An Example of Needs Analysis Implementation into an ESP ...

Master's thesis

ALENA FIALOVÁ

Brno 2021

FAULTY OF ARTS

An Example of Needs

Analysis

Implementation into an

ESP Course

Supervisor: Mgr. Jitka Sedláčková, Ph.D.

Department of English and American Studies

Teaching English Language and Literature for

Secondary Schools

AN EXAMPLE OF NEEDS ANALYSIS IMPLEMENTATION INTO AN ESP COURSE

2

Bibliographic record

Author: Alena Fialová Faculty of Arts Masaryk University Department of English and American Studies

Title of Thesis: An Example of Needs Analysis Implementation into an ESP Course

Degree Programme: Master’s degree programme

Field of Study:

Supervisor: Mgr. Jitka Sedláčková, Ph.D.

Year: 2021

Number of Pages: 97

Keywords: needs, needs analysis, English for Specific Purposes, situation analysis, evaluation


3

Abstract

The qualitative study deals with needs analysis for an ESP course and strives to

answer questions what learners´ needs and the context are, how to incorporate the NA

into the present curriculum and how to evaluate the NA. The target group are 4 adults

and the main method is questionnaire survey. The study demonstrates that NA is part

of a curriculum and it produces changes that are reflected in curriculum as a whole.

The final evaluation shows relatively high level of learners´ satisfaction proving the

main mission of the NA, which was to meet learners´ needs, was fulfilled.


5

Declaration

I hereby declare that this thesis with title An Example of Needs Analysis Implemen-tation into an ESP Course I submit for assessment is entirely my own work and has not been taken from the work of others save to the extent that such work has been

cited and acknowledged within the text of my.

Brno April 29, 2021 ....................................... Alena Fialová


Šablona DP 3.2.2-ARTS-dipl-obor-english (2021-04-29) © 2014, 2016, 2018–2021 Masarykova univerzita 7

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor Mgr. Jitka Sedláčková Ph.D. for her kind help and valuable advice.

.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

9

Table of Contents

List of Tables 11

Glossary 12

1 Introduction 13

2 History and Character of ESP 16

3 Individual Characteristics 19

3.1 Motivation ............................................................................................................................ 19

3.2 Learning Style ..................................................................................................................... 20

3.3 Needs ..................................................................................................................................... 22

4 Needs Analysis 25

4.1 The Notion of NA ............................................................................................................... 25

4.2 Content of NA ...................................................................................................................... 27

4.3 NA Design ............................................................................................................................. 29

4.3.1 Goals of NA ................................................................................................................ 29

4.3.2 Process of NA ............................................................................................................ 31

4.3.3 Context ........................................................................................................................ 32

4.3.4 Sources ........................................................................................................................ 34

4.3.5 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 35

5 Application of NA and Evaluation 39

5.1 Adapting a Textbook ........................................................................................................ 39

5.2 Curriculum and its Evaluation ..................................................................................... 41

6 Research in Needs Analysis 45

7 The Present NA 49

7.1 Research Topic ........................................................................................................................ 49

7.2 Situation Analysis .................................................................................................................. 50

7.3 Process - Preparatory Stage ............................................................................................... 53

7.4 Participants: Class Profile ................................................................................................... 54

TABLE OF CONTENTS

10

7.5 Data Collection ........................................................................................................................ 55

7.6 Method of Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 60

7.7 Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 61

7.8 Implications ............................................................................................................................. 65

7.9 Other Changes in the Curriculum .................................................................................... 70

7.10 Evaluation .............................................................................................................................. 73

7.11 Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 75

8 Conclusion 76

Bibliography 78

Appendix A Questionnaire for the Employer 84

Appendix B Piloting Questionnaire 86

Appendix C Questionnaire for Employees 88

Appendix D Learning Needs Questionnaire 91

Appendix E Piloting Evalution 92

Appendix F Online Evalution 93

Appendix G Analysis of Learning Styles 96

Appendix H Analysis of Evaluation 97

INTRODUCTION

11

List of Tables

Table 1 Results of the placement test .................................................................................... 54

Table 2 Weighted frequency of situations in working setting ..................................... 62

Table 3 Weighted frequency of situations in personal setting .................................... 62

Table 4 Target functions ............................................................................................................. 63

Table 5 Problematic areas ......................................................................................................... 64

Table 6 Preferred class activities ............................................................................................ 65

Table 7 New syllabus ................................................................................................................... 68

INTRODUCTION

12

Glossary

EFL – English as a Foreign Language

ELT – English Language Teaching

EAP – English for Academic Purposes

EOP – English for Occupational Purposes

ESP – English for Specific Purposes

GE – General English

NA – Needs analysis

INTRODUCTION

13

1 Introduction

The very beginning of this study lies in an English lesson, at the moment when a

group of four adult learners expressed their dissatisfaction with the article they read

and worked with. It is not unimportant and pointless to make a remark about the topic

of that article and about the class. The title of the text was “What colour is Dead

Salmon” and it was one of the lessons of a language program funded by an employer, a

private large-size automotive company, and organised by a language school. The 25-

unit course had been running for 7 weeks at that point and its content was based on a

general English textbook.

A discussion was set off and the teacher decided to meet her clients´ needs, which

is one of the basic preconditions of success of such courses. So she decided to apply

some theoretical knowledge and carry out analyses of her clients´ needs with the aim

to meet them. By the way, such analysis should have been conducted also before the

language program was launched.

So demand arose to carry out such analysis with practical outcomes reflecting in

the effectiveness of the language program. However, it was also desirable to take in

consideration all the circumstances and environment, in which the course, which is

still ongoing, is realised.

The description of that real world situation described above has just outlined the

importance of learners´ needs as one of the main characteristics of significant domain

in English teaching and that is English for specific purposes. It is learner-centeredness

and specific needs that are sometimes simplified and narrowed into occupational ori-

ented ones. That will be elaborated further in the chapter about ESP.

ESP started its development about 60 years ago and can boast abundance of liter-

ature, including an international research journal bearing the same name – English for

Specific Purposes.

The central phenomenon of this study, which will be explored qualitatively, is a

process of designing and implementing NA into a curriculum of an ESP course. From

INTRODUCTION

14

history of NA it is obvious that development of needs analysis is connected with focus-

ing on learners and their needs. However, the central phenomenon does not concern

only learners themselves, its conception is much wider and complicated. There enter

interests of various stakeholders and they act along with the context of a language pro-

gram. However, the factors of the context should not be understood as simple con-

straints as the agents from the setting of a language course can work both ways, i.e.

exert both positive and negative influence.

Similarly, the object of NA exploration is complex. It does not include mere learn-

ers´ language needs viewed from the linguistic perspective, i.e. probable language

needs in target situations, but their perceived problems and desires, too. Moreover, it

should allow for individual characteristics as well.

This NA is specific in its timing and small scale. It is administered by the teacher,

which is another feature of ESP language programs.

In general, the process of NA does not only mean getting information about learn-

ers and other stakeholders and the situation, in which a program takes place. Besides

them it involves making decisions and their implementation. Although literature ded-

icated to NA is rich, there is lack of work dealing with not only doing NA and presenting

its findings but about NA itself and its methodology (Long, 2005). So, the purpose of

this qualitative study is to demonstrate designing needs analysis and its implementa-

tion in the form of changed curriculum for a group of four professionals in a language

class financed by their employer. The objective is to describe mechanism of finding out

learners´ needs and their right application in curriculum of an ESP course considering

the context.

It induces following research question: How to carry out and implement NA for a

particular ESP course? This question produces other questions:

What are the learners´ needs and the context of the ESP course?

How to incorporate the NA into the curriculum?

How to evaluate the NA?

INTRODUCTION

15

The study is divided into theoretical and empirical parts. The theoretical part

deals with basic notions centralised around needs analysis and research in NA.

First it looks back at the history of ESP and its close relation to NA. The second

chapter deals with chosen individual learner´s characteristics – motivation, learning

styles and learners´ needs. As the study examines how to implement NA into a course

curriculum, the third chapter is dedicated to NA design, its elements and process. It

provides deeper insight into the concept of NA and various approaches to it. The theo-

retical part is closed by research in NA.

The empirical part follows the NA from setting its goal, through individual steps

in its process to final evaluation. As mentioned above, NA is not a simple concept and

therefore the context and different sources and stakeholders´ views are examined. The

core part is research focused on students. It is described in chapters dedicated to data

collection, their analysis and application of findings. The empirical part is closed with

the course evaluation so that the whole process of NA holds its meaning.

HISTORY AND CHARACTER OF ESP

16

2 History and Character of ESP

The history of NA is inextricably linked with the history of ESP as NA was imple-

mented into teaching languages through ESP movement, which happened in the 60s of

the last century. From then, call for specialized language courses rose along with num-

ber of implemented needs analyses. (Richards, 2017). Hutchinson & Waters (1987)

connect the increase in ESP with changes in society and economy, advances in technol-

ogy and science and also developments in humanities. Progress in linguistics meant

that research started to be more real life-oriented. Creating materials based on real-

world language use was enabled by the discipline called corpus linguistics (Rogers, J.

et al., p. 142). Long (2005) states that it was the knowledge of insufficient character of

intuitions in NA that led to using frequency counts of lexical grammatical features. And

consequently, this have shaped the NA. In the domain of linguistics, Belcher (2006)

adds another prominent feature of ESP and that is knowledge of rhetorical motiva-

tions. In general, from linguistic view, the communicative approach is important for

ESP. Richards & Rodgers (2014) asserts this approach acknowledges functional

model of language, which sees language as means for expressing functional mean-

ings and approaching real-world activities. Richards & Rodgers (2014) also claims

the communicative approach is underpinned by more language theories, particu-

larly by interactional and sociocultural learning theory.

Also, another humanities discipline, educational psychology influenced teaching

English so that it became more oriented to learners´ needs. (Hutchinson & Waters,

1987). The fact the dawn of ESP is connected with efforts to make English language

courses corresponding with learners´ needs confirms Richards (2009) as well. Belcher

(2006), comparing ESP with other educational efforts, comes to the conclusion that

although ESP aims to remedy lacks and problems as well, ESP supposes that the prob-

lems are unique for specific learners and contexts. That leads to the fact that needs are

a base on which all decisions are made and ESP specialists are primarily needs asses-

sors. (Long, 2005, p. 1) notes about learners´ needs following: “Every language course


17

should be considered a course for specific purposes” and continues that only precision

of needs varies significantly – from none or little within small children to detailed in

ESP programs for adults.

Another consequence of the privileged status of needs in ESP is blurred lines be-

tween roles of researchers and teachers and curriculum designers and teachers.

(Belcher, 2006). Similarly, Dudley-Evans & St John (1998) state about positions of ESP

teachers that they are not those who have primary knowledge but those who should

prove understanding of the content and accept a role of collaborators that bear work-

ing closely with experts. The other core roles, besides being teachers of course, include

being a course designer, provider of materials, researcher and evaluator.

Moreover, there are other phenomena interconnected with origins and develop-

ment of NA and ESP. Richards (2017) see emerging NA in its practical form as part of

initial phase of learner-centred philosophy. Belcher (2006) specifies the time aspect

stating that since 1980 ESP specialists have questioned objective information about

learners and that gives ESP learner-centred character. Burçak (2013) asserts about

learner-centred teaching that it “embodies the application of a variety of methods that

place the student at the centre of education. As such, the teacher as a main source of

knowledge shifts to knowledge gained from involvement of students. Rather than, or

in addition to the transfer of knowledge through lectures where students are passive

listeners, active learning through cooperation and collaboration are encouraged to in-

crease students' self-relying capabilities, social and problem-solving skills.“ (p. 140).

This aspect of ESP can be contrasted with rather language-centred character of general

English (GE). For example, Robinson (1980) delineates a general language course ori-

ented for life, culture and literature as a “… course in which the language itself is the

subject matter and the purpose of the course” (p. 6).

Long (2005) associates the roots of NA with accountability. The same view as Long

is held by (Richards, 2001). He states that providing evaluation reports by individuals

and institutions involved in educational programs reflected in an increase in curricu-

lum evaluation importance and thus it had impact on NA that became a necessary part


18

in designing language programs and that meant beginnings of the scientific and sys-

tematic approach to needs analysis activity. About the notion of accountability, Sinclair

(1995) claims that accountability can be perceived as a synonym of responsibility and

continues: „Certainly though, accountability is a more fashionable term which benefits

from the association with the objective and scientific connotations of accounting meth-

odologies“ (p. 221).

Campion (2016) remarks about defining ESP that a lot of researchers make efforts

to delineate and determine ESP contrasting it with GE and gives a row of examples.

Then she continues stating that “Claims such as these are undermined however by a

lack of accompanying exemplification, or definition of what ‘General English’ is being

taken to mean. The terminology is also confusing, with writers variously using ‘General

English’, ‘ELT’ and ‘EFL’. However, if one takes EFL for example, it is not difficult to

think of situations such as Cambridge exam classes, which are very much ‘needs

driven’, ‘high stakes’ for many learners, and purposeful“(p.61).

Nowadays, as Belcher (2006) describes, with growing research and theory, there

exists diversifying and expanding range of purposes. The most known are academic

purposes (EAP) and occupational ones (EOP) that involve business, aviation, law, med-

icine, shipbuilding and even so specific areas as citizenship, literacy, AIDS education,

and others. That implies that ESP is not only aimed at “career aspirations and profes-

sional lives” (Antic & Milosavljevic, p. 69). From this point of view, more apposite def-

inition of ESP learners´ purpose as performing a role is offered by Robinson (1980) or

Richards (2009).

INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS

19

3 Individual Characteristics

3.1 Motivation

Gardener (2010) numbers among aspects of achievements in learning languages

learner´s experience and biological factors, language acquisition context, learning out-

comes and individual differences. Motivation is one of learner´s characteristics besides

language attitudes, language aptitude, learning strategies, intelligence and language

anxiety.

Dörnyei & Ryan (2015) state about motivation that not only is it an impulse for

starting learning second languages, it is also a stimulus to persist it. Furthermore, mo-

tivation is a basic precondition for achievements, especially in the long term. On top of

that, it can offset lacks in other areas, such as learning conditions or language aptitude.

Indisputably, besides intelligence, language learning aptitudes, learning styles, person-

ality and attitudes, motivation is one of individual characteristics that explain differ-

ences in language learning successfulness. Lightbown & Spada (2013) claim that despite

the fact there is no direct evidence of casual relationship between positive attitudes

and good outcomes of language learning, there exists abundant amount of proofs that

positive attitudes and willingness to continue learning are affiliated.

Dörnyei & Ryan (2015) label motivation with attribute changeable and fluctuating

over time both for individuals and groups and claim motivation changes in the long run

but also over such a short time period as a language class. They distinguish pre-actional

stage, actional stage and post-actional stages of motivation.

Lightbown & Spada (2013) discriminate two factors of motivation. The first factor

is learner´s communicative needs creating instrumental motivation and the second is

learners´ attitudes to language community making integrative motivation. From the

point of view of ESP they make an important point: “If learners need to speak the sec-

ond language in a wide range of social situations or to fulfil professional ambitions,

they will perceive the communicative value of the second language and are therefore

likely to be motivated to acquire proficiency in it “(p. 87). This instrumental type of


20

motivation for practical purposes is under certain circumstances better predictor of

success than integrative motivation, which on the other hand proves higher probabil-

ity of success in a long time horizon.

Another division of motivation is to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Dörnyei

(1998) delineates extrinsic motivation as coming from outside, whereas intrinsic mo-

tivation originates in a learner and means studying a language for their own sake. The

latter is important in teaching process since it brings learning profits both in the short

and long run. As motivation does not only have its individual characteristics but is set

in certain social and educational setting, the process of learning language in class ena-

bles a teacher to enhance learners´ motivation.

According to Lightbown & Spada (2013), teacher within a classroom is able to con-

tribute to learners´ motivation by setting challenging yet realistic goals, offering inter-

esting and challenging content, corresponding with their language level and age, and

creating supportive environment. Based on a study conducted by Dörnyei, Guloteaux,

Lightbown & Spada (2013) present four categories of recommendations for teacher´s

work with motivation in class: “1. Teacher discourse: arousing curiosity or attention,

promoting autonomy, stating communicative purpose/utility of activity. 2. Participa-

tion structure: group work/pair work. 3. Activity design: individual competition, group

competition, intellectual challenge, tangible task product. 4. Encouraging positive ret-

rospective self-evaluation and activity design: effective praise, elicitation of self/peer

correction session, class applause” (p. 88).

3.2 Learning Style

Learning style is one of individual characteristics. (Reid, 1995) defines the con-

cept as natural accustomed favoured way of ingesting, processing and keeping new

information and skills. Purpura (2014) refers to learning style as combination of stra-

tegic clustering, learner´s affect, motivation or personality characteristics. Griffiths

(2012, p. 151) claims that the concept has “the potential to greatly enhance learning

and to make learning more enjoyable and successful. It is a concept that acknowledges


21

individual differences rather than seeing all learners as similar. For teachers, it pre-

sents an opportunity to offer students methodologies and materials appropriate to

their own learning style preferences. For learners, it allows them the freedom to learn

in ways which are enjoyable and can help them to become the best that they are capa-

ble of.”

In terms of learning style characteristics, Lightbown & Spada (2013) state it is not

fully examined whether character of learning style is unchanging or can evolve over

time through experience. At the same time, there is a lot of unknown about how learn-

ing style influences success in learning.

Probably the best known division of learning styles is by senses, when learners

are divided into visual, auditory, kinaesthetic and tactile types. Another division is by

cognitive styles. Some learners prefer holistic approach to the learned material, whilst

other focus on detail and tend to separate if from the context. The other three most

acknowledged categories are, according Dörnyei & Ryan (2015): personality-based

learning styles, flexibly stable learning preferences and the last group is represented

by learning styles as approaches, strategies, or orientations.

Lightbown & Spada (2013) conclude that a teacher should support learners to use

all available means that facilitate learning and doubt the idea that a single teaching

method or teaching material will comply with the learners´ needs. At the same time

they asserts it is not practical and possible to accommodate instruction in a class to

learning needs of each student but on the other hand the assumption that one learning

style might deprive students of some learning opportunities.

Purpura (2014) states basically the same claiming that knowledge of learning

styles enables to develop style-based teaching strategies to accommodate learners´

learning styles or alternatively teachers may vary teaching styles in order that all

learners´ learning styles are accommodated some of the time.

Learning styles are closely related to learning strategies as they might determine

learning strategies (Purpura, 2014) but the difference is strategies can be learned and

developed (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015).


22

3.3 Needs

To be able to examine needs analysis, it is essential to grasp the substance and

character of the concept of needs.

Within the context of needs analysis, the domain of needs includes besides needs

based on objective linguistic deficiency also psychological phenomena, such as moti-

vation, wants, desires, demands, expectations and requirements (Richards, 2009).

Needs are wide range and can be seen from the perspective of their content.

Hutchinson & Waters (1987) classify needs into learning needs and target needs.

Learning needs are described as „what the learner needs to do in order to learn“(p. 54).

Graves (2000) maintains learning needs represent the way learners expect to be

taught and their motivation. Target needs, unlike learning ones, are delineated by

Hutchinson & Waters (1987) as “what the learner has to know in order to function

effectively in the target situation” (p. 55). The target needs are further segmented into

necessities, lacks and wans. Graves (2000) describes target needs similarly, that is

they comprise the language needs and for what purpose students need to learn a cer-

tain content. In connection with language needs she mentions overcoming so called

learning gap, which can be defined as the difference between learners´ present lan-

guage abilities and their aimed abilities.

Brown (1995) offers the dichotomy of objective and subjective needs, saying ob-

jective needs are grounded in observable data about the situation, learners and the

language and subjective needs are those, which have to do with expectations, wants

and desires.

Brown (1995) also presents classification of needs into situation needs including

physical, psychological and social context of learning and language needs concerning

target linguistic behaviour. About these categories he points out that although they are

interrelated and the line between them is not always clear, a needs analyst should

make decisions to balance them.

Richards (2009) observes that needs are constructed and also “dependent on

judgement and reflects the interests and values of those making such a judgement” (p.


23

54), which suggests their subjectivity and makes them complex. According to him,

needs can rise from varied subjects, called stakeholders, in other words those who are

involved in needs analysis. They are represented primarily by learners, teachers, fund-

ing bodies, etc. As a result, needs can be divided into categories by the way separate

stakeholders see and perceive them. Bervick (1989, p. 55) elaborates that further, dis-

tinguishing between “felt needs” and “perceived needs”. The first are learners´ and the

latter stakeholders´ ones.

Time aspect provides division of needs into immediate and long-term ones (Rich-

ards, 2009).

As far as needs character is concerned, Graves (2000) describes them as “multi-

faceted and changeable” (p. 98), which suggests their complexity and relation to time

that suggests they are relative in time and depend on timing of needs analysis.

Needs are definitely central for ESP that deals with specific learners´ needs

requiring tailored-to-fit instruction (Belcher, 2006). She names “needs-based” as first

descriptor of ESP and needs assessment counts among “prominent distinguishing fea-

tures” which are essential to the practice of ESP (p. 135). Richards (2009) describing

ESP learners´ needs in terms of performance states that for some ESP, especially for

very special purposes, it is easier to find out about needs, as there is more literature,

and also it is relatively easy to observe the tasks. To illuminate his stance he gives the

example of receptionists. In his view, the fact of being adult learners means that that

they should tend to have more specific reasons for studying English, compared to, for

example teenage learners who study English at secondary school in an ELF context and

for such domains of teaching English NA is not of so much importance (Richards,

2009). Long (2005) asserts basically the same when he compares courses for the most

young children with occupational programs for adults and calls for specifying needs

so that courses are relevant. He asserts it should be applied especially on advanced

courses with specialized instruction. He argues for that claiming the different groups

of learners do not differ only in language and skills required and texts encountered but

also in their roles, practises, beliefs, ways of speaking and cultures. Graves (2000) also


24

supports this saying that needs assessment is an important characteristic of ESP and

adult education courses.

NEEDS ANALYSIS

25

4 Needs Analysis

4.1 The Notion of NA

Needs analysis or needs assessment has accompanied ESP since its beginnings in

1960s.

In the broadest conception, needs analysis can be understood as part of reflective

analysis of practices connected with planning and teaching activities employed in a

language program. (Richards 2009, p. 286). In other words, it is “an integral part of

systematic curriculum building” (Brown, 1995, p. 35). As far its focus is concerned, the

term might be defined as collecting information about learners´ needs (Richards, 2009,

p. 51) though the concept is much wider and complex as will be elaborated bellow.

As a matter of fact, some teachers do needs analysis naturally and informally when

they ask students about their preferences, what they would like to do in class and also

through observation during lessons.

What exactly NA is, that can be viewed from different angles.

Serafini et al. (2015) see NA from the point of view of general learning outcomes,

when they claim that NA ensures “that students will learn precisely what they need”.

A more complex, yet similar perspective, is taken by Macalister (2012), who states that

NA not only determines the content of a course but it also establishes its goal, which

can be identified with target competencies meaning what a learner is able to do in a

target situation. This is with compliance with Richards (2009) who finds NA to be a

basis for a sound educational program and determinant of the nature and linguistic

features of goal activities, in other words goals and content of a language course.

NA is “the systematic collection and analysis of all subjective and objective infor-

mation necessary to define and validate defensible curriculum purposes that satisfy

the language learning requirements of students within the context of particular insti-

tutions that influence the learning and teaching situation.” (Brown, 1995, p. 36) When

a closer look is taken at this Brown´s definition of NA and NA is examined from the

NEEDS ANALYSIS

26

perspective of processes, it may be concluded that NA is a process of collecting and

analysing data. In accordance with this conception, Belcher (2006) sees needs analysis

as foundation for all other decisions. However, Graves (2000) counts making course

decisions among the processes of needs analysis itself.

Graves (2000) also looks at needs analysis in the context of involved parties and

their social interaction, as a set of dialogues between people who are participants of a

learning process. Similarly, Belcher (2006) calls needs analysis “a matter of agreement

and judgement” (p. 137), while learners remain in focus.

In terms of time frame of course development, Malicka et al. (2019) depict NA as

“a crucial first step”. Brown (1995) claims it “is typically conducted in the initial stages

of curriculum development” (p. 24) and adds that ideally it should start curriculum

development. Alternatively, some authors suggest it can be done during a course or

even after a course (Richards, 2009, p.84). Graves (2000) develops the idea and calls

need analysis “systematic and ongoing process” (p. 98) and talks about three time

frames of NA: pre-course, initial and ongoing (p. 110). Each of them has positives and

negatives, for example doing NA can be timed at the beginning of a program but it does

not have to provide desired information because learners, who do not understand the

questions or have not reflexed on them yet or do not want to respond openly. The rea-

son is that the skill of taking responsibility for thinking about one´s needs has to be

developed in some cases. On the plus side might be that needs shape the course from

its origin and signal students´ engaging in dialog with a teacher and decision making

process. The ongoing needs analysis strives to find out where the students are, it means

what their present abilities are and compare that with where they would like to be,

with the aim of adjustments. Graves (2000) advocates: “Any activity associated with

teaching is in some respect a work in progress because it will be transformed by those

involved in it.“, (p. 7)

All the above mentioned points of view and aspects of NA are included in a very

simple but at the same time highly apt definition of NA offered by Long (2005), who

compares needs analysis to a medical diagnosis.

NEEDS ANALYSIS

27

Malicka et al. (2019) , who deal with task-based NA, observe that besides tasks

themselves, NA provides information about content and goals of tasks, the steps taken

in performance of a task, the cognitive operations, communicative procedures, linguis-

tic requirements and the criteria for assessing the acceptable accomplishment.

4.2 Content of NA

The type of information that will be obtained through NA is influenced by the phi-

losophy in the background. Brown (1995) presents four philosophies. The first is the

discrepancy philosophy. In that philosophy a need is a difference between present and

desired performance. The second is democratic philosophy, which prioritizes majority

of the involved group in assessing what needs are. The third is analytic philosophy sup-

posing students should learn next what is based on their present knowledge and what

is next in the hierarchy of language development. The last diagnostic philosophy builds

on needs as lacks in performance that might prove harmful if not removed.

Graves(2000), in accordance with her conception of close relationship between

the course purposes and the purposes of the needs assessment, divides needs assess-

ment information into two basic groups, the first group involving information about

the present (about learners, their proficiency, intercultural competences, interests, at-

titudes and learning preferences) and the other group covering information about

their desired future states (learners´ goals and expectations, then the target situations,

roles, topics and content, skills and tasks they need and language modality).

This difference between the present state and desired target state is called gaps,

e.g. in Richards (2009), Brown (2016) and Belcher (2006) or lacks (Hutchinson &Wa-

ters, 1987). In this context, Brown (2016) emphasises the importance of assessment

of the present state in order not to teach learners already acquired skills.

Graves (2000) presents another dichotomy dividing obtained information into

objective and subjective information. The objective information describe learners,

their language ability and purposes they learn the language for. The other category,

NEEDS ANALYSIS

28

which is important as well and should not be neglected, contains subjective infor-

mation, such as expectations and attitudes. In relation to subjective character of needs,

Chan (2018) underlines the motivation role of learners´ wants and remarks they should

be handled as practicable. Moreover, the partly subjective character of needs means

that they should be consulted and negotiated (Richards, 2009).

Needs assessment sometimes overlaps with language assessment according to

Graves (2000), who explains that language assessment is focused on students abilities

and it can become part of needs analysis, when needs analysis deals with language

ability either through assessing proficiency at the beginning of a language program or

when language needs are diagnosed within ongoing needs assessment.

In some cases, needs analysis includes learning needs and the presence or absence

of learning needs is determined by the goal of needs analysis. For example, if the goal

is to develop tests, the analysis will not encompass learning needs analysis. In the case

the goal is designing or redesigning a course curriculum, learning needs will probably

be involved.

All the above mentioned content of NA can be divided into various categories but

in general covers three areas, according to Hutchinson and Waters (1987): Analysis of

target situation including language aspect of learners´ needs, learning situation analy-

sis (ways of learning and attitudes) and present situation that can be summarized as

SWOT analysis (Richards, 2001).

As a result, NA enables gathering wide variety of information but not all of it

should and can be aimed at. Graves (2000) gives reasons for choosing some and leaving

out other data. These are: the purpose of the course, the teacher´s beliefs or infor-

mation a teacher already knows about learners. Similarly, Richards (2009) makes an

important point, when he states that NA should not burden students and those who

carry it out. He asserts, that only information which can be used should be obtained.

Richards mentions prioritizing for reasons of practicality, feasibility and time frame of

the course. Then he states necessity of determining urgency of needs, too.

NEEDS ANALYSIS

29

To summarize the content of needs analysis, possible information outcome of NA

covers vast categories of language abilities, learning preferences and attitudes and this

content is selected with influence of the purpose of the NA, information already ob-

tained and author´s beliefs. Moreover, the result form of NA is subjected to many con-

straints that comes from various stakeholder views which means that it is not a dis-

covery but a result of consensus.

Richards (2009) adds to the form of NA outcome that it is influenced by users, who

he calls audience.

4.3 NA Design

According to Richards (2009), designing needs analysis is represented by choos-

ing those options which give comprehensive view of learner´s needs and take into con-

sideration involved stakeholders. Graves (2000) summarises it briefly as deciding the

best ways to gather desirable information.

4.3.1 Goals of NA

Indisputably, like in everyday life, the main direction of our doing should be

known and the point we head towards is our goal. The same applies to NA but before

we get to that topic, let us start with reasons of NA before its goals are approached. In

relation to reasons, Long (2005) asserts “language teaching using generic programs

and materials, not designed with particular groups in mind, will be inefficient” (p. 1).

That leads to striving for effectiveness and that indicates economic reasons in the back-

ground of the NA goals, besides other things.

Another phenomenon concerning goals of NA it its purposes. Graves (2000) as-

serts there is a close relationship between the purpose of a course and purpose of

needs assessment. Assuming the purpose of a course is to make progress from a cur-

rent state of language abilities, learning preferences and attitudes towards desired out-

come, then the purpose of needs assessment is to get information about both. However,

NEEDS ANALYSIS

30

the shape of both the present state and the future desired state might change over the

time and that should be considered performing NA. Graves (2000) observes another

function of needs assessment, when she characterizes it as a tool for students “to gain

a sense of ownership and control of their learning” (p. 98). At the same time, NA serves

teachers since it helps to manifest that they care about learners. Above that NA con-

tributes to reconciling different views and in some cases can mean a shift in perceiving

the role of a teacher and role of students. Long (2005) agrees, when he names, among

other outcomes of NA possible rising of awareness of both teachers and learners.

Goals of needs analysis, which should be identified at the beginning of NA, can be

basically viewed either from a general perspective or as particular aims.

In general, goals should be based on perceived difficulties and oriented to the

needed abilities, typical target situations, tasks and transactions with their language

characteristics or others, depending on a type of curriculum (Long 2005). Most au-

thors agree than the purpose of NA is to satisfy learners´ needs and expectations. Rich-

ards (2017) extends the range of goals with stakeholders´ standpoints, context, ascer-

taining learners´ learning styles and respecting individual differences.

Richards (2009) lists wide range of possible goals of particular NAs. For example,

identifying the gap between present learners´ competencies and their desired ones,

evaluation of existing course, redesigning a language program or creating a new one,

developing assessment procedures and others.

Also, the character of a goal of NA depends on the time, it means whether it is

carried out before, at the beginning, during or after finishing a course. The decisions

about goals are influenced by the size of NA as well. There are large-scale NAs, at na-

tional or organizational level or small-scale NA carried within a class. (Richards, 2017).

In any case, the goals should be purposeful and realistic.

NEEDS ANALYSIS

31

4.3.2 Process of NA

There is a variety of ways of doing needs analyses and they depend a great deal

on the type of a syllabus. There are two types of syllabi - synthetic based on linguistic

units and analytic syllabi built around non-linguistic units. (Long 2005)

The process of needs analysis can be described in several steps. The order of some

activities might be slightly different or some stages overlap according to the mentioned

authors but basically they are as follows.

At first, a particular problem is detected. This way the question why the needs

analysis is carried out should be answered. It results in situation in which the main

orientation of needs analysis is known. The goal of needs analysis is set and it might

range from designing a test to designing a language program. At this stage it is im-

portant to prioritize and select the type of information, considering its aiming at the

goal and then, during the whole process of NA, to keep the goal in mind.

The process continues with planning, in fact making decisions about administer-

ing needs analysis, collecting, then processing and analysing data. So, other key deci-

sions are made:

1) who will be involved in NA. Brown (1995) groups together all individuals tak-

ing part in NA, in contrast to Richards (2009). These are:

• the needs analysts (those who conduct the NA)

• the target group (about whom the information will be obtained). Richards

(2009) calls them target population and claims this group determines appro-

priateness of needs assessment activities.

• the resource group (those who will serve as source of information)

• the audience, who Richards (2009) defines as people whom the needs analysis

is intended to. The audience consequently influences the final form of NA.

2) what weaknesses, strengths, opportunities, and threats influence needs anal-

ysis. If the key factors are structured this way, the form is called SWOT analysis

NEEDS ANALYSIS

32

(Richards, 2009). Some authors call this context (Graves, 2000), some envi-

ronment analysis (Nation & Macalister, 2010) or situational analysis (Rich-

ards, 2009). It is obvious that the more information is known the easier de-

ciding is (Graves, 2000).

3) what type of information will be gathered. This decision is primarily affected

by the underlying philosophy. The wide choice of possible data must be lim-

ited so Brown (1995) offers three basic dichotomies for narrowing the scope

of NA. The first is situation needs versus language needs. It must be decided,

which will be preferred or how the two will be balanced. The second dichot-

omy represents directing at objective or subjective needs. The final decision is

made between orientation to linguistic content or learning processes.

4) how the data will be collected. Brown (1995) divides NA questions into 5 ar-

eas: problems, priorities, abilities, attitudes and solutions.

After the data has been collected and interpreted, it should be implemented, it

means practical actions should be built on it. Implementation is necessary as needs

analysis should be seen more as a tool than a target. Graves (2000, p. 100) adds an

extra step of evaluating the effect and effectiveness and then closes the ring because

the last stage is followed with going back, deciding on further or new information

needed and that makes the process cyclical. This corresponds with her approach to

needs analysis as an ongoing process.

This can be compared with Richards (2009) who states that after making decision

on basic things, such as audience, target population, stakeholders, administrators of

needs analysis and sources, there is a stage when data is collected, analysed and inter-

preted. In this model evaluation is missing and the process is linear.

4.3.3 Context

Talking about conditions, in which NA is executed, Nation & Macalister (2010)

employ the term environment and state about its role that grasping the environment

NEEDS ANALYSIS

33

and its possible consequences can help to ensure that the course will be “suitable, prac-

tical and realistic” (p. 5). So, seen from this stance, it can be said that language courses

take place in context that influences planning and executing language programs and

thus also has impact on the success of language programs. Graves (2000) states about

context that it leads to determining challenges and then it mobilizes resources.

In terms of its form, the context according to Graves (2000, p.15) is represented

by information a course designer needs to make decisions and plan the course.

Context constitutes amount of interrelated factors, which Richards (2009) calls

“variables that come into play in a specific situation” (p. 90) and also “key determi-

nants” (p. 90).

These determinants can be viewed, by the manner they influence a language pro-

gram, as either those of immediate impact or those of broader character, like socio-

political ones. To what extent they have impact then depends on character of the pro-

gram, for example if it is funded from public or private sources.

As far as immediate factors are concerned, there is wide range of them and differ-

ent authors pay their attention to different factors. For example Graves (2000) lists

setting the course, the group specification, amount of time and resources and other

constraints.

Talking about constraints, it seems necessary to point out that impact of contex-

tual factors can be both positive and negative. In other words, it is not only about con-

straints, as some factors facilitate reaching goals. It can be summarized that all these

factors, whether they affect directly or indirectly, are interrelated and shape the final

form of NA a great deal.

Determining key facilitators and obstacles and their impact is the aim of situa-

tional analysis (Brown, 1995). With regards to scope of the complex issue of the con-

text, Richards (2009) declares about situation analysis that it complements needs anal-

ysis but also can become a dimension of it. He recognizes social, political, social, eco-

nomic, project and institutional factors. Besides them, a teacher, students and adoption

NEEDS ANALYSIS

34

factors take effect as well (Richards, 2017). Doing situational analysis, various inter-

ests of various subjects should be considered, including their power and interests.

NA is a matter of making choices, as there are so much information students and

other sources can provide. However, because of existing limits, not all can be used. For

example, a long-terms course allows and requires more needs assessment than a short

course taking place once a week. Also, it is highly important to delineate the appropri-

ate amount so that students are not overwhelmed even though they are willing and

responsive. (Richards, 2009)

Making such choices, some factors seem to be very important to consider. They

are: purpose of the course, teacher´s beliefs (how they see effectiveness of different

teaching approaches and methods), information known about the students. (Graves,

2000). She also comes up with a very useful advice recommending that when it is not

possible to act on students´ expectations, it is desirable to say students why. Likewise,

Richards (2009) emphasises the necessity of collecting only this information which

will be actually used.

4.3.4 Sources

Indisputably, the quality of information collected within needs analysis is en-

hanced by using multiple sources. NA should form “cogent and useful picture” (Brown

1995, p. 233) of students needs and therefore should employ a lot of information

sources and study them from different perspectives.

Richards (2009) draws his attention to following sources: samples of students´

performance, opinions of experts, analysis of related literature and textbooks and in-

formation from learners. Long (2005) particularizes experts as applied linguists and

domain experts. When he deals with applied linguists´ intuitions and domain experts´

intuitions, he comes to the conclusion of discrepancy between them. Serafini et al.

(2015) complete the idea declaring that domain experts´ views should be balanced by

applied linguists´ or other ESP educators´ insights as they have better language

knowledge (p. 1). About learners, Long (2005) asserts learners are privileged source

NEEDS ANALYSIS

35

of needs analysis because they “have special rights when it comes to deciding the con-

tent of courses they are to undergo, ideally assessed before classes begin, at their in-

ception and as they proceed.” (p. 26). However, it does not have to mean they are the

best or the only acceptable source which needs analysis can depend on especially as

far as their language needs are concerned. (Long, 2005)

Sources can be divided by more dimensions. Serafini et al. (2015) distinguishes

between insiders, who are in-service learners, and domain experts. The category of

outsiders involves experts with relevant experience for developing procedures and de-

ploying different tools but with the lack of knowledge of relevant needs in discourse

domains.

4.3.5 Methodology

Having evaluated the context and decided on resources, the process of data col-

lection can start. Methodology of NA depends on above mentioned components of con-

text, including time constraints, and many other factors, like the aim of needs analysis.

Brown (1995) lists 3 characteristics of sound information-gathering process. Firstly he

defines reliability as ability to get nearly the same results every time the instrument is

used for the same object. Next, validity is described as the extent to which the instru-

ment measures what is supposed to measure. The last feature is usability examining

how easy it is to administer, score or interpret the data. Macalister (2012) names the

same requirements but the last one calls feasibility and relates it to the target group.

In addition to that, the result form of needs analysis should be understandable both for

teachers and students, time-saving and addressing learners´ needs (Graves, 2000).

There are a lot of ways of gathering data. They can be less formal, e. g. in informal

group discussion at the beginning of a course or meetings of teachers. This method

offers getting amount of information while saving time, but might be subjective and

uneven. Another method, which can be done with lower level of formality, is observa-

tion of learners´ performance. This assessing students´ production is based on both the

NEEDS ANALYSIS

36

content and the way learners carry it out and on top of that it informs about their in-

teraction. Chan (2018) advocates for asking learners about their perceived weak-

nesses, problems and difficulties in cases when it is not possible to observe authentic

learner´s performance.

Needs analysis can be done outside a class or as Graves (2000) suggests it is pos-

sible to integrate needs assessment into a lesson plan, for example as a speaking activ-

ity and rely more on observation. This way does not burden students but on the other

hand, other methods, such as questionnaire, give more systematic view and provide

checkable data. Definitely, the natural way is at least a good supplement of formal as-

sessment.

NA can be direct or indirect and the difference between the two options lies in fact

that whereas the first uses activities aimed at getting specific information, the other

utilizes class activities to get info, for example writing activity. If well prepared, it can

demonstrate, besides learners´ proficiency, problematic areas, needs and expectations.

(Graves, 2000).

Observation can be done also in work environment, when research in the work-

place is conducted to get information about target situations, skills, discourse, or tasks.

This is commented by Chan (2018, p. 29): “In practice many course designers may not

have the time and resources to do this. In such cases, the findings from target situation

analyses conducted in relevant contexts can serve as valuable sources of information“.

Methods of needs analysis differ in their structure – from open ended to closed

structures. Obviously, the latter ones are easier to analyse. Serafini et al. (2015) sug-

gest to utilize open-ended structures first, e.g. unstructured interview or non-partici-

pant observation.

The size of a target groups has impact on both the selection of the method and

might lead to necessity of sampling.

Favourite instruments in needs analysis and ones of most common are question-

naires (Richards, 2009). Long (2005) contends about questionnaires that nowadays

NEEDS ANALYSIS

37

they “constitute the most over-used and over-rated approach to NA at present, espe-

cially when deployed in an unfamiliar domain or alone.” (p. 64). They feature ad-

vantages when used for a big number of respondents since they enable collecting big

amounts of data. Further, questionnaires evince lower probability of being biased,

compared, for example, to interviews. On the other hand, likelihood of their return can

be low and they assume relatively good and particular knowledge on possible answers

(Long, 2005). Another drawback can be incomprehensibility of questions because of

respondents´ insufficient knowledge of language or terminology. They might also

tempt to overload respondents. Questionnaires can be open, or closed. The first group

is comprised of questions which can be answered in a way the respondent chooses,

whereas the second group of given limited number of answers. Using open questions

allows to get wider range of information but they are more time consuming both for

respondents and for interpretation, while close ones can be limiting.

Another method of needs analysis is interview. They do not have to be executed

in the form of a teacher interviewing learners. Also students can interview the teacher

or each other (Graves, 2000). Interviews can range in formality and size from individ-

ual or formal to group or informal discussions. If they are unstructured, their ad-

vantage is depth as they are not limited by pre-determined questions. Such are suitable

for getting basic ideas before using structured interviews. Another manner of using

them is recommended by Richards (2009), who suggests interviews as preliminary

step, before devising a questionnaire because they can give it basic orientation. In op-

posite, extreme cases, they are, as Long (2005) calls them ”oral administrations of a

questionnaire” (p. 37) and further describes them as still keeping advantages of clari-

fying possible misunderstandings, and developing unforeseen answers and ensuring

all items are answered. Additional positive feature is the possibility of their utilizing

for testing speaking or listening skills. However, in general, they might tend to be bi-

ased, containing influencing answers or unintentionally distorting interpretations.

NEEDS ANALYSIS

38

Besides above mentioned methods there exists other instruments, such as those

based on learners´ performance, among which there is language audit, which uses var-

ious types of tests. Some methods are built on the basis of regular learners´ contribu-

tions about study content, progress and plans, for example journals or learning logs

and diaries. They can be structured or unstructured (Graves, 2000). Another beneficial

way of getting data is portfolios, which gather learners´ work based on criteria. Self-

rating is quite frequent method but it is mostly integrated in other methods. Needs

analysis might also utilize ethnographic methods, which are suitable when little is

known about the domain. A good example is study conducted by Macalister (2012),

who used narratives to find out about seamen´s needs in his study. On top of above

mentioned ways of obtaining information about learner´s needs, Serafini et al. (2015)

add in the list expert and non-expert intuitions, too.

Long (2005) maintains that using multiple methods and sources allows to im-

prove the quality of gathered data. “Triangulation can involve comparisons among two

or more different sources, methods, investigators” (p. 28) so there are varied kinds of

triangulation, e. g. triangulation by sources, by methods, etc.

Determining the instrument of NA, it is necessary to consider language of NA as

well and that depends on the level and type of learners.

APPLICATION OF NA AND EVALUATION

39

5 Application of NA and Evaluation

5.1 Adapting a Textbook

Hutchinson and Waters (1987) explicate a syllabus as a document saying what

will or should be learnt and as a basis for testing. Richards (2009) defines syllabus in

the same way using other words. He explains that syllabus is “specification of the con-

tent of a course of instruction and lists what will be taught and tested.”(p. 2). Brown

(1995) complete the definition with order of what will be learned and with rationale

in the organization of the content. He lists following types of syllabi: structural, situa-

tional, topical, functional, notional, skills-based and task based. Structural syllabus is

organized around grammar and phonological structures. Situational syllabus features

using situations as an organizing principle. Similarly, for topical syllabus topics are the

organizing principle, functions for functional, conceptual categories known as notions

for notional, skills for skill-based and tasks for task-based syllabi. However, the pure

types of syllabi are rare. Syllabi are often mixed or there is a leading syllabus and one

or more underlying syllabi. Syllabi are grounded in approaches that Brown (1995)

specifies as “preconceptions, assumptions, and theoretical underpinnings for what

happens in the classroom” (p. 5). He presents classical, grammar-translation, direct,

audiolingual and communicative approaches. The last one is one of typical features of

ESP.

When teachers use textbooks as their primary teaching resource, a textbook be-

comes the basis for the content of lessons and thus functions as a frame for a syllabus.

Although using textbooks brings some disadvantages, it also features wide range of

advantages. Richards (2009) rates among their principal benefits that they provide

structure for the program, help standardize instruction, maintain quality, provide a va-

riety of sources, effective language models and they are visually appealing. On top of

that, books are time-saving for teachers who can concentrate on teaching, rather than

preparing materials.


40

About modern textbooks Hughes (2019) argues they include rich additional re-

sources, including online components, photocopiable materials, audio and video re-

cordings and guides for teachers. Then, it depends on teachers how much they will use

them as sources and to what extent they will supplement them or adapt. Graves (2000)

maintains about adapting a textbook: “The changes stem from your beliefs and under-

standings, your goals and objectives, your students´ needs and the requirements of

your context.” (p. 173)

The process of adapting a textbook can be divided into stages. According to Rich-

ards (2009), the first is analysing a present textbook with regard to its content and its

organization, which altogether imply the type of syllabus. According to Graves (2000),

getting insights in the syllabus content and its organization is based on investigating

items as follows:

• The way content is conceptualized

• The principles of the material organizing

• What the basis for sequencing the units is

• The content of a unit and its objectives and how the content allows to achieve

the objectives

Then, the syllabus can be changed. Richards (2009) describes the process of de-

termining syllabus as two procedures – selection and gradation (p. 4). Selection phase

is represented by choosing language units corresponding with results of needs analy-

sis and gradation developing new ones. Changes can be done at level of activity, unit or

syllabus and at the same time each level involves changes at lower levels. Therefore

Graves (2000) calls the process of adaptations cumulative.

However, any changes of syllabus requires redefining goals of the language pro-

gram. These are “general statements about what must be accomplished in order to at-

tain and satisfy students´ needs “(Brown, 1995, p. 21). And then, the course goal deter-

mines its objectives, which are “precise statements about what content or skills the

students must master in order to attain a particular goal” (Brown, 1995, 21).


41

5.2 Curriculum and its Evaluation

Undoubtedly, curriculum is one of central phenomena of educational process.

Nunan (1989) gives 2 basic views at the concept. He suggests that curriculum can be

viewed as intentions, it means what should happen in class as planned in syllabus,

course objectives and other planning documents. The other perspective is what really

happens in a language classroom.

Richards (2009) defines curriculum as “an overall and interlinked system of ele-

ments” (p. 286). The system involves needs, goals, syllabus, material, teaching, learners

and teachers. Brown (1995) provides an overall perspective stating that curriculum

can be seen as a product or a flexible process, which he characterizes as systematic

development. Its flexibility means adaptation to new conditions and from this point of

view the process of curriculum development is never completed. Brown (1995) counts

among curriculum activities needs analysis, objectives, testing, materials and teaching.

In his conception teaching activities take place at four levels. The first level is repre-

sented by ways of defining what and how the learners need to learn. That is grounded

in the theory in the background called approach. For this case study is central commu-

nicative approach. It includes all four skills approached in a communicative way, which

means learners learn meanings important to them. The communicative approach uses

both inductive and deductive learning and builds on semantics and pragmatics based

on analysis of natural discourse.

In the second category there are styles of organising the program and materials,

and they altogether are called syllabus. Syllabuses are named after their main organiz-

ing principles and are described in the chapter dealing with adapting a textbook.

Ways of teaching and presenting materials fall into the third category called tech-

niques, e. g. discussion or lecture on rules of language.

The last, forth category labelled exercises, covers forms of practising what was

presented and sometimes can overlap with the last but one. However, exercises are

activities usable for assessment, for example multiple choice.


42

Richards (2009) defines methods (or designs) as plans for presenting with speci-

fication of content and roles of learners, teachers and materials. Techniques (also pro-

cedures) by contrast describe what really happens in the class. They involve tactics,

practice exercises, activities.

Brown (1995) also mentions eclecticism, which he defines as “practice (or belief

in) making informed choices among the available approaches, syllabuses, techniques,

and exercises in order to adapt to a particular group of students in a particular situa-

tion for the purposes of most effectively and efficiently helping them to learn lan-

guage.” (p. 17)

Evaluation

Brown (1995) approaches evaluation as the core of the systematic approach to

language curriculum design and “the part of the model that includes, connects and

gives meaning to all the other elements” (p. 217). Richards (2009) states that in the

centre of curriculum evaluation there may be various aspects of curriculum, including

curriculum design, content, classroom processes, materials or people and institutions

involved in curriculum processes.

Detection of a need to improve curriculum produces demand to find out if the

changes are fruitful and if there are ways how to enhance the quality of changes. A tool

to satisfy this demand is a program evaluation, which is according to Brown (1995)

defined as “ongoing process of information gathering, analysis, and synthesis, the en-

tire purpose of which is to constantly improve each element of a curriculum on the

basis of what is known about all of the other elements, separately as well as collec-

tively.” (p. 24)

Specifying program evaluation as ongoing process means it can utilize broad va-

riety of information from different stages of the program ranging from designing its

goal to teaching process.

About timing of evaluation, Graves (2010) states that it can be carried out period-

ically, for example in the middle or the end of a program, at the end of natural units or


43

when an issue emerges. In the case evaluation is done as formative, during process of

developing curriculum, the aim is to modify the curriculum, in other words to retain

effective aspects and leaving out ineffective ones. About formative evaluation she re-

marks that not only assesses effectiveness of the language program and serves as the

basis for possible redesigning but it also enables learners to have their say and influ-

ence their learning. Contrarily, summative evaluation is examining effectiveness of a

program and is carried after its finishing and usually has large-scale consequences.

Richards (2009) states it assess values and worth of curriculum elements. He also adds

to formative and summative evaluation so called illuminative type of evaluation striv-

ing to assess whether and how elements of curricula work. Its primary orientation is

not changing the program but to obtain deeper insights in the course processes.

Evaluation can be realized as a formal or informal process. Richards (2009) dis-

criminates between accountability-oriented and development-oriented evaluation.

The first usually examines a program outcomes and is intended for external subjects.

The latter, on the contrary, is aimed at improving quality of a program.

Evaluation can be done quantitatively or qualitatively. Quantitative evaluation

provide results in figures and might be done through questionnaire (Dudley-Evans and

St John, 1998).

Evaluation might include testing, attendance records, questionnaires, teacher rat-

ings of students, student rating of teachers, classroom observations, case studies, in-

terviews and others. Graves (2000) adds observation, feedback and ranking activities.

That can be lead in various forms, it means individual or group, written or spoken.

According to Brown (1995), evaluation should feature certain qualities. It should

be systematic, site-specific and oriented on the particular curriculum. He distinguishes

4 approaches differing in the point of view taken by evaluators. Product-oriented ap-

proaches are focused on checking whether goals and objectives have been achieved

and a criterion is efficiency. Static-characteristic approaches mean evaluation is car-

ried out to measure also effectiveness but is done by outside experts. Process-oriented

approaches are aimed at curriculum improvement. The name of decision-facilitation


44

approaches prompts that they are focused on helping making decisions but do not em-

ploy judgement.

According to Dudley-Evans and St John (1998) the process of evaluation should

involve its subject matter, employed techniques and sources involved, timing and ways

of analysing the data.

Brown (1995) concludes that “it is best to view evaluation as a never-ending

needs analysis, the goal of which is to constantly refine the ideas gathered in the initial

needs analysis such that the program can do an even better job of meeting those

needs.” (p. 233)

RESEARCH IN NEEDS ANALYSIS

45

6 Research in Needs Analysis

The concept of NA as the central point of ESP has been dealt with in literature for

quite a long time. As a result, there is relatively rich literature dealing with this concept.

While authors, in general, acknowledge the key role of NA, there exists a need to pay

attention to NA itself and especially its methodology (Long, 2005).

Serafini et al. (2015), who deal with NAs in spam of 30 years in various contexts

and show shortcomings and problems, agree with Long (2005) that most studies in

this domain tend to report NA findings rather than discussing their methodology. The

authors divided the period into two parts and described used methodology. Whereas

in the first period between 1984 and 1999 some out of 10 examined studies lacked

even reporting number of respondents, medium, number of items or structure of ques-

tionnaires and interviews, the period between 2000 a 2014, including 23 studies,

proved apparent development to better description of methodology. The improve-

ment reflected in the fact that nearly all studies reported number of respondents,

structure, number of items, length, and medium. Moreover, there was clear shift to-

wards using mixed-methods design, reporting more information on participants and

materials, and higher occurrence of asking in-service respondents rather than pre-ser-

vice ones. But there were still some lacks detected in the domain of pilot-testing, sam-

pling, using methods from inductive to deductive, from open to closed ones and trian-

gulation. In the second part of the study the authors present a needs analysis model

that can be adapted for analyses in different context and they also offer a simple yet

adaptable methodological checklist to guide the practice of conducting needs analyses

for learners with domain-specific second language needs.

Chan (2018) spots another deficiency in the NA research and identifies “paucity

of articles that show not only how needs were identified but also how they were ad-

dressed, which leaves researchers and practitioners in the field with very little infor-

mation about curriculum innovations” (p. 28). A similar view is held by Macalister


46

(2012) pointing out that NA itself is not a target, it should serve its aim, which is that a

target group obtain desired competencies.

Varied spectrum of methods is presented in Long (2005), where 11 studies are

published, some of them from public sector, some from a private or and academic sec-

tor. Most of them use structured methods for large-scale NA and unstructured inter-

views if they are done for small groups. One of the studies by Holmes contains findings

beneficial for this current NA (see below).

Some methodological similarities can be found between the study composed by

Chan (2018) and the present study. Although the NA was a large scale, Chan (2018)

must face similar constraints, namely short time for redesigning syllabus. Therefore,

ongoing NA is conducted even after a course has started. That NA is realised in two

stages. The first stage frames the course and the second fine-tunes it. Chan (2018)

gives a valuable detailed description of stages of research–informed approach to car-

rying out NA and implementing the NA data in the syllabus design.

Also, Malicka et al. (2017) handle the ways how NA information should be exactly

transferred into syllabus design and how tasks should be sequenced. They conclude

that frequent and infrequent tasks are equally important, but the former should appear

in the curriculum before the latter and the same holds true for easy and difficult ones.

Other exploration that appears beneficial to the present study is the work dealing

with designing and administering a needs analysis survey to primary school learners

about EFL learning. In this case study Tzotzou (2014) as a teacher and administrator

conducts a small-scale NA and the NA uses a questionnaire instrument like the present

study. Tzotzou (2014) aims her NA at exploring learners´ attitudes, actual foreign lan-

guage needs and learning preferences from the point of view of topics, activities, and

modes of work in the classroom. Tzotzou (2014) in wide extent utilizes a process -

oriented view on teaching/learning and as she focuses on a general English 5th grade

classroom. Compared to the present study, the content of her study is more directed

to learner´s wants and likes, which is relevant to the age of the group.


47

One of sources of NA is analysing existing literature. From the point of view of this

function, Chan (2018) produces some useful findings about spoken working discourse.

In the first place, it is the conclusion that despite mostly task oriented interaction,

workers aim at establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships and are ori-

ented to relational goals. Therefore spoken business language has a lot in common with

casual language and learners should be aware of or interpersonal aspects of interac-

tions and should focus on domains like purposive vagueness, indirectness or polite-

ness, and they should be showed ways of manifesting it linguistically, using relational

talk, e. g. small talk or humour to moderate conflicts and build rapports. Chan (2018)

recons giving presentations, communicating via telephone or socializing to be common

activities but participating in meetings Chan (2018) classes as key spoken activity at

workplace. About this key activity Chan (2018) remarks: “ learners s with little or no

work experience discovered after working on some business meeting role-plays that

handling conflicts and reaching a compromise in meetings were difficult for them, es-

pecially when the parties concerned had different positions and interests to defend“

(p. 30). About graduate employees as participants of meetings Chan (2018) states that

they prefer participatory way to being engaged in meetings, which reflects in need to

be able to show they are following the discussion and make appropriate comments.

Holmes (2005) holds very close opinions, when she, talking about socio-prag-

matic skills, sees as crucial the ability to manage social interaction in a wide variety of

settings. This requires analysing dimensions, such as function, formality, power and

solidarity. Although, her study is focused on a specific group of recent immigrants and

workers with intellectual disabilities, the findings are applicable across various work-

places. She turns her attention to social talk and small talk and finds about its functions

that: „ It is often used for primarily social functions, expressing friendliness, establish-

ing rapport, and maintaining solidarity among people in the workplace.“ (p. 353). Be-

sides functions, she lists the most common topics of a small talk – weather, ritualized

inquiries about health, free time activities, sport (one of topics, which are not universal


48

in different work settings), complaints about the economy, positive comments on ap-

pearance and one safe topic - work itself. She also discusses factors influencing that

topics, e. g. culture, level of detail or distribution in sense of timing. She emphasises

signification of acquiring socio-pragmatic skills and maintains teachers should provide

opportunities to observe and practise sociolinguistic skills. Holmes offers 2 methods

for this: using soap operas set in workplaces and role-playing. She recommends that

students evaluate watched soap operas. The goal of evaluation is developing skills in

identifying various types of talk and speech functions and accurately interpreting so-

ciolinguistic meaning. So, learners evaluate appropriateness of topics, level of detail,

distribution and functions. And then role-play enables to develop automaticity in

wider range of workplace interactions. She evaluates 3 types of exercises the most use-

ful: practising automatic brief responses, extending small talk and spotting errors. In-

formation from the last two sources proved highly topical for the students, based on

informal observations in lessons.

THE PRESENT NA

49

7 The Present NA

7.1 Research Topic

The needs analysis was done for needs of an English course funded by an em-

ployer. All the details and context are described in situation analysis further in the text.

The necessity of performing the NA arose from the situation when the original

focus of the course was general English but obvious students´ discontent became clear

through informal needs assessment done by a teacher in the form of chats with the

group over initial several weeks. Disagreement between students´ needs and the pre-

sent course was spotted and this became a starting point of the needs analysis and its

subsequent implementation.

A research question was faced: How to carry out and implement needs analysis

for the particular course? This issue elicited other questions:

• What are the learners´ needs and the context?

• How to incorporate the NA into the curriculum?

• How to evaluate the NA?

Thus the goal of the needs analysis emerged and it was to make changes in the

present curriculum so that it satisfies learners´ needs and respects the context and

complies with various stakeholders´ interests.

The NA is grounded mainly in discrepancy philosophy and partly in democratic

philosophy (Brown, 1995). It is primarily focused on linguistic content of target situa-

tions and partly on the teaching process. From the point of view of needs, it addresses

both language and learning needs and objective and subjective needs.

The objectives of the needs analysis are as follows:

• To find out most frequent situations, in which students need English and also

activities they need to participate at work and outside work and focus on lan-

guage problems they face.

• To identify, through appropriate methodology, parts of the currently used

textbook that meet learners´ needs and find those which are missing.

THE PRESENT NA

50

• To incorporate new content into the curriculum considering learners´ prefer-

ences, learning styles and the context.

The NA is based on the assumption that needs specification is necessary in ESP

programs since it helps determine curriculum with regard to learning styles a difficulty

in learning English.

The audience of the needs analysis will be the teacher who teaches and learners

who are taught from the curriculum.

7.2 Situation Analysis

This analysis and its structure is based on Richards (2009). Employer can be con-

sidered to be a societal factor in this case. It is a large enterprise (classification by Eu-

ropean Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003) producing vehicles and doing

business with foreign partners. Its export makes about 75 % of production.

The employer buys language services in the form of a language courses from a

language school where the teacher works. So, the employer fully funds the course and

covers purchase of textbooks, which means employees are not involved in financially.

The course is based on voluntary enrolment and that is open.

The human resources department, on behalf of the company, does not verify re-

ported attendance and there is not any final testing required. The language program is

part of the training system within the company although language courses are strictly

realized outside working hours.

To summarize the findings about the societal factor, support of language educa-

tion in the firm exists but at basic level, more as part of employees´ benefits.

As far as physical setting is concerned, during the pandemic situation instruction

is realized online.

The time frame of the course is limited to 90 minutes a week outside working

hours. The course was planned for 25 units (each 90 minutes). The time devoted par-

ticular parts of syllabus is not set.

THE PRESENT NA

51

Direction of the educational activity was the main theme of the questionnaire (Ap-

pendix A), answered by a human resources worker responsible for language education.

The questionnaire consists from both open and closed questions. The data obtained is

mostly qualitative and is processed qualitatively.

Answers are very general, concerning both the reasons for organising the course

and its possible benefit. The same feature is striking when analysing working situa-

tions in which participants need English and their frequency.

About problems, the HR worker states area of technical English although the re-

quirement from employer was a general English course. Fortunately, the employer ex-

pects improvements in domain of technical English in the long not short term. In the

short run the employer expects autonomous communication in English. Similarly, the

organisation awaits making progress in speaking skill thanks to doing the course but

in the long run in writing on top of that.

So, the direction of the language program is clear and that is communication in

everyday working settings, but it is still too general. In other words, the human re-

sources department has a rough idea of the desired outcome but does not seem to be

deeply interested in language courses they organize and does not negotiate or strive

for measurable educational results with the language courses provider. That has two

consequences. On the one hand it does not ensure proper support but on the other

hand it gives a tutor enough freedom to make decisions.

When the needs analysis is approached as a project, it is observed there is not any

team and the needs analysis is administered by the teacher that is one of typical fea-

tures ESP courses. Methodological support from the school is in the form of adminis-

tering placement tests but the school on the other hand, requires the needs analysis

not to be carried out in class.

The environment in the institution, which provides the language course, is not

supportive and does not encourage changes and their implementation. Instructors

work in isolation and there is no elaborated mechanism of discussing and solving prob-

THE PRESENT NA

52

lems. Staff morale among teachers is not observed as high and teachers are not com-

mitted to the school. As a consequence, textbooks do not have to be the core of lessons

but teachers are not motivated not to base on them. In the institution there is some-

thing which might be called culture of external quality. That means, seen from outside,

that all standard quality criteria are officially met but in fact the quality is not suffi-

ciently monitored and the driving force behind, for the school, is financial. The evi-

dence of that assertion is that the school relies on self-employed teachers, no matter

how much training and experience they have. On the whole, teachers are driven more

by their professional responsibility and their inner motives than incentives from out-

side. On the other side the school provides rich professional support in the form of

webinars and training and sufficient administrative support in the area of organising

work.

In terms of material background, textbooks (some titles) are easily available, a

photocopier, too but no other technologies are afforded (e.g. laptops, tablets).

Teacher is the only administrator of NA. She has master´s degree in economics

and bachelor´s degree in English and is working on master´s degree in English. She has

been teaching English for about twenty years. She believes in learner-centred princi-

ples in language course design and teaching process, in which learners have a voice to

express how and what they should be taught. In terms of theoretical underpinnings,

she inclines to communicative approach acknowledging functional model of lan-

guage and interactional and sociocultural learning theories. The teacher directs her

efforts to teaching students meanings that are perceived as significant to them so that

they are able to express what they need. She is convinced skills should be seen from

communicative angle. She is willing to use deductive and inductive procedures while

teaching and utilize knowledge results of natural discourse semantics. At the level of

presenting techniques or ways of practicing she advocates eclecticism and does not

avoid using elements from other approaches, for example drills from audiolingual ap-

proach or elements from direct approach, for example avoiding using mother language,

THE PRESENT NA

53

especially for more advanced students. She believes in using modern textbooks as lead-

ing material along with extra materials. The reason for that are explained and sup-

ported in the theoretical part of this study.

To summarize the context, although there is not any special support from the com-

pany and the language school, these stakeholders do not hinder any changes of curric-

ulum, only the school requires the needs analysis not to be carried out in class. That

requirement should not be ignored as the teacher is accountable to the school. There

are time and subsequent content constraints. As a result, the course has to be adjusted

quickly, while the course is ongoing. The changed content will be planned for 18 weeks

and will be based partly on the existing textbook English File Intermediate Plus. It is a

type of synthetic syllabus primarily, built around language. The syllabus is partially

organized around the communicative purposes. It uses layered syllabuses operating

under structural syllabus. Underlying syllabuses are topical and skills-based. Language

is the centre of attention although a sociocultural aspect and sociolinguistic aspect are

addressed as well. The textbook is based upon the principles of multilingualism and

multiculturalism.

7.3 Process - Preparatory Stage

As Macalister (2012) claims, unnecessary constituent of NA is assessing present

learners´ level represented by competencies, knowledge, skills and lacks.

Assessing learners´ present level had been done by means of a placement test de-

signed by a course supplier (contracted language school) so part of the NA was carried

out as pre-course activity. Unfortunately, it was not possible to analyse individual ar-

eas as the test done online showed only percentage performance in individual areas.

THE PRESENT NA

54

Table 1 Results of the placement test

Student Total assessment Grammar and vocabulary Read-

ing Listen-

ing

1 B1 - 77 % 70% 80% 80%

2 B1 - 60 % 68% 60% 53%

3 B1 - 60 % 60% 53% 67%

4 B1 - 78 % 72% 93% 67%

The areas assessed were grammar, vocabulary, reading and listening. The test re-

sults indicate homogeneousness of the language level. It was B1 for all respondents,

with value ranging from 60% to 78%.

Some differences occurred in individual categories. The biggest divergences

emerged in reading and listening skills as in both the values fluctuated from 53% to

80%. Areas with the largest individual differences are reading and listening. Learner 1

performs at the same level in all categories, learner 2´s weakness is listening, learner

3 faces difficulties in reading, grammar and lexis, learner 4 is high in all categories and

stand out among others in reading skill.

Then, the employer (funding company) represented by a human resources man-

ager got an open-ended questionnaire (Appendix A) asking for learners´ target compe-

tencies. The aim was to frame the questionnaire for learners and tailor it for the group.

It is detailed in situation analysis.

7.4 Participants: Class Profile

The group consists of 4 in-service professionals – 3 men and 1 woman. For the

purpose of this study, they will be named respondent 1, respondent 2, respondent 3,

respondent 4. They are aged from 26 to 43, all are native Czech speakers. The group is

homogeneous as far as their educational background is concerned. They all are gradu-

ates from technical universities, where they had some courses in English. At work it is

their first course, with the exception of a man who has already had one-year GE course.

THE PRESENT NA

55

The current language program represents one of benefits from their employer. As

mentioned in the situation analysis, they do not pay any fees and the attendance is re-

ported by the teacher but is not verified. They all evince motivation to learn new things,

they are active and so voiced their dissatisfaction with some topics of the course. From

their reaction in class it was obvious they prefer more practical themes, usable primar-

ily for their work but in their private lives, too.

Possible changes in the curriculum offers advantages for the target group and

would be positively accepted by them. The teacher motivated for adoption of changes

as they correspond with her beliefs, and there are no obstacles from the side of the

school or the employer.

7.5 Data Collection

Questionnaire survey

About methods of NA Macalister (2012) claims that besides ensuring validity and

reliability of NA, all the methods used ought to be practical and corresponding with the

target group (p.1).

Based on this conclusion, questionnaire survey was evaluated as the best method

for obtaining both qualitative and quantitative data from student participants. Then, a

semi-structured follow-up interview was utilized to clarify possible ambiguities and

uncover the factors underlying learners´ needs and difficulties. Triangulation by the

source and method was applied in data collection in order to obtain more reliable in-

formation.

There was an array of reasons for this choice. Above all, there were constraints

mentioned in the situational analysis, particularly, it was strict requirement from the

school not to do any the research within instruction. The reasoning was based on the

contract concluded between the school and the funding organization. Moreover, even

though needs analysis can be integrated in the learning process and for example

Graves (2010) recommends it, other methods, e. g. interviews are time consuming and

demanding if they are done in group. Observation method of respondents´ target tasks

THE PRESENT NA

56

was evaluated as unnecessary given the type of syllabus and constraints. Moreover, it

would not have been feasible because of the pandemic restrictions.

Next, specific character of the target group and the context enabled to eliminate

some not very favourable features of the method of questionnaire survey, such as low

rate of returned questionnaires, making efforts persuading respondents, misunder-

stood questions or not fully completed questions.

The questionnaire also became a research instrument because of its simplicity

and willingness of students to pay a limited time to answering questions and sending

the questionnaires back, in other words the method was seen by learners as time effi-

cient. Furthermore, short length of the course did not demand wider extent of areas

covered as they could not have been integrated in the syllabus anyway.

Although some authors e.g. Serafini et al. (2015), Richards (2009) recommend to

do an unstructured interview first and then approach a structured interview or a ques-

tionnaire, in this case a structured questionnaire was the option for a range of reasons.

Primarily, there was some preliminary basic knowledge of the target group and direc-

tion of learners needs, which means there was some sense of appropriate topics,

namely assumptions that students need English at work and also occasionally in their

private lives. This was found out through the questionnaire for the employer and in-

formal group discussion with the learners during the course, so questions could have

been narrowed and tailored for this group.

The questions were presented as open ones with prompts with the intention to

stimulate possible extra answers. Ranking responses from the most important to the

least important was included for some items. Yes/no questions were avoided for there

is discussion among experts whether respondent tend to agree (Long 2005).

The learners´ language level allowed for English as the language of the question-

naire, which was sent via e-mail. There was no need of sampling because of the size of

the group.

The major part of NA was done as ongoing activity, throughout the course.

THE PRESENT NA

57

As Long (2005) argues, pilot-testing NA materials is crucial, particularly in the

case of questionnaire items, to avoid irrelevant questions, doubled questions, overly

complex and technical wording, leading questions, ambiguity, abstractness, and sensi-

tive or threatening questions. After obtaining piloting feedback, problematic target

tasks were identified, and modified as needed.

The questionnaire was piloted in two other groups, altogether 4 persons. The pi-

loting groups were chosen by two factors – both courses were ESP and they were

funded by an employer. The piloting questionnaire was administered via e-mail as

well. The questions were examined according Richards (2009, p. 72), it means whether

the questions are appropriate, unbiased, specific enough and closely related to re-

spondents´ personal experience and respondents will be willing to answer them. The

main aspect was whether questions are needed in the sense of the goal of the needs

analysis, in other words to asses to what extent and in which parts learners´ needs are

met by the current textbook and what is missing.

The outcome of piloting was significant changes that were made (Appendix B and

Appendix C), besides minor changes like more precise wording or paraphrasing the

questions to make them more comprehensible, the questionnaire was largely reduced,

from original 14 to final 9 items.

Major problems occurred for two reasons: either questions were doubled (e. g.

“What situations in English would you like to manage in the future” and “What are your

weaknesses in English”) or students were not able to distinguish little nuances in

meaning. For example “Things I need to be able to do in English” and “Things I wish to

learn in English”.

As a result, some questions were joined in one, some were left out because of their

low informative value, for example, “What are your strengths in English (you are good

at)”. In the end, apart from one question investigating level of formality of transactions

in English, bullets were added to show students a higher number of responses were

expected.

THE PRESENT NA

58

The final form of the questionnaire included 9 questions covering basically two

areas. The first was identification of perceived necessities and wants. It involved target

situations, task and problems in both working and personal life. The other covered

partly learners´ motivation and learning preferences. (see full form in Appendix C)

a) How often do you need English at work?

The question asked about frequency of transactions in English in working setting

and its aim was to verify an assumption based on preliminary knowledge.

b) Name situations in which you need English at work:

This question was oriented to target situations with the aim to identify topics of

new syllabus.

c) Who do you mostly communicate with (colleagues, superiors, subordinates,

business partners, others, …) in these situations?

This question was focused on the level of formality of target transactions and

learners´ roles, which is important for the syllabus, especially for its part of func-

tions.

d) What was the most difficult situation when you needed English (Describe in

detail: 1. what happened, 2. how you reacted, 3. what problems you had to face,

4. how you solved the problem, and others if needed)

This item was designed to identify the most problematic situation faced on the

job and its language characteristics and strategies used. It complements question

9 but focuses on the biggest perceived problem and strategy used to cope with it.

e) Activities I need or wish to be able to do in English at work are:

This question was pointed at perceived needs from the perspective of activities

and aimed at functions.

f) What do you need English outside work for? (in your personal life)

The query was meant to capture learners´ needs and motivation outside work.

g) What activities do you like doing in class?

The aim of this item was to find out preferred activities in class for the reason of

changes in this area.

THE PRESENT NA

59

h) What activities don´t you like doing in class?

This is question 7 vice versa, it means about class activities that should be

avoided.

i) Specify your problems (possible mistakes you make)/state you do not have any

in these domains: vocabulary, writing, grammar, reading, listening, speaking,

pronunciation.

The last question was composed of 7 subcategories. 4 dealt with skills and 3 with

structures, all from the point of view of problems, which should indicate which

spheres deserve enhanced attention and particular problems in these areas.

To sum up, the brief and open nature of the questionnaire allowed to obtain basic

information about particular problems learners had, how they use English, the activi-

ties they need to be able to participate in, all with the aim to assess to what extent and

in which parts learners´ needs are met by the current textbook. Part of the question-

naire was dedicated to learning process.

Follow-up interview

An interview for obtaining information from learners was opted to ensure higher

validity and reliability. Antic and Milosavljevic (2016) claim that „it is believed that

needs analysis should be supplemented by direct communication with the partici-

pants” (p. 70).

In this particular group, the interview proved to be feasible in the form of a com-

plement to the questionnaire. While a questionnaire was quite of general nature, more

specifically focused interview followed up to get more detailed information, deeper in-

sights and fuller understanding.

The language of the interview was English. The interview was structured, with

pre-set categories, questions were mostly open-ended e. g. “What is consultation

claims?”

THE PRESENT NA

60

In terms of its structure, the interview procedure followed the questionnaire an-

swers. When needed, the teacher gave word to a participant and they answered ques-

tions and clarified misunderstood questions or ambiguities. The respondents were

given an opportunity to clarify or state their attitudes more exactly.

Basically, there arose two groups of questions. First category of specifying ques-

tions was used for two areas - situations and activities. Questionnaire answers about

the latter area produced interview questions concerning functions. In other words, the

outcome of the questionnaire was, for the three questions b) and e) and f) a list of all

items mentioned by respondents in the questionnaire and the follow-up interview was

aimed at particularizing them. So, the respondents were asked about unclear items,

using either open questions or closed questions aimed at the purpose of inquiring, for

example a situation, e.g.: Q: “What do you mean by speaking face to face?” A: “Partici-

pating in meetings.”

The other group involved supplementary questions, for example: “What is the ra-

tio of using English in these areas: speaking, reading and writing?”

An affiliated goal of the interview was to demonstrate the process of changing syl-

labus was open for learners´ suggestions.

7.6 Method of Data Analysis

In the NA blend of qualitative and quantitative approaches was used. Descriptive

statistics were employed to depict numbers in a meaningful way.

Most questions produced a set of answers, which were quantitatively processed.

It means that either frequencies of individual answers were simply counted up or each

answer was weighted by its order ( first position answer was assessed with 5 points,

second position with 4 points,…5th position with 1 point) and then the weighted fre-

quencies were added up for each answer. The concerned areas were: frequency of us-

ing English, formality, the most problematic situation, using English outside class, class

activities and problematic areas.

THE PRESENT NA

61

For questions concerning situations and activities, narrowing was needed first. So,

after the questionnaire had produced answers, a list of all answers was made and at

that stage no category was excluded. Consequently, after doing the interview, overlap-

ping categories were clustered into common themes and joined, such as meeting and

call conferences because they are basically the same, except using some special

phrases for communicating online. Then, weight was assigned to each answer and

weighted frequency was found out.

7.7 Findings

Findings are the summary of the questionnaire results and the follow-up inter-

view as they constitute a logical unit.

They are organized in thematic clusters, it means that for example answers to

questions d) and i) are joined because they both deal with problems, although from

different perspectives.

Learners informed the NA in following areas:

Frequency

During informal discussions before the survey it was found out that each respond-

ent needs English at work more than outside work and the questioning revealed fre-

quency ranging from 3 to 7 times a week.

Situations

There were detected 7 most frequent working situations and 4 situations in pri-

vate lives. Given the length of the course, only 9 topics were needed to be detected. 2

situations from private spheres overlapped with working ones (social talk and reading

manuals) so they were incorporated into working ones.

THE PRESENT NA

62

Table 2 Weighted frequency of situations in working setting

Situations Weighted frequency

emails 13

business trip/visitors 10

meetings 9

designs 8

projects 7

tackling problems 7

reports 5

Table 3 Weighted frequency of situations in personal setting

Situation Weighted frequency

travel 24

social talks 11

shopping 7

reading manuals 3

Respondents reported modality of transactions as follows: 35 % of all working

transactions represents speaking, 42,5% writing and 22,5% reading.

Formality

Participants mostly communicate with people at the same level, i.e. they mostly

deal with their business partners, then colleagues. These two groups hold weighted

frequency 17, while communication with their superiors only 3.

THE PRESENT NA

63

Activities

The activities provided basis for target functions that were developed during the

interview. As the most frequent functions were evaluated, with the same weighted

frequency, describing designs, negotiating (with subcategories giving opinions, com-

paring options, agreeing, disagreeing) and reporting. All the found out functions made

a basis for a new part of the syllabus and were supplemented with several others.

Table 4 Target functions

Target functions Weighted frequency

describing designs 9

negotiating conditions 9

writing reports/describing past actions 9

comparing systems 8

explaining how something works 8

agreeing on deadline 7

reminding 5

asking for information 4

explaining a problem 4

promising action 3

asking for help 2

giving project updates 2

asking for advice 1

giving advice 1

changing arrangements for meetings 1

THE PRESENT NA

64

Problems

Answers to the question which asked about the most difficult situation respond-

ents had to face provided following information: understanding spoken word was

mentioned twice, technical vocabulary proved the same frequency, explaining a tech-

nical problem occurred once and ordering words to make understandable sentence

once as well.

The results are in accordance with detecting problematic areas.

Table 5 Problematic areas

Problematic area Frequency

grammar 3

listening 3

vocabulary 2

writing 1

speaking 1

pronunciation 1

reading 0

For some areas, respondents gave more particular information. For grammar it

was verb tenses (mentioned twice) and once general grammar rules. For listening re-

spondents made reference to accents, speed and catching main ideas, for speaking fast

reactions and fluency, in the area of pronunciation it was word pronunciation.

Class activities

Answers to questions concerning in class activities showed what learners prefer

to do in instruction and what should be avoided.

THE PRESENT NA

65

Table 6 Preferred class activities

Preferred class activities Weighted frequency

conversation on casual topics 19

quizzes and games 9

group work 8

vocabulary exercise 7

listening exercises 3

watching videos 3

When respondents were asked about unpopular class activities, they expressed

rare agreement mentioning only two. In the first place those were uninteresting or

impractical parts of the present textbook, followed with grammar. However, they at

the same time acknowledged it is important and they conveyed it should be presented

in context.

7.8 Implications

For application of NA, there exist some generally accepted rules but also practical

limits. The extent of changes depends on the fact whether the basis is large-scale NA

done by a team of specialists and its aim is to create new materials or the ground is a

small-scale NA carried by a teacher, and that was the case.

Since the goal of the present NA was to adjust and modify existing course, it was

necessary to set, in the light of information obtained from the learners and knowledge

of the context, a new goal of the course, which would form its syllabus:

THE PRESENT NA

66

By the end of the course students will have developed basic transferable commu-

nication skills for use in their everyday work interaction and will be able to react in the

most common situations in context outside work.

This goal comprised objectives:

1. The students will have become more aware of functions and structures they

need.

2. The students will obtain understanding of how they can improve their skills.

3. The students will learn how to write effective business emails and reports for

use in their work.

The crucial issue resulting from the needs analysis was that primarily, it had to be

decided about the basic orientation of the syllabus change. Here the teacher decided in

the spirit of what Serafini et al. (p. 3) claim in their study about ESP teachers and ap-

plied linguists, which is that they „are usually more useful than domain experts when

analysing the language involved in the target tasks.”

Basically there were two possible directions - focusing on technical or business

English. Two factors decided the dilemma. Firstly, in the domain of situations and func-

tions, occurrence those from the domain of BE prevailed. It was given by the orienta-

tion to everyday working communication, which is similar across different workplaces

and industries. Secondly, there was not a requirement of improving technical English

knowledge for the program since that was only defined in a long time horizon. Above

that, there were constraints from the side of the teacher with no experience in that

domain. So, BE was opted for and technical E became part mainly of the last topic but

preparation for that became content of ongoing self-study.

A digital document was shared with the learners and they were invited to create

and contribute to individual sectors. In the same file a technical dictionary was pub-

lished. Interestingly, the dictionary was available in the company but students either

did not know about it or had not made any efforts to search it. It implied a need to

persuade the learners to believe that “their desirable outcome would not be realized

without a significant rise marked rise in exerted effort“ (Dörnyei & Ryan 2015, p. 92).

THE PRESENT NA

67

This way the lack of technical vocabulary was used to motivate learners and demon-

strate how they can take responsibility for their learning success.

The teacher in this case, in view of the context, is not a creator of teaching materi-

als but aims to be a provider of good materials (Richards, 2009, p. 260)

In the given context, it was desirable to make use of the present textbook covered

by the employer. Analysis of the present textbook showed that its organizing principle

is grammar and topics associated with vocabulary, pronunciation speaking, listening,

reading writing and communicative functions (in a small extent). It was decided to

keep the grammar skeleton and partly change topics and adjust structures.

As a result, the changes were made at unit level, when some items of the syllabus

were deleted. The frame remained in the form of grammar content and from this as-

pect, the order of content remained the same. The reason was desirable order of pro-

cedures from most frequent and simpler to less frequent and more difficult (Malicka et

al., 2017). Some other areas were left, modified or extended, with respect to the NA

findings. The changes are demonstrated in the following table showing a new syllabus.

THE PRESENT NA

68

Table 7 New syllabus

TOPIC/SITUATION GRAMMAR VOCABULARY FUNCTIONS

HOLIDAY/TRAVELLING

BY PLANE Present tenses Air travel

Arranging travel

Reporting lost luggage

SHOPPING/SHOPPING

ONLINE Possessives Shopping

Checking on an order,

complaining,

reminding.

REPORTS/EMAILS Past tenses

Time prepositions

Past trends

(writing reports)

Describing past actions

summarizing,

promising actions

SYSTEMS Place prepositions System functioning

Describing designs,

explaining how things

work, comparing

systems, describing a

process

MEETIGS/SMALL TALK Future forms Planning meetings

Asking for information,

stating a preference,

changing

arrangements.

TACKLING

PROBLEMS/NEGOTIATING 1st/2nd conditional

Changing

arrangements

Giving opinion,

explaining a problem,

giving options,

responding, agreeing,

disagreeing,

PROJECTS Present perfect

simple

Projects

Time expressions

Asking for/giving

update, asking for help,

offering/declining to

do something

BUSINESS TRIP/VISITOR

Obligation,

necessity,

prohibition, advice

Business travel

Giving advice/asking

for advice, welcoming,

explaining the

programme, ending a

conversation.

PRODUCT/DESIGNES Can, could, be able

to

Dimensions,

materials, adjectives

describing products

Asking about and

diagnosing a problem,

explaining the

problem, changing

solution.

With regard to scheduled number of learning units, which was 25 in total, and the

fact that the NA was carried out during the course, approximately at the end of its first

quarter, the new syllabus was organised into 8 thematic units. Each unit was planned

THE PRESENT NA

69

for 2 sessions in the length of 90 minutes. 1 session is planned for revision. Its planned

form is a criterion-referenced test including speaking, listening and writing on topics

from the syllabus. The intention is to measure how much of the learned material learn-

ers managed to learn and are able to use. Although it is not demanded by the employer,

final revision through test will provide the course with a sense of and control and head-

ing to achievements.

Summary

Respondents use English more often for work then outside working settings,

which means work situations are more important for them and this is in compliance

with results of the situation analysis, or more precisely, the employer´s interests.

Most transactions at work take place at middle level of formality or are informal

and that should be reflected mainly in functions.

Grammar is acknowledged as problematic area, but it has to be taught in context

and in an interesting way showing practical use. Analysing mistakes the learners make

in reports and mails seems to be a good idea for instruction.

Listening, along with speaking makes 35% of transactions in English at work and

at the same time is by students evaluated as the top-level problematic. As a conse-

quence it should be practised, employing natural recordings because respondents

mentioned problems with speed and noise. Next, some exercises should be focused on

catching main ideas only.

Vocabulary is perceived as very problematic. It should be focused, in accordance

with topics, on technical English. For this purpose, also a textbook for technicians will

be used. Students will have a chance to keep the record of vocabulary.

Writing represents 35% of transactions in English and therefore should not be

neglected. The main focus will be emails and reports. A phrases bank with usual

phrases of different level of formality will be created and authentic material the re-

spondents handle at work will be used.

THE PRESENT NA

70

Speaking is not perceived as such a problem because the learners speak often but

mentioned problems were those with fast reactions and fluency. So the instruction

should teach students about social functions of communication at work and involve

strategies and aids, such as phrases for obtaining time, using nonverbal means, con-

nectors facilitating cohesion and the like. Conversation about common topic is needed

and desired but has to be planned and managed.

Despite the fact reading represents 22, 5 % of their activities in English, the re-

spondents did not reported any problems in this area so it can become part of other

activities in class.

Pronunciation will be part of syllabus as it is included in the original syllabus and

because although this area was not perceived as problematic, it might be one of many

possible reasons for difficulties with listening.

7.9 Other Changes in the Curriculum

Although the questionnaire and the follow-up interview gave an answer to the

question what to teach, they gave only a rough idea how to do it, in section dealing with

class activities. It meant that also learning styles, describing preferred and efficient

ways of individuals´ learning had to be examined. Griffiths (2012) advocates the con-

cept of learning style claiming that it has power “to greatly enhance learning and to

make learning more enjoyable and successful“ (p. 151). Then he continues saying that

it acknowledges learners´ individual differences and mentions impact both on teachers

and learners. For educators it is opportunity to offer appropriate teaching materials

and methodologies according preferred learning styles and for students it enables to

learn in enjoyable ways and use their potential.

For this purpose, a learning style questionnaire was administered to students. The

questionnaire is based on Learning Style Survey by Mikk et al. (2009). However, it was

significantly adapted in the sense of picking only questions that can directly influence

instruction. Some constraints were imposed by the online form of tuition, especially

the area of learning through complete body experience and hands-on approach to

THE PRESENT NA

71

learning. For example, a question “If I have a choice between sitting and standing, I’d

rather stand“ was preferentially excluded.

Moreover, the extent was subordinated to appropriateness and acceptability for

students, which resulted in extent of 20 simple questions (Appendix D). Analysing the

answers produced a table summarizing answers, their averages and ranges including

extremes (Appendix G).

Results

The results are presented both with average and extreme values as the instruction

should correspond with majority but respect individuality.

The first focus was about using physical senses. This group involved questions 1

to 8.

It resulted, from the responses to questions 1 and 4, that the learners rather do

not need visual input which implies audio recordings are sufficient. As a group, they

prefer verbal written tasks and at the same time using colour coding ranges from “not

often” to “often”. It follows it is suitable to share a screen or type tasks in the chat and

use different colours for writing during classes. Charts, diagrams, and maps help learn-

ers understand what someone says “very often”, so these visual aids should be used

along with spoken word. Music should be used as background only exceptionally and

two of the learners often need frequent breaks, which should be reflected in breaking

activities into smaller portions, making breaks and not leaving learners in chat rooms

for long.

Answers to questions 9 and 11 dealing with ways of exposing to learning situa-

tions were in agreement. The respondents “sometimes” prefer individual or one-on-

one games and activities and two of them “always“ and one “often” tend to keep silent

when in a large group. From this point of view, pair work seems to be a good alternative

of group work.

When it came to how literally the students take reality (questions 10 and 20), they

all answered that learning things through metaphors and associations with other

things, using stories and examples “sometimes” help them learn language. Only one

THE PRESENT NA

72

respondent once answered “often”. It means that it is acceptable both to apply meta-

phors and teach the language as it appears.

Answers to questions 12, 13 and 14, examining how the learners handle possibil-

ities, showed that it is more appropriate to opt deductive type of instruction, when

students get explicit rule-based instruction, for example when explaining grammar be-

cause they do not prefer discovering things themselves. Mostly average occurrence of

adding original ideas during class discussions means that abstract thinking and specu-

lations are not a problem but on the other hand, should not be used too often. All re-

spondents “often” prefer things presented in a step-by-step manner, which means they

prefer one-step-at-a-time activities, and want to know where they are going in their

learning at every moment.

In the question 15 about dealing with ambiguity and asking about whether they

worry about comprehending everything, the answers differed a great deal. That means

both explicit directions and discovery learning are acceptable and should be used in

turns.

Question 16 and 17 are about ways of receiving information. It follows that they

are not very good at catching new phrases or words when they hear them and that

corresponds with the findings in the opening part of this analysis. The learners quite

enjoy activities where they fill in the blank with missing words they hear so this activ-

ity is usable in class.

The answer 18 about processing information shows unequivocally they are syn-

thetizing persons, being able to summarize material well, enjoying guessing meanings

and predicting outcomes, and noticing similarities quickly.

The learners as a group rather need to think things through before speaking or

writing and that should be taken into consideration that it is important to give them

enough time for preparation.

Although the assumption to use a single approach to class instruction is not con-

sidered to be the right one, (see chapter Learning styles), the really small number of

students in the class enabled, in some cases using a unified method.

THE PRESENT NA

73

7.10 Evaluation

The present evaluation was done during teaching phase, particularly at the begin-

ning of last third of the course. The process-oriented character of the evaluation en-

deavoured to understand whether the program had been successful to that point of

time. The evaluation was focused on the course, or more precisely on its parts. The core

one was the NA which reflected in other parts of the curriculum. The focus point was

answering the question of how effective or to which extent the original learners´ needs

corresponded with the reality so the basic question is whether the NA succeeded in

identification learners´ needs.

The evaluation is carried out as primarily illuminative with the aim to get insights

in how the curriculum parts work. It is focused on learners´ interpretations of the

course.

The evaluation is done internally and internally motivated. As the method was se-

lected a brief questionnaire survey. The process of data collecting was realized through

an anonymous questionnaire to get more sincere responses. The questionnaire was

structured, with statements with scale judgmental ratings, i.e. qualitative data ws col-

lected. The method of analysing was quantitative.

The questionnaire (Appendix F) was framed with the course goal and objectives.

The evaluation was tailored for this program. Its items are concentrating on the parts

of the syllabus influenced by the NA, it means the content and teaching process, in or-

der to obtain only relevant information.

As the NA was focused on linguistic characteristics of target situations, problems

and learning needs, the evaluation examined the same areas. Preferred were problem-

atic ideas.

Results

The questionnaire was drawn up to check the NA. First it was piloted in two other

courses (identical with piloting for the NA questionnaire survey). Respondents were

asked to answer 17 questions (Appendix E) and evaluate them with marking, like at

THE PRESENT NA

74

school and besides, they were asked to give their feedback on comprehensibility of the

questions.

The first piloting revealed 3 questions were not understood (usefulness of func-

tions, communication strategies and getting information how to improve skills). After

the first piloting the item about improving skills was excluded because it overlapped

with questions concerning individual skills. The other two problematic questions were

completed with examples.

After the second piloting, the questions about communication strategies was de-

leted as students were not able to understand it. Another aspect they complained about

was the scale that was reported as “giving little space for choice” therefore the original

scale 1-5 was replaced with percentage rating 1-100%.

Then the students were asked to fill in the simple online questionnaire (Appendix

F).

The results of the final questionnaire are summed up in Appendix H. They show

following:

The choice of topics and satisfaction with learned language functions is high.

Slightly worse is assessed meeting learners problems. There might be two reasons: the

course has not finished yet, so all the problems could not be handled. Another reason

might lie in poor specification of problems in the NA. Improvements in individual skills

were evaluated quite well, except listening. From the sphere classroom processes the

planning and organisation proved lower level of satisfaction. That might have been

caused by technical problems with online teaching. Surprisingly, the lowest satisfac-

tion was with the pace of work.

To sum up the results, primarily it should be noted that the questionnaire was

anonymous so there was no point in analysing responses of individuals. In total, class-

room processes should be worked on. The dissatisfaction with the pace should be ex-

amined further. In terms of the NA, there are two implications. The NA should have

been more specific about learners´ problems and learning needs should be examined

in more detail in the future.

THE PRESENT NA

75

To sum up, the results are overall at a good level although area of class processes

proves slightly worse evaluation. Anyway, this feedback should be a kind of food for

thought for the teacher.

7.11 Limitations

The needs analysis is focused on language needs and learning needs and only in a

small scale on motivation.

Basically there are two reasons for that. Firstly, the teacher´s experience with ESP

learners in the domain of motivation is that they prove high level of motivation in gen-

eral. That can be influenced by many factors. They are mature, make decisions for

themselves, see practical application of their efforts and goals seem to be more achiev-

able to them. Particularly in this course, the teacher had been able to observe enthusi-

asm among the students before conducting the NA. They expressed their interest, par-

ticipated actively, did their homework. Secondly, this is supported by the theory saying

motivation of adults is different from young learners and children, with prevailing in-

trinsic motivation. The ESP character of the course assumes also instrumental motiva-

tion with the learners and that should contribute the learners´ success. The evidence

of the above mentioned motivation factors is the character of the language program,

which is intended as benefit more than obligation and participation in it is voluntary.

Another possible improvement is that the questionnaire, in regards to limitations

given by the context, could have been even simplified. The questionnaire offered learn-

ers open questions in expectation they will be creative and devise more items. How-

ever they either do not have enough knowledge, do not have space to think about these

matters or simply are under time stress. So as contribution for a potential next use it

would be better first plan the extended frame for the course and then ask learners

about their views, with the option of bringing up new ideas. Also, if there were not the

context constraints, the learner´s style survey would be used in full extent and incor-

porated in instruction.

CONCLUSION

76

8 Conclusion

An impulse for the study was the desire to satisfy articulated needs of learners in

an ESP course. So it was decided to meet their needs through NA. Its goal was make

changes in existing curriculum.

The objective of the study became describing mechanism of detecting learners´

needs and their right application in an ESP course considering the context. That pro-

voked the basic question: How to carry out and implement needs analysis for this

course? The response lies in answering other questions.

The first is: What are the learners´ needs and the context in this ESP course? The

learners´ needs were found out using instruments of a questionnaire and a follow-up

interview. Learners´ needs were examined in two basic areas: their language and

learning needs. For the first area were two sources selected – a representative of the

learners´ employer and the learners. Their needs were identified as changing topics

towards predominantly working ones, adding some language functions and meeting

their problems in varied language areas. Learning needs were reflected in form of

changes in teaching process. The context shaping the NA was dealt with in the situation

analysis that explored the environment of the course including all parties involved.

The next research question was: How to incorporate the NA into the curriculum?

That was done based on an analysis of the present syllabus of the course and grounded

in philosophy and approaches to teaching and learning which are accepted by the

teacher and acceptable for the learners. Necessary step involved in the process was

setting a new course goal. Then the syllabus was changed and set of recommendations

started being incorporated into the course.

The last question was: How to evaluate the NA? That provoked creation of a ques-

tionnaire illuminating to what extent the NA was successful, seen from the learners´

perspectives.

The study demonstrated that NA is not a goal but part of a curriculum and has

character producing changes that are reflected in a course as a whole.

CONCLUSION

77

The final evaluation showed a relatively high level of learners´ satisfaction prov-

ing the main mission of NA, which was to get closer to learners´ needs, was fulfilled, at

least in terms of subjective needs. Besides, there are still some items that can be im-

proved as the course is still running, for example to alter the pace of the instruction.

Surprisingly, although there were some limitations from the side of employer at

the beginning of the research, interesting experience was how students demonstrated

responsiveness during the NA process. Informal observations and talks in the class

proved that even showing willingness to make changes in curriculum and discussing it

with students enhances their interest and brings more active role and that is in accord-

ance with findings in the theoretical part of the study.

The NA was conducted in the ESP adult course but if the NA was applied at a sec-

ondary school, it would have to be more focused on students´ motivation. It stems from

the fact that needs and motivation with young learners are different. Irrespective of

the instrument used, it would be based on content of a present textbook directly and

the process of collecting data would be involved in instruction as it is recommended in

literature.

CONCLUSION

78

Bibliography

Antic, Z., & Milosavljevic, N. (2016). Some suggestions for modelling a contemporary medical English course design based on need analysis. Lingua, 184, 69-78. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2016.06.002

Belcher, D. D. (2006). English for Specific Purposes: Teaching to Perceived Needs and Imagined Futures in Worlds of Work, Study, and Everyday Life. Teachers of Eng-lish to Speakers of Other Languages, 40, 133 – 156. doi:10.2307/40264514

Berwick, R. (1989). Needs assessment in language programming: from theory to prac-tice. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.). The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum. A systematic Approach to Program Development. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.

Brown, J. D. (2016). Introducing Needs Analysis and English for Specific Purposes. Ox-ford: Routledge.

Burçak A. (2014) User-centered design through learner-centered instruction. Teach-ing in Higher Education, 19:2, 138-155, doi:10.1080/13562517.2013.827646

Campion, G. C. (2016). ‘The learning never ends’: Exploring teachers’ views on the transition from General English to EAP. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23,59-70. doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.06.003

Chan, C. S. C. (2018). Proposing and illustrating a research-informed approach to cur-riculum development for specific topics in business English. English for Specific Purposes, 52, 27-46. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2018.07.001

Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31, 117-135.

Dörnyei, Z. & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Dudley-Evans, T. & St John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for Specific Purposes: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach. Cambridge UP: Cambridge.

Gardener, R. C. (2010). Motivation and second language acquisition: socio educational model. New York, Robert Lang.

Graves, K. (2000). Designing language courses: A guide for teachers. Boston: Heinle.

https://doi-org.ezproxy.muni.cz/10.1080/13562517.2013.827646

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.06.003

CONCLUSION

79

Griffiths, C. (2012). Learning styles: Traversing the quagmire. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning: Insights from theory, re-search and practice (p. 151–168). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Holmes, J. (2005). When small talk is a big deal: sociolinguistic challenges in the workplace. In Michael H. Long (ed.) Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.344-371

Hughes, S. H. (2019). Coursebooks: Is there more than meets the eye?, ELT Journal, (p. 447-455), 4, doi-org.ezproxy.muni.cz/10.1093/elt/ccz040

Hutchinson, T & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes: A learning-centred Approach. Cambridge UP: Cambridge.

Lightbown, P. M. & Spada N. (2013). How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Long, M. (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Macalister, J. (2012). Narrative frames and needs analysis. System, 40(1), 120-128. doi:10.1016/j.system.2012.01.010

Makk, S. H. (2019). Analyzing the needs of EFL/ESL learners in developing academic presentation competence. RELC Journal, doi:10.1177/0033688219879514

Malicka, A., Gilabert Guerrero, R. & Norris, J. M. (2019). From needs analysis to task de-sign: Insights from an English for specific purposes context. Language Teaching Re-search, 23(1), 78-106. doi:10.1177/1362168817714278

Mikk K., Cohen B. & Paige, A.D. (2009) “Learning style survey: Assessing your own learning style”. https://carla.umn.edu/maxsa/documents/LearningStyleSur-vey_MAXSA.pdf

Nunan, D. (1989). Toward a Collaborative Approach to Curriculum Development: A Case Study. TESOL Quarterly, 23(1), 9-25. doi:10.2307/3587505

Purpura, J. (2014). Language learner styles and strategies. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. Brin-ton, & A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (4th ed.). (532-549). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning.

Reid, J. (1995). Learning styles in ESL/EFL classroom. New York: Heinle and Heinle.

Richards, J.C. (2009). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge UP: Cambridge.

CONCLUSION

80

Richards, J. C. (2017). Curriculum development in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cam-bridge University Press.

Robinson, P. (1980). English for Specific Purposes. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rogers, J. & et al. (2021). The creation and application of a large-scale corpus-based academic multi-word unit list. English for Specific Purposes, 62, 142-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.01.001.

Serafini, E. J., Lake, J. B., & Long, M. H. (2015). Needs analysis for specialized learner populations: Essential methodological improvements. English for Specific Pur-poses, 40, 11-26. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2015.05.002

Sinclair, A. (1995). The chameleon of accountability: Forms and discourses. Account-ing, Organizations and Society. 20, 219-237. doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(93)E0003-Y.

Švaříček, R. & Šeďová, K. (2007). Kvalitativní výzkum v pedagogických vědách. Praha: Portál.

Tzotzou, M. (2014). Designing and Administering a Needs Analysis Survey to Primary School Learners about EFL learning: a Case Study. Preschool & Primary Education (PPEJ).2, 59-82. DOI:10.12681/ppej.62

Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles: SAGE.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.01.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.12681/ppej.62

CONCLUSION

81

Resumé The purpose of this qualitative case study was to demonstrate designing needs

analysis and its implementation for a small group of professionals in a language class

financed by their employer. The central phenomenon of the study was a process of de-

signing and implementing NA into an ESP course. The main research question was:

How to carry out and implement NA for a particular ESP course? The study strived also

to answer other questions: what learners´ needs and the context were, how to incor-

porate the NA into parts of the present curriculum and how to evaluate the NA.

The study also briefly described history of ESP, its characteristics and its close re-

lation to NA. Chosen individual learner´s characteristics – motivation, learning styles

and learners´ needs were depicted, too. One part was dedicated to NA content, its char-

acteristics, elements and processes of NA design. Also, research in NA was included.

The empirical part followed the NA from setting its goal, through individual steps

of its process to final evaluation. The core part was the research focused on the stu-

dents. That was described in chapters dedicated to data collection, their analysis and

application of findings. The empirical part was closed with the course evaluation.

The target group were 4 adults, and the main methods were questionnaire survey and

a follow-up interview. The questionnaire was used for two sources - the students and

a representative of the employer. The NA included situation analysis that explored the

environment of the course and all parties involved. Necessary step involved in the

process was setting a new course goal. Then the syllabus, based on a textbook was

changed, that was done on the basis of an analysis of the present syllabus of the course

and grounded in philosophy and approaches to teaching and learning which were ac-

cepted by the teacher and acceptable for the learners. Then a set of recommendations

started being incorporated into teaching activities. That provoked creation of a ques-

tionnaire illuminating to what extent the NA was successful, seen from the learners´

perspectives. The evaluation proved the main mission of NA, which was to get closer

to learners´ needs, was fulfilled, at least in terms of subjective needs. There were still

some items that could be improved because the course was still ongoing at the moment

CONCLUSION

82

of finishing the study. If the NA were applied at a secondary school, it would be more

focused on students´ motivation that is different with young learners. It would be

based on content of a present textbook directly and the process of collecting data

would be involved in instruction as it is recommended in literature.

RESUMÉ

Účelem této kvalitativní případové studie bylo demonstrovat navržení analýzy potřeb

a její implementaci pro malou skupinu profesionálů v jazykovém kurzu financovaném

jejich zaměstnavatelem. Centrálním pojmem této studie byl proces navržení a apli-

kace potřeby analýz do kurzu spadajícího do domény angličtiny pro specifické účely.

Hlavní výzkumnou otázkou bylo: Jak provést a implementovat analýzu potřeb pro

konkrétní kurz v oblasti angličtiny pro specifické účely? Studie se snažila nalézt odpo-

vědi i na další otázky: Jaké jsou potřeby studentů a kontext kurzu, jak zapracovat ana-

lýzu potřeb do části současného kurikula kurzu, a jak ohodnotit tuto analýzu potřeb.

Studie také krátce popsala historii oboru angličtina pro specifické účely, její charakte-

ristiku a blízký vztah k analýze potřeb. Studie rovněž zachytila individuální charakte-

ristiky studenta – motivaci, styly učení a potřeby. Jedna část studie byla věnována ob-

sahu analýzy potřeb, jejím charakteristikám, elementům a procesu tvorby. Také vý-

zkum v oblasti analýzy potřeb byl zahrnut do studie.

V empirické části studie sledovala konkrétní analýzu potřeb od stanovení jejích cílů,

přes jednotlivé kroky jejího procesu až po závěrečnou evaluaci. Klíčovou částí byl vý-

zkum zaměřený na studenty. Ten byl popsána v kapitolách věnovaných sběru dat, je-

jich analýze a aplikaci. Praktickou část uzavřela evaluace kurzu.

Cílovou skupinou byli 4 dospělí a hlavními metodami byl dotazníkový průzkum a ná-

sledné interview. Dotazník byl použit pro dva zdroje – studenty a představitele zaměst-

navatele. Analýza potřeb obsahovala také situační analýzu, která zkoumala prostředí,

ve kterém se kurz konal a také všechny zúčastněné. Nezbytným krokem analýzy bylo

stanovení nového cíle kurzu. Potom byl sylabus kurzu založený na používané učebnici

změněn. Povedené změny se opíraly o teorii učení a jazyků a přístupy k učení přijímané

CONCLUSION

83

učitelem a přijatelné pro studenty. Následně byla sada doporučení pro výuku imple-

mentována. To posléze vyprovokovalo nutnost sestavení dotazníku ilustrujícího do

jaké míry byla analýza potřeb úspěšná, viděno z pohledu studentů.

Provedená evaluace dokázala, že hlavní poslání, kterým bylo přiblížit kurz potře-

bám studentů, bylo splněno, přinejmenším ve smyslu subjektivních potřeb. Objevily se

položky, které bylo možno vylepšit, protože v momentě, kdy byla studie zakončena,

kurz stále probíhal.

Kdyby byla studie aplikována na střední škole, byla by více orientována na moti-

vaci studentů, která je u mladších studentů jiná než u dospělých, a rovněž by byla přímo

založena na obsahu používané učebnice. Také proces sběru dat by probíhal ve vyučo-

vání a byl by jeho součástí, tak jak je doporučováno v odborné literatuře.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

84

Appendix A Questionnaire for the Employer

Dotazník pro zaměstnavatele

1. Z jakého důvodu organizuje vaše firma tento kurz?

Zvýšení kvalifikace zaměstnanců v oblasti jazykového vzdělávání.

2. Jaký přínos od kurzu očekáváte?

Zlepšení jazykové vybavenosti zaměstnanců.

3. Potřebují podle vás účastníci kurzu angličtinu v pracovních situacích?

Ano

4. Pokud ano, v jakých:

V komunikaci s obchodními partnery.

5. Pokud ano, jak často:

Různě, někteří i na denní bázi. Záleží na úseku, kde daný zaměstnanec pracuje.

6. Víte o nějakých problematických oblastech z hlediska angličtiny, se kterými se

pracovníci potýkají?

Technická angličtina

7. Jaké činnosti V AJ chcete, aby účastníci byli schopni vykonávat po absolvováním

tohoto kurzu:

Samostatná komunikace v cizích jazycích.

8. Jaké činnosti v AJ chcete, aby účastníci byli schopni vykonávat v dlouhodobém

horizontu:

Chceme, aby se postupně zlepšili ti, kteří potřebují, komunikovat i v technické AJ.

9. Jaké máte požadavky na znalosti a dovednosti účastníků v těchto oblastech po skončení tohoto kurzu?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

85

- Čtení

- Psaní

- Poslech

- Mluvení

- Slovní zásoba

- Výslovnost

10. Jaké máte požadavky na znalosti a dovednosti účastníků v těchto oblastech

v dlouhodobém horizontu?

- Čtení

- Psaní

- Poslech

- Mluvení

- Slovní zásoba

- Výslovnost

11. Měli jste v minulosti nějaká nesplněná očekávání od jazykových kurzů? Uveďte

jaká:

Ne

BIBLIOGRAPHY

86

Appendix B Piloting Questionnaire

How often do you need English at work? (with frequency per month/year) Name the situations in which you need English at work (and rank them - 1 = most of-ten) What was the last situation when you needed English (Describe in detail what hap-pened, how you reacted, what problems you had to face, how you solved the prob-lem,…) Things I need to be able to do in English are (rank them, 1 = most important for me): Things I wish to learn in English are (rank them, 1 = most important for me): What do you need English outside work for? (in your personal life) What situations in English would you like to manage in the future? What activities do you like doing in class? What activities don´t you like doing in class? When did you feel communicative problems in English? (specify what happened and what exactly your difficulty was)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

87

Name situations or tasks in English which are not a problem for you: Specify your problems (possibly mistakes you make)/state you do not have any in these domains: Vocabulary - Writing - Grammar - Reading - Listening - Speaking - Pronunciation - What are your strengths in English (you are good at) ? Rank them, 1 = best. What are your weaknesses in English (what causes problems)? Rank them, 1 = worst.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

88

Appendix C Questionnaire for Employees

Questionnaire a) How often do you need English at work? (with frequency per week/month/year) (How many times)………./………….(time period) b) Name the situations in which you need English at work (and

rank them – 1 = most often, 5 = least often)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

c) Who do you mostly communicate with (colleagues, superi-

ors, subordinates, business partners, others, …) in these sit-

uations (and rank them – 1 = most often, 5 = least often)

1. 2. 3.

d) What was the most difficult situation when you needed Eng-

lish (Describe in detail 1. what happened, 2. how you re-

acted, 3. what problems you had to face, 4. how you solved

the problem and others if needed)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

89

e) Activities I need or wish to be able to do in English at work

are (rank them, 1 = most important for me – 5 = least im-

portant), for example: writing emails (what about), mee-

tings (what about) , answering inquiries (what about),

communicating with customers (what about), communica-

ting with other companies (what about), , writing reports

(what about), translating (what materials, reading docu-

ments (what about), interviewing candidates …)

1. ………………………………………… (………………………………………………….….) 2. …………………………………..…… (………………………………………………….….) 3. ……………………………………….. (……………………………………………………..) 4. ……………………………………….. (……………………………………………………..) 5. ………………………………………. (……………………………………………………..)

f) What do you need English outside work for? (in your per-

sonal life) (rank them, 1 = most important for me – 5 = least

important)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

g) What activities do you like doing in class? (rank them, 1 =

most important for me – 5 = least important)

1. 2. 3.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

90

h) What activities don´t you like doing in class?

Jaké activity ve třídě nemáte rád/a 1. 2. 3.

i) Specify your problems (possibly mistakes you make)/state

you do not have any in these domains:

Vocabulary Writing Grammar Reading Listening Speaking Pronuncation

BIBLIOGRAPHY

91

Appendix D Learning Needs Questionnaire

0-never,1-not often, 2- sometimes, 3- often, 4- always

1. I prefer to learn with TV or video rather than other media. 01234

2. I use color-coding to help me as I learn or work. 01234

3. I need written directions for tasks 01234

4. I have to look at people to understand what they say 01234

5. I understand lectures better when professors write on the board. 01234

6. Charts, diagrams, and maps help me understand what someone says 01234

7. I like to listen to music when I study or work 01234

8. I need frequent breaks when I work or study. 01234

9. I prefer individual or one-on-one games and activities. 01234

10. I learn things through metaphors and associations with other things.

I find that stories and examples help me learn. 01234

11. When I am in a large group, I tend to keep silent and listen. 01234

12. I like to discover things myself rather than have everything explained to me. 01234

13. I add many original ideas during class discussions. 01234

14. I prefer things presented in a step-by-step way. 01234

15. I don’t worry about comprehending everything. 01234

16. I’m good at catching new phrases or words when I hear them. 01234

17. I enjoy activities where I fill in the blank with missing words I hear. 01234

18. I enjoy activities where I have to pull ideas together 01234

19. I need to think things through before speaking or writing. 01234

2O. I find that building metaphors in my mind helps me deal with language

(e.g., viewing the language like a machine with component parts that can be disassebled)

01234

BIBLIOGRAPHY

92

Appendix E Piloting Evalution

My satisfaction with topics.

Usefulness of the functions I have learned.(e.g.

arranging meetings)

The way my language problems have being met.

Improving my skills in listening.

Improving my skills in vocabulary.

Improving my skills in speaking.

Improving my skills in writing The way instruction develops my communication strate-

gies . (e.g. the voice tone)

Getting information how to improve my skills.

Relevance of the content (whether is comprehensible – not too easy or too difficult)

Satisfaction with how lessons are planned and organised.

Clarity of setting tasks

Satisfaction with classroom processes (activities)

Satisfaction with the way materials are presented

Satisfaction with the pace of work.

Satisfaction with explaining new items.

Satisfaction with organising work as individual, pair or group work.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

93

Appendix F Online Evalution

BIBLIOGRAPHY

94

BIBLIOGRAPHY

95

BIBLIOGRAPHY

96

Appendix G Analysis of Learning Styles

students

question 1 2 3 4 average extre-mes

1 2 1 1 2 1,5 1 2

2 1 3 2 1 1,75 1 3

3 2 2 3 2 2,25 2 3

4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

5 2 3 2 2 2,25 2 3

6 3 2 3 3 2,75 2 3

7 2 1 2 2 1,75 1 2

8 3 2 1 3 2,25 1 3

9 2 2 3 2 2,25 2 3

10 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

11 4 1 3 4 3 1 4

12 1 1 3 1 1,5 1 3

13 2 2 4 2 2,5 2 4

14 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

15 2 3 0 2 1,75 0 3

16 1 1 2 1 1,25 1 2

17 2 2 3 2 2,25 2 3

18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

19 2 3 3 2 2,5 2 3

20 2 4 2 2 2,5 2 4

BIBLIOGRAPHY

97

Appendix H Analysis of Evaluation

St. 1

St. 2

St. 3

St. 4 % Question

100 90 90 85 91,25 My satisfaction with topics.

90 95 90 80 88,75 Usefulness of the functions I have learned.

85 85 85 78 83,25 The way my language problems have being met.

95 70 60 70 73,75 Improving my skills in listening.

100 90 85 80 88,75 Improving my skills in vocabulary.

80 85 85 92 85,5 Improving my skills in speaking.

90 75 80 85 82,5 Improving my skills in writing.

100 90 95 80 91,25 Relevance of the content (whether is comprehensible

– not too easy or too difficult)

90 70 75 75 77,5 Satisfaction with how lessons are planned and organ-

ised.

95 80 75 90 85 Clarity of setting tasks

90 90 85 85 87,5 Satisfaction with classroom processes (activities)

100 90 80 92 90,5 Satisfaction with the way materials are presented

90 85 85 75 83,75 Satisfaction with the pace of work.

95 90 90 85 90 Satisfaction with explaining new items.

90 100 85 85 90 Satisfaction with organising work as individual, pair

or group work.

An Example of Needs Analysis Implementation into an ESP ...

Documents

Transcript of An Example of Needs Analysis Implementation into an ESP ...