Journal of Language and Learning Volume 1 Number 1 2003 ISSN 1740 - 4983

Introduction

Needs analysis has figured notably in the literature of language teaching for 30 years, and has been focused on learners’ communicative needs. It has generally been accepted that an initial pre-course needs analysis has an aim of establishing the structure and content of a language course.

On the whole, needs analysis is a complex process which is usually followed by syllabus design, selection of course materials, teaching / learning a course, and evaluation.

Learners often find it difficult to define what language needs they have and cannot distinguish between needs, wants and lacks. Although these three concepts are interrelated, it is important for teachers to be aware of their impetus on successful learning. Another stimulus for successful learning is adjusting the course to changing learners’ needs. This implies the significance of ongoing needs analysis.

This paper aims at presenting the on-going analysis of learners’ needs, wants and lacks at a tertiary level and prospective implications for successful language learning.

Literature Overview

An initial pre-course needs analysis is a conventional classroom approach to start teaching a new language course to novice learners.

The common word “need” describes an item or an ability which is important to a person and which he does not have or not very good at.

In a linguistic context, different authors define the term “needs” diversely, and thus different meanings are implied. If needs are ‘understood as specific requirements for the foreign language, then the vast majority of learners do not have any. They are deemed to require what the syllabus offers them, and the syllabus is likely to be closely related to the examination, which is a highly realistic “need” for the majority of learners’ (Dickinson, 1991:88).

The conceptions of “target needs” and “learning needs” have been widely used in literature. Target needs are understood as ‘what the learner needs to do in the target situation, and learning needs are what the learner needs to do in order to learn The analysis of target needs involves identifying the linguistic features of the target situation or learners necessities (what is English needed for), lacks (what learner does not know), wants (what learner feels s/he needs)’(Hutchinson & Waters, 1996:55). Obviously, analysis of target situation needs is concerned with the important area of language use, while learning needs cover circumstances of language learning, i.e. why learners take course – optional or compulsory, what they seek to achieve, what their attitude towards the course, etc. (Hutchinson & Waters, 1996:62).

There are slightly different definitions elsewhere, although all authors seem to agree that it is essential to distinguish between needs, wants and lacks. ‘Needs are those skills which a learner perceives as being relevant to him; wants are a subset of needs, those which a learner puts at a high priority given the time available; and the lack is the difference a learner perceives between his present competence in a particular skill and the competence he wishes to achieve’ (Dickinson, 1991:91).

It is worth mentioning that some authors distinguish the terms needs analysis and needs assessment ‘which are often used interchangeably’ (Graves, 1996:12), claiming that ‘assessment involves obtaining data, whereas analysis involves assigning value to those data’. Obviously, as data cannot be analyzed without being obtained, in this article we shall adhere to the common term ‘needs analysis’.

The contemporary attitude to the needs analysis poses the following requirements: it must be ‘interrelated with course design, materials, teaching/learning, assessment/evaluation’ and be on-going (Dudley-Evans & Jo St John, 1998:121).

A very thorough description of needs analysis is presented in (Dudley-Evans & Jo St John, 1998:125) and covers the following areas:

A	target situation analysis & objective needs
B	wants, means, subjective needs
C	present situation analysis
D	learners’ lacks
E	learning needs
F	linguistic and discourse analysis
G	what is wanted from the course
H	means analysis

According to (Dudley-Evans & Jo St John, 1998:125), the interpretation of these points is as follows: ‘A includes professional information about learners: what they will be using English for; B includes personal information about learners: attitude to English, previous experiences. C includes English language information about learners: their current skills and experiences in language use; D defines the gap between C and A; E includes language learning information: effective ways of learning the skills and the language; H includes information about the environment in which the course will be run’.

The main data collection methods for needs analysis are questionnaires, discussions, interviews, observations, assessment (Dudley-Evans & Jo St John, 1998:132). In other words, the main sources for needs analysis are the learners themselves. However, in the ESP research fields relevant documentation and information received from colleagues are also important.
Questionnaires are thought to be the least consuming ways of collecting information, and this is why learners’ needs are usually specified through questionnaires which enable researchers to determine long-term aims and short-term objectives. Questionnaire can generally be used for quantitative presentation of collected data. Small amount of data may be easily analyzed by a simple tally system, while large scale needs analysis requires statistical approach and use of computer software.
An important aspect of needs analysis is concerned with learning styles and strategies. A learner-centered approach is considered to be a cornerstone for successful learning. A current trend in teaching is to take into account learners wants: they might want or need to carry out a variety of communicative tasks in the target language. For this reason, information on the ways in which learners prefer to learn must be obtained through the needs analysis.

Initially obtained data on needs analysis allow researcher to set course objectives and determine scientific approach to teaching. Ongoing needs analysis allows to revise objectives and modify teaching techniques and materials. In ongoing needs analysis the conclusions drawn in the initial analysis have to be constantly checked and re-assessed (Dudley-Evans & Jo St John, 1998:140).

Finally, a final evaluation allows to place future activities. At this stage, learners must be given feedback. ‘Feedback is good PR (Public Relations), good for quantity and quality of future cooperation (Dudley-Evans & Jo St John, 1998:139).

Research Methodology and Background Information

A needs analysis questionnaire was administered with the aim of investigating learners’ needs, wants and lacks, and respondents were interviewed on the weekly basis during teachers’ counseling hours. The latter data were not documented, but proved beneficial in assisting learners to cope with encountered difficulties.

The basic results of this investigation were gathered from the students’ self-reported data. We believe that collected information can be viewed as impartial because learners were not asked to submit their names, i.e. respondents’ answers were anonymous.

There were 6 questions to the administered questionnaire, 5 of which were open-ended and generally related to learners’ perceptions on their interrelated needs, wants and lacks, and one multiple-choice question (on various teaching styles) which suggested a diversity of answers to choose from. Respondents were the students of Law University of Lithuania. There were six classes of day-time learners - 89 students altogether. The first language of 95% of students is Lithuanian, and there were about 5% of native Polish and Russian speakers. Learners are aged between 22 and 25, and some of them had a gap year or two after finishing secondary school.

The initial needs analysis has been conducted before the beginning of the ESP course and the on-going needs analysis - in the middle of the ESP course after the recipients had already had 120h of instruction in ESP, which makes about half of the 250h course.

Data and Discussion

The initial and ongoing needs analysis will be presented separately for the sake of comparison of respondents changing needs, wants and lacks. Students have a practicable goal of developing proficient command of English due to the available amount of time in English syllabus.

Each question is followed by the results and their discussion for each aspect of research.

1st question. What do you need English for?

This is the most essential question in any need analysis questionnaire. The responses to this question shed light on learners’ current needs and are as follows:

Learners' Responses	Initial	Ongoing
For communication	83%	40%
For a job	33%	6%
For personal development	19%	11%
For settling down in a foreign country	5%	11%
For traveling	2%	-
For studies	2%	-
To speak fluently	9%	-
To use a computer	-	9%
For job promotion	-	6%
To watch English TV channels	-	6%
To read professional literature	-	6%

Learners’ response in ongoing needs in English for communication drops sharply (by 43%) and for a job – dramatically (5.5 times). Personal development also becomes less important – only 11% of students rank it in comparison to the earlier 19%. The idea of settling down in a foreign country becomes attractive to 11% of students - previously only 5% favored it. Other needs, i.e. travel & study, have been replaced by the more down to earth needs like job promotion, watching TV and using a computer.

2nd question. What kind of English course do you anticipate?

Learners’ current wants are reflected in their responses to this question and presented below.

Learners' wants	Initial	Ongoing
To improve English	56%	39%
To learn ESP vocabulary	67%	17%
To speak fluently	30%	17%
To learn grammar	28%	13%
To get information	7%	6%
To improve listening skills	-	2%
To learn writing skills	5%	-
To pass an exam	2%	-
To enjoy lectures	5%	-

It can be seen that learners’ current wants have also undergone significant changes. Only 39% of students still want to improve their English in comparison to earlier 56%, and out of 67% who wanted to learn ESP vocabulary only 17% have remained. Intent on learning grammar students (28%) have been halved.

The interpretation of these findings is far from being straightforward. On the one hand, some learners might have become more realistic about their chances of boosting language skills and eliminated accomplishing ultimate goals from the list of current wishes. On the other hand, just a slight minority posed some currently relevant wants like passing an exam (2%) or exam-relevant writing skills (5%). Lately ESL practitioners have emphasized that successful learning is supposed to be fun, it is regrettable that students do not associate learning with enjoyment: miserable 5% in the first column disappear in the ongoing analysis (second column).

3rd question. How do you assess your proficiency in language skills?

Lacks are reflected in learners’ assessment of their language skills on a five grade scale and described below:

Respondents’ self-assessment of:		Initial	Ongoing
Speaking Skills
	Excellent	-	-
	Very Good	2%	4%
	Good	63%	57%
	Satisfactory	21%	33%
	Weak	14%	6%
Reading Skills
	Excellent	4%	-
	Very Good	17%	22%
	Good	58%	65%
	Satisfactory	15%	13%
	Weak	6%	-
Listening Skills
	Excellent	-	-
	Very Good	6%	2%
	Good	55%	44%
	Satisfactory	33%	39%
	Weak	6%	15%
Writing Skills
	Excellent	-	-
	Very Good	6%	2%
	Good	44%	52%
	Satisfactory	33%	31%
	Weak	17%	15%

The first impression that one gets having compared the initials responses with the ongoing data on various language skills is that there is no radical change. Learners seem either to have slightly improved reading and writing skills or to have nearly remained at the same level. The number of learners whose speaking skills were good has slightly declined (by 6%), and only 44% of students feel their listening skills are good in comparison to the previous 55%. A logical explanation of these findings is a greater complexity of listening and speaking assignments that learners encounter in ongoing in-depth studies. It is noteworthy to comment on the reading skills data in both columns, which shows that over half of respondents are good at reading. Generally speaking, limitations in reading skills are easier to conceal, and majority of learners are not aware of their reading weaknesses until encountering comprehension problems in professional texts.

4th question. What are your strengths and weaknesses in a foreign language?

Learners’ strengths and weaknesses are ranked in descending order – from vitally to relatively important.

Students’ strengths	Initial	Ongoing
Speaking	50%	23%
Listening	27%	2%
Reading	10%	9%
Grammar	7%	5%
Vocabulary	3%	9%
Writing	3%	2%
Do not know	-	50%
Students’ weaknesses
Grammar	42%	52%
Speaking	16%	13%
Writing	16%	11%
Vocabulary	16%	13%
Listening	7%	6%
Reading	1%	-
Do not know	2%	17%

The grim reality of learning a foreign language is revealed by students’ self-assessment of current strengths and weaknesses in various language areas (above). Incredibly, 50% of learners (second column) are not aware of their strengths, and 17% - of their weaknesses. Grammar remains the major headache, and its ongoing importance recognized by over half of learners. The issue of grammar teaching on the ESP level is rather contradictory – learners are supposed to have obtained a good command of grammar at school. The current trend in communicative language teaching is to avoid teaching grammar or, if necessary, to reduce the amount of grammar teaching to minimum. Interestingly, speaking skills is ranked as strength by 50% and listening – by 27% of students in the initial stage. However respondents’ certainty of strengths in these language areas has diminished rapidly in ongoing analysis to 23% and 2%, respectively. Surprisingly, the reading skills have scored almost the same percentage, while vocabulary has gained 9% in comparison with previous 3%.

5th question. What are your preferences for teaching styles?

This question was formulated as a multiple-choice inquiry and several answers were suggested: independently, in small groups, in a large group under teacher’s guidance, privately, and individually.

Learners’ priorities in teaching styles	Initial	Ongoing
Independently	35%	34%
In small groups	63%	66%
In a large group under teacher's guidance	49%	59%
Privately	2%	-
Individually	2%	-

It can be seen that respondents preferences for teaching (and learning) styles have been rather variable and ambiguous – learners have chosen several answers. That is why their overall response exceeds 100%. Only a few students (2%) prefer learning privately or individually. Majority of respondents have chosen learning in small groups and either in a large group under a teacher’s guidance or independently. There is no significant difference in the ongoing follow-up responses.

6th question. How many hours a week and how many years do you want to study English?


Learners’ wishes on the amount of time they want to study English per week vary and are shown in two pie charts below. Although this question has been open-ended, all respondents have intuitively chosen widespread practice in English teaching from 2 to 6 hours per week. The pie chart on the left presents the initial priorities, and on the right – the ongoing. It can be seen that majority of respondents preferred to have 4 hours of English a week, and this opinion has slightly changed in ongoing analysis from 44% to 38%. However, a previous preference for 3 hours a week increased – from 29% up to 42%. The priority for having 2h of English per week has not changed, while for 6h has undergone a significant change – more than half of respondents changed their minds.


Respondents think they should study English at least for two years and at most for four years. The findings are shown in two pie charts (3 & 4) below. The chart on the left presents the initial opinions, and on the right – the ongoing change of attitudes.

Chart 1 Learners’ Initial Priorities	Chart 2 Learners’ Middle-Course Priorities
Chart 3 Learners’ Initial Priorities	Chart 4 Learners’ Middle-Course Priorities

It is seen that the number of respondents supporting 3 years of English studies has sharply increased in the ongoing analysis from 38% to 63%, while the number of supporters of 4 year-long English course has decreased from 47% to 28%.

The interpretation of these findings is very straightforward. At present students study ESP for two years, or four semesters. They have 3 hours of English during first and third semesters and 4 hours during second and fourth semesters. This explains the preferable choice of the amount of time per week learners want to study. Some learners, who feel they need more lectures, express wants for 6 hours per week, while others think that 2 hours per week is sufficient for them. Moreover, respondents are aware of progress they have made so far and express their wish to continue English studies by highlighting 3 or 4 years instead of 2.

Interviews are known as reliable sources for gathering data on learner needs. We used a sort or kind of interviews on a weekly basis during counseling hours. Weekly slots in the schedule allow students to get some advice from teachers individually, i.e. in one-to-one communication. For shy or introverted students such tutoring is most efficacious because it removes feelings of anxiety and fear of mistakes and makes learner relaxed and less worried. Therefore learners are apt to talk about their difficulties and seek teacher’s assistance and support, thus revealing their current needs.

We have used the gathered information to improve our teaching by adjusting various techniques that catered for learners’ needs, were suitable to their multiple intelligencies and made learning more effective. One method has proved particularly useful. It is a well known teaching method – Content Based Instruction (CBI) (Brewster, 1999:83). This method has been very popular in the USA and Canada. It ‘emphasizes learning about something rather than learning about language’ (Davies, 2003). The theme based CBI model does not require the tandem teaching, i.e. it is carried out without the participation of a subject teacher in class and can be successfully used by ESL teachers on their own. Moreover, it is flexible and emphasizes both content and language goals. Keeping specific learner needs in mind, teacher can use textbooks and supplement additional information from the Internet and other media sources, thus creating updated and interesting for students materials. We have been using this ‘language through content’ method for years without realizing it has been named CBI by researchers and found it a useful tool in adjusting teaching techniques to changing learner needs.

Conclusions

The thorough analysis of ongoing learners’ needs, wants and lacks allows teachers to adjust ESP course syllabus to students’ changing demands by providing meaningful experience with language and placing emphasis on tasks and activities that will benefit learning.

Needs analysis is influenced by the institutional constraints and the students’ perceptions of what is being expected from them. The recognition that learners have their own, internal needs (e.g. to use a language in a specific situation) in addition to external demands imposed by teaching institutions (e.g. students must study language for a limited period and pass exams) complicates the issue of interrelated needs, wants and lacks. Teachers are not authorized to prolong or shorten the scheduled courses, but they can foster students’ language skills by employing more effective (for an individual student) techniques and encouraging learners to plan their learning by setting realistic aims.

A current implication for successful ESP learning & teaching requires the incorporation of learners’ future needs, or what is known as ‘real world’ needs, the development of learner ability to transfer language knowledge to novel situations and the usage of acquired skills in real life communication. The ongoing analysis is a valuable tool to anticipate these future demands and adjust teaching to cater for them.

About the Authors

Galina Kavaliauskiene is Associate Professor in the Department of Foreign Languages at the Law University of Lithuania.

Daiva Užpaliene is Lecturer in the Department of Foreign Languages at the Law University of Lithuania.

Email: gkaval@ltu.lt


References

Dickinson, L. 1991. Self-Instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge University Press.

Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. 1996. English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge University Press.

Dudley-Evans, T. & Jo St John, M. 1998. Developments in English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge University Press.

Graves, K. 1996. ‘A Framework of Course Development Processes’ in Teachers as Course Developers. Series editor Jack C. Richards. Cambridge University Press. pp. 12 – 38.

Brewster, J. 'Teaching English Through Content: Supporting Good Practice' in Innovation and Best Practice, ed. By Chris Kenneddy. 1999. Longman.

Davies, S. ‘Content Based Instruction in EFL Contexts’. In The Internet TESL Journal, vol. IX, No 2, February 2003. http://iteslj.org. 3 pages.

Acknowledgement

The authors are indebted to the lecturer Nijole Burkšaitiene for permission to use her designed questionnaire.