, and then I follow the techniques that
the past seniors did. I follow exactly. I didn't copy any word. I do my own work but I follow the
techniques, the structure. And then, when I submit it, he was like... he called me... didn't return my
paper. He called me after the class, he said like, 'it was too good. I didn't find any mistake. It is a
miracle. It is PhD level' bla bla bla. So I was like, ok, is it a compliment or anything. I was thinking, why
he looked mad. Suddenly he said I need to change my topic. Because he didn't believe I did that. And
he want me to redo it. And he want me to degrade the level. He said 'make it look more like a degree
level'. So, first thing, I don't know how to do. So i need, I need a good sample. So what I did, I took a
sample from the course, and then I follow how they did. I don't know how to do it. But, I follow the
structure. So, I was like, I don't know how to do, so I follow good example, and then I got problem
from it. So, it's kind of annoying. Because he didn't really teach us how to do it. He teach but, I don't
know. When I did, he said many things.
I: So when... the kind of research, the kind of format that you have to do in EAW, errr... is errr...
what... it is a primary research, right? Where it requires you to conduct survey, and produce a
quantitative research, right?
335
Raf: For Engineering we don't have that. We don't do survey.
I: So, when your lecturer in EAW teaches you this, errr... is the focus more on that technical aspect of
it - formatting, structure, the methods - or, on the language itself? Academic writing. How to write the
language to use. How to summarise, how to synthesise, how to paraphrase, for examples.
Raf: As far as I'm concerned, he didn't teach us on how to summarise. He said we have to, like make
it, you know, the short is better. But I didn't think he teach us how to do it. I think it's more to the
technical aspect like, how to start the literature review, there's a key word, like you have to use that
key word. He teaches the... like how to... the technical part I think.
I: Ok. Now, coming back to the kind of research that you do in your course in the kulliyyah. Can you
explain a bit about it? What kind of research, what you have to do there?
Raf: In our research, we have to... do a research on our project. For example, like... like... we don't do
much on the people. We don't do... we don't do the survey thing.
I: You don't approach people.
Raf: Yea, we don't approach people. We do research for our topics only. For example my topic,
Autonomous Control for Tri-rotor UAV. So I need to do research on that thing. So it could help me on
my project, to do my project. Basically I'm doing my project and I'm doing the research, the literature
review and everyting, to help me to do the project.
I: So, you have to what? Conduct an experiment?
Raf: Yea. I need to test my project.
I: Test the project. And then, you will write a report...
Raf: About it.
I: About it. Ok. Erm... now, is there any, you know, parts in the course, in your kulliyyah, where the
lecturers have to teach you the language bit? Academic writing.
Raf: No.
I: No? Not even summarising, paraphrasing...
Raf: Not really.
I: No, not really. So it's just purely... what you have to do for the project. So in terms of academic
writing, language, you have to, you know, cope with it if you have problems...
Raf: I have to struggle with it alone.
I: Ok. Now, since you have your assignments with you...
Raf: This is my FYP project. This is Chapter one.
I: Ah ha... maybe you have describe to me just now what you have to do. So maybe you can just show
me a little bit more what you have to do and if you can, show the kind of writing that you find need,
you know, a bit difficult for you to do? If there is any.
336
[Type text]

Raf: Difficult for me?
I: Yea. The kind of writing. Maybe, for example, erm... ok, does it have... what? Literature Review, for
example?
Raf: Err... I haven't... I just did a summary on it. I haven't started the paragraphing yet. I just do the
summary.
I: So meaning you have read a few articles, and you have to summarise it. Ok. Do you have any
problems with it? When you do that?
Raf: Yea.
I: When you have to summarise, do you have any problems to summarise?
Raf: Yea.
I: Yes?
Raf: That's my main problem.
I: So that was what... I was trying to... to get just now. So, that is one problem that you find when you
do your assignments, to summarise.
Raf: Yea.
I: Is there any kind of other problems?
Raf: Not really. Basically I think the Literature Review part.
I: So, you do not really struggle with basic proficiency in terms of grammar, you know, basic language
skills.
Raf: Not really.
I: Not really. Erm... ok. What do you think of having one and the same EAW for all kullyyahs? Because
at the moment, you only have... I mean CELPAD is offering one same, you know, the same EAW...
Raf: Oh... the same?
I: It is the same for students from Engineering, from HS, you know, from all kulliyyahs. So, what do
you think about it?
Raf: It's not good. It's not appropriate and it's like... it's not good especially for the people who don't...
who cannot relate to their kulliyyah. I thought it was different.
I: So you were thinking for Engineering you have... EAW for Engineering.
Raf: Yea, when we want to register for the course, like I have to register one class they said this class
is only for HS and Economics. So I have to take another section. So I took that section, ok for
Engineering. So I thought like, it was different but oh it was the same.
337
I: So, maybe when it says Engineering, it is meant for you to be in the same class with all other
Engineering students.
Raf: Yea but in the Engineering there are some Law students... it's like a group of kulliyyah there, but
not all.
I: Ok... ok. So the majority of them are from Engineering?
Raf: Ah my course from Engineering.
I: Ok. Erm... ok, do you have any suggestion on EAW to improve your writing skills?
Raf: Improve my writing skills?
I: Yea. Maybe in terms of... because you mentioned specifically summarising skills. So, do you have
any suggestions on EAW if, you know, I mean, how it can help you.
Raf: First thing, I think they should separate, for Engineering and other kulliyyahs. And they have to
err... they have to revise the syllabus on Engineering. And then they have to add one course on
summarising too.
I: Ok. Any other... finally, any other opinion or comment? You have mentioned a bit about your
opinion and comment but just to sum up. This is my last question... anything that you want... maybe
you hope to... EAW to be... your comments...
Raf: I hope EAW... to be erm... to be more understanding. Because, about the first one I have to redo
it. I have to redo because my lecturer couldn't accept it for the fact that it was too good. And err... yea
it was too good because I follow the structure of the past sample that he gave. So, like, don't give the
sample if you don't want people to take example from it. I didn't copy any word. I just follow the
structure and it was too good. And I have to redo it.
I: But do you think the students in your kulliyyah need, you know, this kind of course to help with the
writing?
Raf: We do. I have high expectation when I took English. Many of my friends told me that it's not
related but I didn't think about that. I really want to take it because I really need help on my writing.
So like, when I took it, my expectation, like, it was not fulfilled. I was disappointed.
I: So, in summary, you think this kind of course is needed by students in the (kulliyyah...)
Raf: It is needed, (but they need to revise the syllabus for Engineering).
I: They need to revise it to suit the Engineering students.
Raf: Yea.
I: Ok so, that is all. Thank you very much for your time and cooperation.

338
[Type text]

Appendix R Interview Transcript: Faculty Lecturer

TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH LECTURER 4 (HS) LHS4
Date: 13 July 2015
I: Can you tell me your last academic qualification please?
NA: Okay. Err....my...I have a degree in Environmental Anthropology, from University of Western
Australia, PhD.
I: Okay. What..
NA: 2011
I: What is the course you are or what are the courses you are teaching now in the kulliyyah?
339
NA: This semester I teach Research Methodology 1, SOCCA 2999, Research Methodology 2, SOCCA
3999, and then one PG course, also in research method, SOCCA 6090.
I: And SOCCA stands for?
NA: Sociology.
I: Sociology? Okay. Erm...how long have you taught those courses here?
NA: Research Method....I've been teaching these courses...both RM1 and RM2 for the past thirteen
years lah...minus...my PhD years lah.
I: Emm..hmm. So, that's for Research Method?
NA: Yea.
I: Emm..hmm
NA: 2001. Since 2001.
I: 2001. Since 2001.
NA: Em. So every semester.
I: Every semester that you have been teaching Research Methodology?
NA: Yea.
I: But for (SOCCA)..
NA: For master..this...last semester is the first time.
I: Emm..hmm. So Research Method for PG you mean?
NA: Yea.
I: Emm..hmm. Okay erm...
NA: Other courses, Introduction to Sociology, Introduction to Social Work, Youth and Society,
Environment and Society, yeah, (that's about it).
I: (Okay). Erm..okay, let's focus on Research Methodology, generally, okay?
NA: Okay.
I: Err...could you please briefly explain about, about the course?
NA: Err....for our department, Department of Sociology, we divided the course into two - Research
Method 1, SOCCA 2999, this is basically to introduce all the basic concept, okay, like hypotheses,
theory, independent variable, dependent variable, qualitative research....basic concept, and the most
important part of the course is to introduce all the seven major step, from formulation of erm...RP,
formulation of hypotheses, different data collection technique, how to write research proposal...so
basically, it's just the foundation course for...how to do empirical research.
340
[Type text]

I: Okay. All right.
NA: For RM2 there is the practical part of the course. For RM1, we ask the most important
assessment is to write research proposal. So that carries twenty percent.
I: So, that would be the final product?
NA: Yea.
I: Of the course?
NA: Hmm.
I: Okay. Research proposal?
NA: Of course. Plus mid-term and final, but the most important is the RP lah, research proposal. For
RM2, Research Method 2, for our department, we....I divided the course into two: quantitative and
qualitative. Quantitative err..basically...you brought them to computer lab, ask them to run SPSS, do
analysis, and write report, okay. But not a whole report, just exercise by exercise...about six to seven
exercises per semester. But for a complete research report is, they have to do qualitative research.
That one they have to collect the data, do either participant observation or field interview, write the
whole report from introduction, research problem until conclusion, findings and so on.
I: Okay. Erm now, what is your understanding of academic writing?
NA: Academic writing err for me....err it comprises of all type of academic writing which include
argumentative essay, plus research proposal, okay, how to construct a good err...thesis statement, a
good paragraph which make up the body of the essay, with all the important part, introduction,
conclusion, supportive argument and so on. So for me, that's what....and plus all those technical
details, how to do citation, paraphrasing....okay. And so on.
I: Erm....now, what is your opinion on research writing and academic writing, specifically?
NA: Err..it's...actually I think for me, personally, it can be overlapping in some areas. For me academic
writing is very general, okay. Academic writing is very general as I mentioned just now, it could be
argumentative essay, in which you don't have to collect empirical research. But for research writing,
err...of course some might argue research writing can be purely based on library, but of course for us,
for human sciences, we go for empirical research, so, even though you are writing errm....a research
report, definitely there is a major component of academic writing especially on the literature review
section, where you do a lot of paraphrasing which is similar to academic writing, in most cases.
I: Okay. Generally academic writing and research writing are highly related.
NA: Emm.
I: Okay. But it's just that, there's more to academic writing, not just....like, like you said, there is
argumentative essay...
NA: Yea.
I: Okay. All right. Err do you think research writing should be taught to undergraduate students in
your kulliyyah?
341
NA: Oh that one, definitely, because we are asking them to conduct research, empirical research. So,
it goes without saying that when you talk about research, the final product is you have to report your
research, and most of the time, how to report your research, we do it in writing. So, like it or not, all
student, okay, I believe not only for our kulliyyah but across...all other kulliyyah, it should be a very
important component.
I: Okay. So when you teach research writing to your students, I mean undergraduate students,
erm...can you generally explain the...the needs in terms of academic writing...their needs in terms of
academic writing?
NA: Their needs?
I: Yea. When they...because they have to...to learn research writing. They have to do a research,
right?
NA: Yea.
I: For the course...research...Research Methodology, so how do you describe their needs, what they
need to know, what they need to use when they write..write a research erm...paper?
NA: Okay. Err first of all, of course you know, they have to write a good research proposal or final
research report...you need to know all the basic research step, because you are guided specifically by
all the steps.
I: Emm..hmm...hmm
NA: Okay. But, in the process of writing itself of course they should know, as I mentioned earlier, the
basic for general academic writing...
I: Emm..hmm
NA: ...which is, you should know how to construct a paragraph, say for example, and within
paragraph, as I mentioned just now, you should have a topic sentence. So things like that, which are
fundamental for any kind of academic writing, should be there when they do their final research
report, or writing their research proposal. So those basic essay writing element should be...this
student should be able to translate that into their research report. In every paragraph, you should
have topic sentence and all paragraph should err...should be able to be link coherently, okay. So there
are, I mean, I think there are two important issues here: first is their technical ability; second is their
cognitive ability. To link paragraph to the other paragraph is not merely technical writing ability, or
skill, okay, in which that...that is another major problem. I mentioned to you just now, thesis
statement, problem, and then technical details and thirdly, how to link paragraph using conjunction,
words and so on, also are not there, actually visible in this...among this student. They don't know how
to use the correct conjunction word - in addition, nevertheless....and they don't know how to link
paragraph to paragraph, not only using your ideas, the ideas should be connected coherently, but also
you should also this...
I: Sequence connectors?
NA: Yea.
I: Emm...okay. Erm...if we were to look at the course objectives and learning outcomes, is there any
specific erm...err...item that highlights what you have mentioned just now, maybe something that
(you can relate to the ability...)
342
[Type text]

NA: (That one err...more on err...) RM2. Their writing skills and skill...I mean your research skills, that
one is (research skill)...
I: (Research skills?) So, course objective 2 yea [pointing at the course objective in the course outline]?
'To provide students with...'
NA: The writing part err...explicitly being mentioned in RM2.
I: Emm..hmm...RM2 is....oh okay, the other course outline...all right. Erm...okay now, coming back to
the students' needs and of course the problems err that they err...do, can you just maybe highlight
some examples from your students' work here [pointing at the students' assignments]?
NA: Emm..hmm....as I mentioned just now, err...those who want to write a research report, they
should have those basic err...skill in how to write academic...like, say for example, argumentative
essay. So, as I mentioned just now, you should have a thesis statement. [looking at one of the
students' assignments] Okay.This one is actually with a good thesis statement. But as I mentioned to
you err...earlier, this student, okay, showed me her first draft, which was without thesis statement. So
then, emm...because there was still time before the date of submission, so if you want, I say, I can
accept this, otherwise, if you want better mark, I give you the opportunity to improve, but you need
to include your thesis statement.
I: Sorry, can I just put an asterisk here [pointing at the example] (using pen).
NA: (Ah yea). Otherwise, those who didn't consult me, okay, they simply submitted to me the final
product, okay. So this is one without thesis statement [pointing at another student's assignment]. So
this is...some of...major issues, major problems that need to be addressed by this student.
I: So this is a rampant thing that has been (going on) every semester, maybe?
NA: (Yea, yea). This is common.
I: Common. Emm..hmm
NA: Thesis statement. This one. Another one as I mentioned earlier the technical..things. This
one memang [translated - surely] every single semester...quotation, page number..err..this one is
very common. So there is the second issues..[still flipping through the student's assignment] how to
cite references...
I: Okay what about the language itself?
NA: Ah the language memanglah [translated - surely], that is another problem lah. [laugh]
I: Ah..ha
NA: Some of this student, I don't know, as if they were in primary school [laugh].
I: Problems in terms of language you mean?
NA: Yea.
I: Yea. Emm..hmm.
343
NA: Erm....I think, I still can tolerate past time, sorry, tenses....still I can tolerate lah...but, some..some
of them, really, it didn't make sense...I don't know...hold on yea [still flipping through the student's
assignment].
I: Oh, you are referring to grammar?
NA: Ah.
I: Their grammar in writing. Okay.
NA: Wrong...wrong choice of word, no verb, verb to be and so on...
I: Subject-verb agreement?
NA: Subject-verb agreement, tenses tu I kira macam minor jugak la [translated - the tenses I
considered as quite minor mistakes]. Sampai [to the extent] we couldn't make sense of the sentence
and all.
I: Okay. What about language skills in terms of summarising, synthesising, (paraphrasing)...
NA: (Ah that one's)...among the weakest lah.
I: That is also a (problem err)...
NA: (That was very) evident in research proposal lah yang I bagitau you tadi kan [translated - that I
told you earlier]. The whole paragraph, no introduction, no whatsoever, just straight away copy and
paste, yeah we cannot accuse plagiarism because they put inverted comma but the whole paragraph,
no nothing, no introduction...up to ten to fifteen lines...I think...direct quote.
I: So, they have problems in summarising, (paraphrasing...synthesising)...
NA: (Yea, yea, synthesising, paraphrasing...) that is major issues.
I: Also another major issue?
NA: Yea.
I: Ah ha..
NA: Especially when they...dia punya [translated - their] second section lah, literature review
section. Selalunya memang [translated - usually that is the case]. So, usually literature review section,
there is the two most common: first dia punya [translated - its] technical error...this one, no page
number [pointing at one example in the student's assignment]; second, they don't know...they didn't
know how to synthesise. Again, as I mentioned earlier, this is not only, purely language or writing
skills. Dia punya [translated - their] cognitive ability how to synthesise...I mean, researcher A kata apa
[translated - says what], researcher B, C, D, E...not following any themes, just
report..F,G...yea...author A [still showing at the student's assignment].
I: And it comes from their reading skills as well, actually....what...what they understand, and how they
transfer it into their writing.
NA: Yea.
344
[Type text]

I: Okay. Are you familiar with EAW?
NA: English for Academic?
I: Writing.
NA: Writing. Ah.
I: Are you familiar with the course?
NA: No.
I: Not really yea?
NA: I mean I...I mean I don't know what, what is the course content but I just aware, my...my
knowledge is just that I...I'm aware that it is a compulsory course for UG student. And from my
experiences, begin with my student normally, they will register themselves very...I mean..towards the
end of their...semester..(ah third year, final year)..
I: (Their third year or fourth year)...
NA:...which..I think ideally they should take it first year, first semester. At least second semester the
latest so that, that kind of skill, knowledge, information can be used throughout their studies.
I: Em..hmm...hmm....okay so..
NA: Should be first year, first semester.
I: So, basically you know that the course teaches students how to err write a research?
NA: Yea. I know that err...some of my student show me their assignment...assessment.
I: And they think it should be taught earlier?
NA: Not the research component part but the writing part.
I: The writing part? Emm...hmm....hmm
NA: Minus the research component part except the literature review section, in which you are going
to teach them how to synthesise, paraphrase and so on.
I: So, by writing part, you are referring to that needs, to the problems that you described just now.
NA: Yea.
I: The conventions, and then the skills to paraphrase, synthesise, summarise.
NA: Yes.
I: Okay. All right. Erm...do you have other...other suggestions on how students can be taught to write
effectively in the course you teach?
NA: My course?
345
I: Yea.
NA: Err....okay. Frankly speaking, I have not addressed the writing part, specifically, because this is
research method part. So normally I just...err.assist them in terms of technical things rather than the
writing process itself. Like we spent for RM1, since one of the major component of the assessment is
writing research proposal, so at least two lecture I will guide them how to write a good research
proposal. So that, that is the best thing that I can do within the limited period of time whatsoever. So
I will teach them what are the component should be there in a good research proposal. You should
have your RP, your hypothesis, if you are doing quantitative, you need to have operational definition
and whatsoever, but the nitty gritty little things about how to write, your grammar and so on, and
that would be also when I teach literature review, I will show example of a good literature review,
okay. How...not really how, but I will show, so this is source 1...source B....how to synthesise to
become literature review. (But that one)...
I: (Erm...so that they can see..)
NA: Yea. But I couldn't spend more than one lecture.
I: Okay. So, when you do that, the students can see the (examples) of how to use language (would
be), how to introduce, you know....
NA: (Yea). (Yes). Yea. I will show them the example, okay. Then I will show also, how to do...how to
cite, in-text citation, references...so, I will give them example. But I don't really have much time to
really spend four or five weeks just to do, because I assume should have been exposed to this, this is
just a revision. Normally I will say to them, 'okay you have seen this before, this is APA, but if you are
Sociology you can use ASR, or even you can use Harvard style'. We show slide and so on, 'okay, so this
is example of in-text citation, this is references,' so that is the technical part.
I: So the students are not just exposed to the technical part, I mean the techniques, but also the
language to do it, to use it....let say, the words to use when you introduce a...a citation maybe.
NA: Yes...yes...yea...yea..
I: Okay. So...
NA: 'According to...'
I: Yes that kind of thing. So the students are also err...made aware of that.
NA: Yes. Yes.
I: Erm...is there any allocation of marks for language in the (rubric) for the assessment (of your
course).
NA: (Yea). (But not many lah).
I: There is? Ah..ha
NA: All...all...except for...not on me....[looking for rubric]. RP, Environment, semua ada [translated - all
do have].
I: Generally, do you remember the percentage, maybe, if you do not for sure?
NA: Around...normally 2 out of 20.

346
[Type text]

I: 2 out of 20?
NA: 2 to 3 lah.
I: 2 to 3 marks out of twenty? And you..
NA: For language per say lah, and then format separately letak kekadang [translated - sometimes
put].
I: Yea..that's..that's language per say.
NA: Language...format err..
I: So, language here refers to grammar?
NA: Emm..emm
I: So, generally, what..what do you give to the students?
NA: Oh selalu kadang-kadang setengah [translated - usually sometimes half]
I: Half? [laugh]
NA: {laugh] Most satu. Jarang dapat...very rarely dapat full marks, or 1.5...2.5, usually 0.5, or 1.
Normally 1, itu pun markah kesian. Kalau nak ikut yang keras ni nak bagi 0 je. Kesian, bagi la jugak
1. [Translated - Mostly 1. They rarely get full marks, or 1.5 and 2.5, usually 0.5 or 1. Normally 1, but
even that is just out of courtesy. If I were to follow my heart, I would just give 0. I pity them, hence
the 1 mark.]
I: So, the average is 1? Generally 1?
NA: Ah 1...yes.
I: Okay. All right. Erm...finally, in general, what do you expect your students to be able to do in terms
of academic language performance, just to wrap up whatever that you have described just now?
NA: Actually, I don't expect them to use...those bombastic words, difficult words, it's just...I think very
minimum requirement. SImple language...but you have all the components.
I: Okay.
NA: Subject, predicate, agreement...kadang-kadang ada subject dia takde predicate..kan [translated -
sometimes the subject does not have the predicate]. So, those simple things. And then you should
have a sub-research area, thesis statement, thesis sentence, topic sentence, structure, okay. Should
have introduction, conclusion, those basic components of a good essay. Just follow the
citation...err...those technical things. I mean, it irritates me. As simple as that, okay. Language part,
maybe lah, susah sikit [translated - a bit difficult]. But, technical part, you just simply...I ask them
'download and refer...make sure you ada Harvard style, whatever style beside you and you write'. So,
as simple as that. Even that they cannot follow. So that one is very irritating mistake, error.
I: Is..is there a standard for the style that students are required to use in this kulliyyah?
NA: No.
347
I: No. Okay. So, there are (free to use...)
NA: (Usually, Psychology) APA lah. And normally Sociology pun banyak guna APA [translated - mainly
uses APA]. APA ni macam quite standard jugak la across all human sciences. [translated - APA is quite
the standard practice across human sciences].
I: But, they are not really expected to only use APA?
NA: Yea, I give them freedom, okay. 'If you don't like APA, then you go and use ASR or Harvard. As
long as you follow the format. Masalahnya [translated - the problem is], neither. Any of the format
they didn't follow. Author takde, publication year takde, all format ada author and publication year,
you jangan nak tipu I. Kalau dia nak kata format ni takde, mana ada. All format akan ada year and
author. [translated - No author, no publication year. All formats have author and publication year, do
not cheat me on this. If they say there is a format that does not have this, that is wrong. All formats
will have year and author].
I: All styles would have them, yea.
NA: As basic as that, they can't follow. It really irritates us.
I: Okay. So, if..because this course is...is...is taught by...by a language centre here, right? So, in a way
you are also hoping or expecting that maybe some of the (issues can be addressed...)
NA: (Ah yea. Awareness....maybe like...because, usually my style, I will try to relate, okay, Sociology
course dengan [translated - with] other Sociological courses or sometimes even in Psychology, you
know. So, I think every lecturer should also address the same things. I mean, in passing, just cakap
[translated - say]: 'please, okay, today's lecture is very important because you're going to use that in
your kulliyyah later on', so that they....those things stick in their mind - okay, this is very useful. So,
before...in the middle of the lecture or even in the beginning, and reiterated at the end, 'okay, you
should use this, keep this lecture, okay. When you want to write essay in your department, research
proposal, you are going to use exactly the same thing'. So usually memang akan buat camtu - how to
relate RM dengan other courses - Sociology courses dengan other Human Sciences courses and IRK
courses. So I rasa yang tu kena ada kot, so that they are aware, okay. [translated - So usually that is
done - how to relate RM with other courses, Sociology courses with other Human Sciences courses
and IRK courses. So I think that has to be done, so that they are aware, okay.]
I: Okay. Anything else you would like to add? Maybe any comment, suggestions?
NA: Err...suggestions yang tu lah [translated - is that one]. Please omit research component, except
literature review.
I: Okay. All right. So that's for the language centre you mean?
NA: Erm.
I: Ah ha. Okay. All right.
NA: So, I hope erm..other...outcome of your thesis, in the future, strengthen dia punya [translated -
their] essay, argumentative essay ability, so that, kitorang kat sini akan tengok dia punya [translated -
we over here will look at their], be able to concentrate on their research only. Because, because the
thing is, err...it really disrupt..err...our process of marking...their assignment. Dia punya language,
sampai tak boleh nak faham apa dia baca, tu memang teruk...choice of word, vocab dia lah...vocab
dia...[their language, to the extent that I could not understand what they read...really terrible...choice
and word and vocabulary]
348
[Type text]

I: Okay. So I guess that would be all. If there's nothing more to add, you know, on top of what you
have...you have made all the major points there. Okay, thank you.
Appendix S Interview Transcript: EAW Lecturer

TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH LECTURER 9 (CELPAD) LEAW9
Date: 08 April 2015
I: Ok. Can you tell me your last academic qualification, please?
NH: It is a TESL degree.
I: Ok. It's a bachelor's degree yea?
NH: Yea. It was a bachelor degree in TESL.
I: Ok. How long have you taught EAW in CELPAD?
NH: Let me see. I started in roughly, around 2011 until now, which is like 2015... so that's about 4
years.
I: Four years. Ok. Have you got any training on teaching EAW?
NH: Training conducted by CELPAD, yes. But training conducted by professional people, teaching EAW
specifically, no.
I: How frequent were they? The trainings provided by CELPAD.
NH: When we first started EAW, it was quite frequent. But has it got into the second year until now, it
is not that frequent. Because basically, erm... we kind of like, after one year, we kind of like know
what we are doing.
349
I: Ok. So when you said first year, was it 2011?
NH: Yes. The year 2011.
I: The first year you started?
NH: Yup.
I: Do you feel confident when you teach EAW?
NH: Not exactly. [giggled]
I: Why?
NH: Err... because the format kept changing, alright. Err... we started with EAW in a different way, err
it was like we used both methods, which was we can do either qualitative or quantitative. But after a
few... sorry after about 2 years, 2 years later I think in 20.... at the end of 2013, we started going into
just quantitative. Err so it is more focused. So that's why there was a change in everything.
I: Ok. Do you find teaching EAW easy?
NH: No. No. [giggled].
I: Why?
NH: Because of the... because of... how do I say this. Err... basically, when we teach students, yes,
they do have a little bit of err exposure to what is err you know, what is EAW. It's just that, when they
have to come up with a specific thing like, err like what we are doing now, quantitative, descriptive,
they have a bit of a problem in identifying certain parts of the research paper. And then, of course,
the difference in the kulliyyah. In our... in CELPAD, we use APA format. But in other kulliyyah, like
erm.. I think if I'm not mistaken, err is it the kulliyah of Economics? They don't use APA. They use a
different type or format. So, it's entirely different. And when it comes to AIKOL, it's gonna be a big
different where they love footnotes. Well, we do not have footnotes in our research paper. So the...
there will be things like that. And it is like more specific in EAW, like in a thesis, basically, it's either
qualitative or quantitative. But EAW is definitely very specific, it's quantitative descriptive. So, it's kind
of difficult to... to... how do I say this, it's kind of difficult to ask the students to come up with
numerical info at the end of the introduction part.
I: Ok. Is there any specific kulliyyah that you find it easier to teach than others?
NH: Let me see, err AIKOL. [giggled]
I: AIKOL.
NH: Even though there's a little bit of... there is a difference like they love footnotes, but they can
understand. Because basically, err their format and the format CELPAD is using is quite similar. And
also HS. HS. Yes.
I: What about err... other kulliyyah...

350
[Type text]

NH: Ok. Ok. The other kulliyyah... the difficult... the difficult ones would be from the kulliyyah of ICT,
Engineering and Architecture. Because they don't have... they don't exactly do a thesis. They actually
have a project paper and it's more towards drawings and stuff. It's a project paper, so it's a different
format from APA. So, I had difficulty with the students from those kulliyyah.
I: Ok. What is your understanding of academic writing?
NH: Ermm... ok. Well, for me, academic writing is basically an opinion essay with references included
in it. That's it. It's not like what we are teaching the students is actually... it's... it's like... Ok, for me,
when you talk about academic writing, it will have to be on your opinion on a certain topic. Alright.
But you have references. Meaning that you have to either quote or summarise from other authors.
Just to support your own idea. That's it. But, what we are doing, sorry to say this, it's more towards
like a thesis, which I don't really think the students need because they are already taught in the
kulliyyah, the format of a thesis. And since we... they come from different kulliyyah, they have
different format. What are we suppose to be doing here, EAW, English for Academic Writing, we are
suppose to be focusing on the language, not on the format.
I: Ok. So, you may have answered this question but, anyway, what is your understanding of the EAW
course in CELPAD?
NH: Well, it's a... to me, to me I think I've just answered it. It is like teaching the students how to do or
how to prepare their thesis.
I: Ok. So you mean research?
NH: Research. Yea. Research paper.
I: Ok. IN terms of academic writing, what do you think your students will achieve in EAW?
NH: I don't understand that question.
I: Erm... because you described academic writing just now, that is your understanding of academic
writing, so... and we have our EAW, but with a slightly erm... different approach to your
understanding of academic writing. But, in terms of your understanding of academic writing, what do
you think your students will achieve in CELPAD's EAW?
NH: Oh the current... the current course?
I: Emm... hmm
NH: Erm... for me, well, what I wanted them to achieve is different from what they achieve at the end
of the semester. What I want them to achieve is actually the language structure. Ok. This is the... this
is the way that you are supposed to be writing an academic, I mean an academic err... essay. Ok. But,
for our students, at the end of the semester, what they achieve is actually the format, not the
language. We, we... if we don't insist, if they put in the language structure, they don't put it. They
write as they like. But the format is there.
I: Ok. Do you think EAW is relevant to academic writing?
NH: With the current one, no. Maybe in the future, hopefully yes.
351
I: Emm... hmm...why?
NH: Like I said, it's teaching them format instead of language structure.
I: Do you think the research writing skills in EAW are relevant to academic writing needed by students
in the kulliyyahs?
NH: It is not hundred per cent relevant. Maybe about fifty to sixty per cent. Well, they need... they do
need some sort of a format but you don't exactly err... kind of, you know, push them to follow the
format of a research paper. What we should be looking at would be, you know, are supposed to use
this word instead of that word, that's it, that's it basically. But we are not doing that right now.
I: Ok. Do you agree with having one and the same EAW course for all kulliyyahs?
NH: Yes. yes.
I: Why?
NH: Because it's language. We... we should stress on the language. So, when language... it's universal.
You can cover all kulliyyah. Err... the format can be taught but we are not focusing on the format; we
are supposed to be focusing on the language. So yea, I do agree.
I: Ok. Do you know about ESAP and EGAP?
NH: No, I've never heard about it.
I: Ok. Err... ESAP stands for English for Specific Academic Purposes, while EGAP stands for English for
General Academic Purposes.
NH: Oh, I think the first one ESAP, because E.S.A.P, I think it is some sort like ESP, I think. Not?
I: Err... both belong to EAP, that is also a branch of ESP, but now it's more of the approach. So ESAP,
they try to cater to the learners' disciplines, you know. And EGAP, they believe in using, you know,
one approach that fits all. So it doesn't really look at the learners' specific disciplines. They believe in
using one core...
NH: No, I've never heard about it. Maybe it's a new thing that I haven't actually had the time and look
up.
I: Erm... but, do you, you know, get some idea now?
NH: Yea... yea... basic, yes. But if you ask me to explain what it is, I don't think so.
I: Do you think CELPAD's EAW an ESAP or EGAP course?
NH: Let me see. I don't know, it seems to belong under the first... no, not the general purpose. The
specific purpose.
352
[Type text]

I: Emm... hmmm. Now, looking at your students' written work [pointing at the students' research
paper], can you please explain which area, in relation to academic writing, relates to the objectives
and learning outcomes in the EAW course outline.
NH: Oh. Ok. How do I do this [flipping the pages].
I: You can just give some examples, and perhaps relate it to the learning outcomes or objectives.
NH: Ok. Err... for this particular group of students, erm... under the course objective, I do find that
they actually use the appropriate techniques in citing sources, where they actually use erm... the
simple past verb to introduce their in-text citation. Like here, they said erm... 'Based on the research
conducted by Deragu, Mala, Kituka and Nasiuma (2009), they stated...' So the word, the verb stated is
actually used, ok, to indicate that this is something that is done by other researchers. So, they have
managed to use that simple past verb. Ok another one is that, I notice that this group also used the
appropriate language to review the literature, where they actually started, I mean I can detect that is
the starting of their literature review when they said 'Based on the previous literature, the
researchers have highlighted the issue of test anxiety and how it effects the academic performance of
the students. So basically, yea, this group actually reflected what we have taught in class. They use
the right language to present their research paper.
I: Ok. Generally, in terms of academic writing in EAW, what kind of problems do you see among your
students?
NH: Ok. The first thing is that they can't develop a proper statement of the problem, because they
don't actually know what is a statement of a problem even after explaining. So, in order to counter
that, I need for them... I need them to read... err... I need them to actually, you know, err... gather
their sources, and ask them to break it down. Ok. So, for them, for me to make it simpler on them is
that basically, ok, the loophole of the, what do you call this... the research done previously. Then only
they will... then only they can understand what is statement of the problem. Err... they also cannot
erm... they don't have a problem for the... for the later part of the research paper. It's just basically
the introduction. Especially when it is, like I said just now, SOP and how to actually compare and
contrast the literature review. They can come out with the general purpose. That one is easy - the
research questions with guidance. But their two major problems would be the statement of problem
and the literature review because normally what they do, what they did for their literature review is
basically cut paste, cut paste, cut paste; there's no, how do I say this, there's no flow in their literature
review. Basically that's the major problem for their research paper. The rest okay.
I: Ok. Do you have any suggestions on EAW to improve your students' academic writing skills?
NH: Well, basically, I guess... I guess it's just, it's just too packed, alright. It's just too packed. Maybe if
they could lessen things up, I mean the... the things that you teach in EAW, I think we can achieve
better performance in the students. Right now the students have to come out with this, and that, and
they have to present some more, so it's a lot. So, maybe, what they can do is basically do not have the
presentation, but just have the research paper. That's it. Ok.
I: Ok. Finally, do you have any opinion or comment on EAW?
NH: No, no comment. Basically I've said everything. My... my dissatisfaction is erm... is basically err...
on the time frame given for certain topics in EAW, that's it. Like for example, in-text citation is only
covered in one week. We can't do that in one week. At least in-text citation will take about two... two
353
weeks. Two weeks, the most, if they can increase the time for the classes. One and a half hours -
there's nothing much that you can do. It's a three-hour course, right. So, if they can extend it to
maybe another half an hour, two hour... two hour that I think should be enough to cover in-text
citation. One and half an hour is not enough. But the rest, yes. And maybe more exercises. Especially
when it comes to literature review. Alright. Ok that's it.
I: Ok. So that is all. Thank you very much for your time and cooperation.

Shahrul Basari Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shahrul Basari Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shahrul Basari Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academic Writing in an EAP Course:

A Pragmatic and Critical Approach to Needs Analysis

Shahrul Nizam Bin Mohd Basari

A thesis submitted to satisfy the requirements of the University of

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my sponsor, the Ministry of Higher

Finally, to my parents and individuals who have contributed directly or indirectly

I declare that the work contained within this document is my own,

unless otherwise stated in the body of the text.

2.7.4.1 Rights analysis. .......................................................................................... 86

4.4.2.5 Theme 3: Having a higher level of proficiency in language. .................. 189

Figure 1. The tree of ELT. (Hutchinson & Waters,1987) ........................................ 29

CDA Critical Discourse Analysis

NNS Non-native Speakers

1.2 The Contextual Background

1.2.1 IIUM and English language.

1.2.2 The EAW course.

1.3 Statement of the Problem

1.3.1 Direction and motivation.

The objectives of this course are to produce students who can:

Table 2. An Excerpt of the Weekly Lesson in the EAW Course Outline

Weeks Tasks Learning Hours

• Expressing reasons and explanation

• Expressing development and changes

expressing development and changes). In fact, there is no mention of the

discipline to discipline, from department to department, and even from lecturer to

1.4 Significance of the Study

Figure 1. The tree of ELT. (Hutchinson & Waters,1987)

EOP/EVP EAP Study skills ESP

2.3 Academic Writing in EAP

2.4 EAP: EGAP and ESAP

2.5 EAP: Study Skills, Academic Socialisation and Academic Literacies

Figure 3. Models of student writing in higher education. (Lea & Street,1998, p.

2.5.1 The study skills model.

2.5.2 The academic socialisation model.

Duff (2010) discusses academic socialisation in the context of socialisation in

2.5.3 The academic literacies model.

whereas an autonomous model of literacy suggests that literacy is a

2.6 EAP: Pragmatic and Critical Perspectives

perpetuate externally imposed requirements of the local context” (Benesch, 2001a, p.

practices, in everyday life and emphasizing how access to institutionally valued

2.6.1 Critical EAP: From theories to practice.

Harwood and Hadley’s (2004) proposed alternative to the pedagogy in the

2.7 EAP and Needs Analysis

NA is the systematic collection and analysis of all subjective and objective

Needs viewpoints Definition of needs Related synonyms

10. Means analyses

2.7.3 Prominent models of needs analysis.

2.7.3.1 Communication Needs Processor (CNP) - Munby (1978).

i) Why is the language needed?

ii) How will the language be used?

iii) What will the content areas be?

iv) Who will the learner use the language with?

v) Where will the language be used?

i) Why are the learners taking the course?

ii) How do the learners learn?

iii) What resources are available?

• opportunities for out-of-class activities.

iv) Who are the learners?

v) Where will the ESP course take place?

vi) When will the ESP course take place?