Bronwen

Page 34 University of Sydney Papers in TESOL
graduates received significantly lower grades than peers completing
the same academic subjects. It is also worth noting that in Terraschke
and Wahid (2013) the group which entered university via a proficiency
test attained better academic results than the onshore pathway group.
In relation to linguistic outcomes, some research reveals the influence
of EL pathway courses on English proficiency, including writing proficiency.
According to Terraschke and Wahid (2013), the students with onshore
pathway training felt more prepared for university writing tasks than
those who entered via a test. For example, the pathway group was more
able to identify specific writing skills, such as required essay structure.
Other research is more skeptical about the contribution of EL
pathway courses to improvements in writing. Green’s (2005) comparison
of pathway learners and candidates taking the IELTS Academic Writing
test found improvements at the lower (e.g. 5) but not the higher (e.g.
6) IELTS score bands. Green (2005, p.58) concluded that, “… for
writing at least, the formula of 1 band in 200 hours of intensive study
cannot be supported”. Dyson (2014) illustrates this point by showing
that essays written by EL pathway students displayed high levels of ‘at
risk’ writing, with risk measured by the Measuring the Academic Skills
of University Students (MASUS) Procedure (Bonanno & Jones, 2007).
By examining EL pathway curriculum, some research uncovers
the importance of discipline-embedding for the teaching of writing.
Benzie (2011) reveals that the pathway expected to pass on a
predictable set of skills whereas the discipline expected students
to engage theoretically with existing knowledge. Furthermore,
by analysing outcomes from pathway curriculum, Counsell (2011)
questions the effectiveness of teaching generic writing strategies,
such as revision. The study found that the ex-pathway students did not
always transfer strategies into discipline-specific writing at university.
In sum, the small body of work on ELICOS fails to reach agreement
regarding outcomes. It suggests, nonetheless, that academic and
language skills are both important outcomes but that they may not be
sufficient, particularly early in students’ university studies. While some
research questions the effectiveness of pathway curriculum, there is
little work on the outcomes of ELICOS Centres’ pedagogical approaches.