Journal of Language and Learning
Vol. 1 No. 1
2003
ISSN 1740 - 4983
Ongoing Needs Analysis as a Factor
to Successful Language Learning
Galina Kavaliauskienė and Daiva Užpalienė
Law University of Lithuania
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
35
Journal of Language and Learning
Vol. 1 No. 1
2003
ISSN 1740 - 4983
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
36
Journal of Language and Learning
Vol. 1 No. 1
2003
ISSN 1740 - 4983
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
37
Journal of Language and Learning
Vol. 1 No. 1
2003
ISSN 1740 - 4983
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
38
Journal of Language and Learning
Vol. 1 No. 1
2003
ISSN 1740 - 4983
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.
39
Journal of Language and Learning
Vol. 1 No. 1
2003
ISSN 1740 - 4983
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
Ongoing
1 For communication
83%
40%
2 For a job
6%
3 For personal development
11%
4 For settling down in a foreign country
11%
5 For traveling
6 For studies
7 To speak fluently
8 To use a computer
9%
9 For job promotion
6%
10 To watch English TV channels
6%
11 To read professional literature
6%
Initial
33%
19%
5%
2%
2%
9%
-
40
Journal of Language and Learning
Vol. 1 No. 1
2003
ISSN 1740 - 4983
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








9
-
To improve English
39%
To learn ESP vocabulary
17%
To speak fluently
17%
To learn grammar
13%
To get information
6%
To improve listening skills
2%
To learn writing skills
To pass an exam
To enjoy lectures
56%
67%
30%
28%
7%
5%
2%
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
41
Journal of Language and Learning
Vol. 1 No. 1
2003
ISSN 1740 - 4983
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%
42
Journal of Language and Learning
Vol. 1 No. 1
2003
ISSN 1740 - 4983
65%
Satisfactory
15%
13%

Weak
6%
Excellent
-
Very good
6%
Listening skills:
2%
Good
55%
44%
Satisfactory
33%
39%
Weak
6%
Excellent
-
15%
 Writing skills:
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.
43
Journal of Language and Learning
Vol. 1 No. 1
2003
ISSN 1740 - 4983
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%
Listening
27%
Reading
10%
Grammar
7%
Vocabulary
3%
Writing
3%
Do not know
50%
23%
2%
9%
5%
9%
2%
-
 Students’ weaknesses
Initial
Ongoing
Grammar
42%
Speaking
16%
Writing
16%
Vocabulary
13%
Listening
7%
Reading
1%
Do not know
17%
52%
13%
11%
16%
6%
2%
The grim reality of learning a foreign language is revealed by students’ self-assessment
44
Journal of Language and Learning
Vol. 1 No. 1
2003
ISSN 1740 - 4983
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
45
Journal of Language and Learning
Vol. 1 No. 1
2003
ISSN 1740 - 4983
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.
46
Journal of Language and Learning
Vol. 1 No. 1
2003
Chart 1 Learners’ Initial Priorities
ISSN 1740 - 4983
Chart 2 Learners’
Middle-Course Priorities
14 %
6h
9%
2 years
28%
4 years
63%
3 years
44 %
4h
29 %
3h
13 %
2h
15%
2 years
47%
4 years
38%
3 years
7%
13%
2h
6h
38%
4h
42%
3h
Chart 3 Learners’ Initial Priorities
Middle-Course Priorities
Chart 4 Learners’
47
Journal of Language and Learning
Vol. 1 No. 1
2003
ISSN 1740 - 4983
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
48
Journal of Language and Learning
Vol. 1 No. 1
2003
ISSN 1740 - 4983
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
49
Journal of Language and Learning
Vol. 1 No. 1
2003
ISSN 1740 - 4983
Galina Kavaliauskienė is Associated Professor in the Department of Foreign Languages
at the
Law University of Lithuania.
Email: [email protected]
Daiva Užpalienė is Lecturer in the Department of Foreign Languages at the
Law University of Lithuania.
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
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 Nijolė Burkšaitienė for permission to use her
designed questionnaire.
50