While Petty's (1993) assertion is largely true, he oversimplifies the complex phenomenon of motivation, in which instance one need turn to Atherton (2004) for a more accurate understanding of the mentioned. In further elaboration of the stated, while Petty has correctly identified the centrality of motivation to effective learning, he incorrectly identifies teachers as the primary instigators of motivation.
In essence, Petty (1993:32) lays much, if not all, of the responsibility for the generation of motivation upon teachers whereby he defines this particular task as the "greatest challenge that many teachers face." This is an oversimplification of the phenomenon of motivation, implying that motivation is essentially extrinsic whereby, as noted by Atherton (2004) it is both intrinsic and extrinsic. A teacher, through the enthusiasm with which he/she approaches the information communication responsibility, can similarly enthuse learners and, through the creation of a positive learning environment, characterized by encouragement and trust, can enhance the confidence levels of individual learners, thereby injecting them with the motivation to learn. However, as may be observed, a teacher's motivation-elevation capacities are limited to the extrinsic, while effective learning is predicated on the presence of requisite minimal levels of both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Petty does not admit to the explicated differentiation, rendering his observation only partially accurate.
As language, literacy and numeracy skills vary within the context of an ESOL setting, communication breakdowns, or miscommunication between students and instructor, on the one hand and among students themselves, on the other, are common. One such misunderstanding clarified the extent to which intra-class LLN differentials are problematic and, within that context, substantially raised my LLN awareness levels.
Directly pertaining to LLN skill differentials within an ESOL setting, Andrews and Watmore write that "within any group of students there will be individual differentials affecting the learning of each student" (2002: 92). Only theoretically aware of this, and assuming that the use of language and vocabulary which I presumed to be easy, concomitant with the application of, or abidance by, the established curriculum and guidelines for L2 teaching, would be sufficient, I only lately realised how mistaken I was.
At the end of each of my ESOL classes, I customarily