Needs analysis approaches and models

Several ESP researchers have discussed the development of needs analysis approaches and models. Huhta, Vogt, Johnson, and Tulkki (2013) classified the development of needs analysis approaches into two groups. The first group focused exclusively on functions and notions and on the four skills of speaking, listening, writing, and reading. This group refers to language- centred approaches. Examples of scholars in this group are Munby (1978) and Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998). The second group has emphasized a comprehensive task-based approach, as seen in the work of Long (2005), whose needs analysis is primarily based on tasks. However, a later approach by Huhta, Vogt, Johnson, and Tulkki (2013) did not suggest a clear division between the two groups of needs analysis approaches.

Munby (1978), who is acknowledged to be the first scholar working in the area of needs analysis, introduced a needs analysis approach through a communicative design. He linked the needs analysis to situations and functions and generated “a Communication Needs Processor” model that was the basis of the needs analysis approach. This model claims to “take account of

52

the variables that affect communication needs” (p. 32). However, many researchers have

addressed the limitations of Munby’s model, saying that it is not very practical. The model is claimed to be inflexible, too time-consuming to report a target profile for each student, and fails to prioritize the list of micro-elements and their linguistic functions, and does not include other affective factors (Cunningsworth, 1983; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; West, 1994).

Several approaches to needs analysis after Munby’s target situation analysis and his model aimed to eliminate the limitations of the model and to expand the areas of analysis. The broader areas of approach make the needs analysis more sophisticated and encompass many types of needs, discourses, and situations. Chamber (1980), for example, introduced the term “target situation,” which was derived from Munby’s model, where the needs analysis was focused on the linguistic features used in the target situation. They also added students, other relevant participants, and their contexts for a much more triangulated and rich approach to needs analysis (Johns & Makalela, 2011). Further, Sysoyev (2001) linked the needs analysis in ESP to the notion of Vygotsky’s (1978) “Zone of Proximal Development” according to two stages. The first stage is what the learners can do independently, and the second one is the potential of the learners and what they can achieve with the help of a mediator. In this notion, the “Zone of Proximal Development” links the two stages, and the mediator is the one that helps the learners shift to the second stage. In the ESP context, the mediator would be the ESP teacher, and the second stage would be the realization of the students’ needs.

The needs analysis approaches and models offered by Hutchinson and Waters (1987) and Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998) are the well-known models that are currently used among many ESP researchers. These approaches and models ultimately focus on the analysis of the learners needs (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998; Jordan, 1997; Songhori, 2008). Hutchinson and Waters (1987) promoted a learner-and-learning approach by focusing mostly on what and

53 how a learner learns a language, while Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998) covered other factors affecting and contributing to the learner’s needs.

Hutchinson and Walters (1987) expanded the definition and model of needs analysis from Munby’s (1978) needs analysis model and included the learning needs of the learners. They defined needs analysis in the ESP context as the kinds of linguistic features that learners are required to comprehend and/or produce in the situation in which they are engaged. Accordingly, their needs analysis model involves two factors: target situation analysis and learning needs analysis. They differentiated these terms in that the target situations analysis refer to “what the learner needs to do in the target situation” and the learning needs analysis refers to “what the learner needs to do in order to learn” (p. 54).

Hutchinson and Walters’s (1987) target situation analysis can be derived from necessities, lacks, and wants. Necessities are considered as what the learners have to know in order to function effectively in the target situation or their demands for an ESP course. They are sometimes called objective needs (Brindley, 1989). Lacks refer to the gap between necessity and what the learner already knows. Wants or subjective needs mean what the learners actually want to learn or what they feel they need. They also argue that the learners’ wants may or may not comply with those perceived by the teachers or course designers. Although the needs analysis model of Hutchinson and Waters (1987) included external factors in their deficiency analysis, their framework ultimately focuses on the learners.

Many researchers have applied the needs analysis model of Hutchinson and Waters (1987) because it advocates a learner-centred approach. For example, Kavaliauskienė and Užpalienė (2003) used this model and found that institutional constraints influenced students’

needs. Eslami (2010) revealed a divergence of perceptions of needs between teachers and students. J.-Y. Liu et al. (2011) shed considerable light on the inconsistency between the students’ needs and their actual course-taking action. However, there have been some

54

limitations found in the needs analysis model of Hutchinson and Waters (1987). For example, Basturkmen (2010) pointed out that this model focuses on broad academic skills or a variety of topics to be learnt when the learner may or may not want to learn all of them.

Many ESP scholars in the 70s and 1980s considered “target situationanalysis” (TSA) as dominant in the needs analysis that was used by Munby in 1978, Chambers in 1980, and also by Hutchison and Waters in 1987, and more recently by Mohammadi and Mousavi in 2013. The term “target situation analysis” refers to the analysis of identifying the requirements or goals of the English language in the target situations of the learners. “Target situation analysis” investigates the context of language, the language events, and the genres used in the target context. Belcher (2006, p. 136) argues that “the students’ self-knowledge, awareness of target situations, life goals and instructional expectation” inform their needs for learning and their perceptions of need surrounding English language skills, were relevant to a particular occupational context. The present study will look at the context of the language and will use elements of target situation analysis.

Unlike “target situation analysis,” “present situation analysis” (PSA) introduced by Richterich and Chancerel (1980) ascertains the state of the learners’ language development at the beginning of the language course. The information of the “present situation analysis” can be both objective (age, proficiency, prior learning experience) and subjective (self-perceived needs, strengths, and weaknesses (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998; West, 1994). Broadly speaking, “present situation analysis” addresses two aspects: “lacks” and “wants” (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). Many scholars suggest using both “target situation analysis” and “present situation analysis” for a needs analysis in order to enhance the learning and to reach the desired goals for an ESP course effectively (Songhori, 2008).

55 The term “pedagogic needs analysis” was also proposed by West (1994) to eliminate some of the limitations of the “target needs analysis” of Munby (1978). Later, Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998) considered analyzing information about learners and the learning environment as “pedagogic needs analysis” in three main areas: deficiency, strategy, and means analysis. The term “deficiency analysis” refers to the discrepancy between what the learners already know or their current level and what is necessary for the students or the students’ target level (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987), and is often used interchangeably with “lacks analysis” (Lowe, 2009). Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998) suggested that ESP course developers can indicate the learners’ deficiency in using English language skills in a target situation by providing information about the skills that the students possess, and the language they may use in the target situation, and then evaluate the learners in order to see the language they lack. The present study analyzed the students’ deficiency in using their English skills to identify their present level of English proficiency.

“Strategy analysis” or “learning needs” is often a factor in needs analysis and refers to

the route or the process of learning (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). In order to analyse “learning needs,” some considerations should be taken into account, including the learning situation, the learner’s knowledge, skills, strategies, and motivation (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987), how the learners learn the language, why they learn it, what resources are available to help them learn (Astika, 1999), and the fact that different learners have different ways of learning (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998). A learning needs analysis is linked to “target situation analysis” in that “target situation analysis” determines the destination or objectives of a course, whereas “learning needs” serve as the vehicle and guideline to get to the destination. It should be the learners themselves and the other learning factors that affect their learning. Kern (2013) suggested using technology to teach ESP because it makes learning the language more effective or efficient and simulates the real life work situation while giving

56

students the opportunity to acquire and practise essential professional skills. This concept is relevant to the context of this present study.

Within the wider area of “learning needs analysis” in the ESP context, many different learning styles and strategies have been seen to affect students’ learning. Learning styles can be seen as general approaches to acquiring and processing language. Learning strategies are specific processes that learners use to deal with language tasks in the target situations (Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Oxford, 1990). Oxford (1990) classified learning styles into four dimensions—“sensory preferences, personality types, desired degree of generality, and biological differences” (p.2) - regarding the learners’ learning activities in an English course. Some scholars believe that applying appropriate learning strategies can improve the second language learners’ perception, reception, storage, retention, and retrieval of language information (Anderson, 2005; Cohen & Macaro, 2007). Some scholars believe that lower proficiency learners would benefit from learning the strategies of higher proficiency learners (Horwitz, 2012).

In addition, studies have shown that students with higher levels of English proficiency use more learning strategies than those with lower levels. This finding is consistent with other studies (Bidabadi & Yamat, 2010;Chen & Intaraprasert, 2014; F. Liu, 2010; O'Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Kupper, & Russo, 1985;Wong & Nunan, 2011). Regarding Thai students, Patchanok (2011) and Phoocharoensil and Simargool (2010) pointed out that the learning strategies of Thai students related to some aspects of second language acquisition: overgeneralization (students try to formulate a linguistic rule without being aware of exceptions), first language transfer (students rely upon Thai language forms and meaning without being aware of significant distinctions in the forms and structures between the two languages), translation strategies, and transfer of training (students apply the grammar rules

57 they have learned without being aware of other constructions that are more advanced). Accordingly, teachers might be able to help their students develop more positive learning strategies to become better language learners (Horwitz, 2012).

Identifying and acknowledging learners’ needs can help in course development. Teachers can design instructional strategies that enable learners to reach personal as well as course objectives. Additionally, the information from the analysis can be used to establish the language-learning skills that students need for their learning (Cohen & Macaro, 2007; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990). Thus, the results of the needs analysis in the present study will reveal the language learning strategies of the students in the food science and technology programme, which is considered as the “learning needs analysis.” The results of this element of the needs analysis might guide ESP teachers in designing activities that are most compatible with the students’ learning styles and help students to develop effective language learning strategies.

Another aspect of some needs analysis approaches, such as that of Hutchinson and Waters (1987), are the external factors in their “present situation analysis.” Holliday (1994) called these external factors a “means analysis,” which is the contextual, social, aspect of the language-teaching environment. “Means analysis” covers information about the environmental factors in which the course is organized and is an acknowledgement that “what works well in one situation may not work in another” (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998, p. 124). Swales (1989) suggested that ESP course developers consider five factors in a needs analysis that are related to the learning environment. These factors are “the classroom culture (learner factors), the English for academic purposes staff profiles (teacher factors), the pilot target situation analysis, status of service operations (institutional factors), and study of change agents”

(Swales,1989, p. 89). Basturkmen (2010) provided a more explicit meaning of “mean analysis” as the “identification of the constraints and opportunities in the teaching situation” (pp. 18-19). Her analysis included gathering information on the classroom culture, learner factors, teacher

58

profiles, and the status of language teaching in the organization. These considerations will provide a better understanding of the educational context and realistically depict the constraints and opportunities of ESP teaching and learning for the food science and technology students in the Thai university investigated here.

Learner factors are important for a needs analysis. Students who lack background knowledge entail their low level of motivation and English proficiency (Andrade, 2006;Lee, 2010). Similarly, Takahashi (2009) found a relationship between English competency and class performance. Furthermore, Lightbown (2013), and Murray (2011), confirmed that students with positive attitudes had a willingness to continue to learn.

Teacher factors are also important in a needs analysis. ESP teachers have powerful roles to play in the class and influence the teaching and learning in the ESP programme. Edge (2009) indicated that the teachers’ beliefs about language acquisition and how the language should be taught influence the way in which they teach. He suggested that it is the teachers’ responsibility to try to ensure that the lesson is interesting and stimulating enough to encourage the students to want to learn. The teachers plan and implement their teaching pedagogy, which is a significant factor in the students’ difficulties, achievements, and attitudes towards learning (Eryilmaz, 2014; Hazrul Nik Hashim, Shah Alam, & Yusoff, 2014; Peiser & Jones, 2014). However, studies have found that teachers may not always be the best persons to determine their students’ needs and challenges (Akyel & Ozek, 2010; Eslami, 2010; Hyun Hyo, 2013). Teacher factors are important for this study because many English classrooms in Thailand are considered to be dominated by a teacher-centred approach (Akkakoson, 2012).

Regarding the institutional factors, this study focuses on educational planning and facilities management. Ellis (2015) argued that the input that the learners receive and the interaction that they engage in influence the learners’ language acquisition. Further, Baker (2012) viewed that a lack of available resources for teaching English in Thailand could be the

59 difference between wealthy urban communities and poorer rural communities. This study aimed to understand the context of teaching in an ESP programme at Agricultural University, so institutional factors are important for the analysis.

Dudley-Evans and St. John’s (1998) model also includes “register analysis,” which is related to vocabulary and grammar at the word and sentence level. They believed that the grammar forms in particular ESP contexts are similar to those of general English, but some grammar forms and vocabulary are used frequently. It would be useful for the ESP teachers and students in the present study to know what features of grammar and vocabulary are mostly used and needed in the academic and occupational contexts of food science and technology, which can be discovered in the needs analysis.

“Discourse analysis” focuses on the analysis at the sentence level concerning how sentences are used to communicate. This type of analysis focuses on the writers’ purposes rather than the forms and generates materials based on functions (West, 1994). However, it is not recommended to investigate only discourse analysis in the needs analysis because this does not provide sufficient information on the communication used in the academic or occupational contexts (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998). It will be important to consider discourse analysis accompanied by other needs analysis factors described in this review in order to understand the context of food science and technology research.

Another aspect of some needs analyses is “genre analysis.” Swales (1981) defined genre as “a more or less standardized communicative event with a goal or set of goals mutually understood by the participants in that event and occurring within a functional rather than a personal or social setting” (pp.10-11). In the ESP context, “genre analysis” refers to the investigation of communicative events focusing on purpose, style, and audience (Bhatia, 2002a). “Genre analysis” has been associated with needs analysis in that a needs analysis, which includes genre analysis, can help language learners make the relevant connection

60

between the use of the language and the aim of the communication (Bhatia, 2002a). For example, Bruce (2009) analysed the results sections in sociology and organic chemistry articles and found that the written text and the discourse that surrounded these subject texts were different. His study confirmed that using “genre analysis” provided a heuristic technique for the analysis of other texts within the same genre and helped the writers to create their texts within the same area. Similarly, Nima and Jooneghani (2012) espoused genre analysis while analyzing the students’ needs as it can enable teachers to become aware of the hidden assumptions and to gain insight into pedagogical implications.

Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998) developed their needs analysis model covering all aspects of the nine approaches of needs analysis, which aims to gather the needs of the relevant stakeholders for effective ESP course development. A needs analysis model covering all approaches would help ESP researchers identify the learner’s needs efficiently and practically (Flowerdew, 2013; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Khan, Ghulamullah, Mohsin, Dogar, & Awan, 2011; Robinson, 1991; Songhori, 2008; West, 1994). Figure 2.4 identifies the eight factors in the Dudley-Evans and St. John’s needs analysis model.

Figure 2.4What needs analysis establishes (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998, p. 125)

personal information about learners

language information about target situations learners’ lacks learners’ needs from course language learning needs how to communicate in the target situation

professional

information about

learners environmental

61

x Professional information about learners - the tasks and activities that the learners will be using English for. This information links to the target situation analysis approach, which will reveal objective needs.

x Personal information about learners - are the factors that may affect the way the learners learn such as their previous learning experiences, cultural information, reasons for attending the course and the expectations regarding it, and attitude toward the English course. This personal information covers the present situation analysis approach, which will reveal wants, means, and subjective needs.

x Language information about the target situations - is what the learners’ current skills and language use are. The language information covers the present situation analysis approaches, which will enable the assessment of the learners’ difficulties in English.

x The learners’ lacks - or the gap between the learners’ current skills and the activities that the learners are using English skills. This information covers the