FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

Ongoing Needs Analysis as a Factor to Successful Language Learning

Galina Kavaliauskiene and Daiva Užpaliene

Law University of Lithuania, Vilnius, Lithuania

Journal of Language and Learning

Volume 1 Number 1 2003

ISSN 1740 – 4983

Abstract This paper addresses the ongoing analysis of learners' perceptions of needs, wants and

lacks on a tertiary level and its role in learning English. Learners have their own,

internal needs in addition to external demands imposed by teaching institutions, which

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 techniques and encouraging learners to plan their learning

by setting realistic aims. For successful ESP learning, 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 are considered to be vital parts of ESP syllabus. We advocate

the ongoing needs analysis as a valuable tool to anticipate learners' future demands.

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 J. Richards (Ed.),

Teachers as Course Developers (pp. 12-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brewster, J. (1999). Teaching English Through Content: Supporting Good Practice. In C.

Kennedy, Innovation and Best Practice. USA: Longman.

Davies, S. (2003). Content Based Instruction in EFL Contexts. The Internet TESL Journal, 12(2),

1-5.

Acknowledgement

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

questionnaire.