Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

(TESOL)

Academic Oral Communication Needs of EAP Learners: What Subject-Matter Instructors

Actually Require
Author(s): Dana Ferris and Tracy Tagg
Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Spring, 1996), pp. 31-58
Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587606
Accessed: 13/04/2010 01:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tesol.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
 TESOLQUARTERLY
Vol.30, No. 1, Spring1996

Academic Oral CommunicationNeeds

of EAP Learners: What Subject-Matter
InstructorsActuallyRequire
DANA FERRIS and TRACY TAGG
California State University, Sacramento

One of the most vital steps in needs analysis for English for academic
purposes (EAP) is to describe the expectations and requirements of
instructors at a variety of institutions and across a range of contexts.
Though much work has been done in identifying academic literacy
tasks, little attention has been thus far paid to describing the listening
and speaking tasks required by instructors in academic settings. To
examine and describe these expectations and requirements, we sur-
veyed over 900 professors at four different institutions: a community
college, a public teaching-oriented university, a public research-
oriented university, and a private university. The results demon-
strated that instructors'requirements vary across academic discipline,
type of institution, and class size. Both quantitative and qualitative
analyses also indicated that U.S. instructors' lecturing styles are be-
coming less formal and more interactive and that this trend places
new expectations upon the students. The implications for EAP teach-
ing are that genre-specific listening/speaking courses and tasks may
be necessary and that EAP teachers need to prepare students for
comprehension of and participation in a variety of lecture/discussion
formats.

As we have learned from the English for specific purposes (ESP)

literature and from recent discussions of task-based language
teaching (TBLT), needs assessment is vitally important for course
design and materials development in specific contexts (Johns, 1991;
Long & Crookes, 1992). For ESP and TBLT, the analysis of authentic,
baseline data gathered from real-world sources is an essential first
step in needs assessment. The description of listening/speaking tasks
required by instructors in academic contexts is one area in which such
baseline data are scarce.
As Long and Crookes (1992) point out, "Task-based syllabuses ...
require a needs identification to be conducted in terms of the real-

31
world target tasks learners are preparing to undertake" (p. 44).To
prepare students for the tasks required of them in subject-matter
classrooms, teachers of English for academic purposes (EAP) must be
aware of the nature of those tasks. In EAP, a great deal of previous
inquiry has focused on L2 literacy tasks required for academic success
(e.g., Bridgeman & Carlson, 1984; Horowitz, 1986; Johns, 1988, 1992,
1995; Kroll, 1979; Leki, 1995; Ramanathan & Kaplan, in press; Reid,
1989; Shih, 1992; Spack, 1988; West & Byrd, 1982), but less attention
has been given to the description of academic listening and speaking
requirements. To this point, the expectations of college/university in-
structors and the consequent needs of their students with regard to
aural/oral tasks have not been described with the degree of specificity
achieved for reading/writing tasks. Unfortunately, however, the de-
scription of academic aural/oral requirements is complicated by the
fact that instructors' expectations tend to be implicit, not always clear
to the students, and perhaps not even apparent to the instructors
themselves. The present survey research project therefore attempts
both to fill the gap in EAP data pertaining to aural/oral tasks and to
make more explicit the assumptions, expectations, and requirements
of subject-matter college/university instructors at a variety of institu-
tions and across a range of academic disciplines and class types.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Previous EAP Surveys Related

to Academic Aural/Oral Requirements

According to Johns's (1991) review of ESP principles and research,

"sources of precourse needs indicators" may include "the students
themselves (i.e., their perceived needs and proficiencies) ... and the
teaching organization." Further, "needs assessments have included
extensive surveys of experts to determine what tasks students must
undertake in a particular language use context" (p. 72). In the specific
arena of EAP, several survey research projects have been undertaken
with ESL students and subject-matter instructors to describe the tasks
faced by college/university ESL students and the relative importance
of the various tasks or skills for academic success. The three studies
that are especially relevant to this project are those of Ostler (1980),
Johns (1981), and Mason (1995). Ostler surveyed 131 ESL students at
the University of Southern California (a large, private university) about
the relative importance of various academic tasks across all major skill
areas (listening, speaking, reading, and writing). Six specific oral/aural
tasks were ranked by the students in the following order of importance:

32 TESOL QUARTERLY
 class notes, asking questions, discussing issues, giving talks, panel dis-
cussions, and interviews (1980, p. 493). The rankings show consider-
able variation across majors and class standing (lower division, upper
division, master's, and doctoral). Ostler concludes that ESL university
students in general need help in developing academic speaking abilities
(e.g., conversing with instructors) rather than general conversational
skills (such as talking with grocery clerks) and suggests that "graduate
[ESL-EAP] classes might need to include one unit on preparing and
giving talks and another on preparing for and participating in panel
discussions" (p. 501).
Johns (1981) surveyed 140 subject-matter faculty at San Diego State
University (a large, public university primarilyfocused on undergradu-
ate teaching). She found that the faculty respondents ranked receptive
skills (reading and listening) higher than productive skills (writing and
speaking) and suggests that the emphasis of many university ESL
programs on developing students' writing and speaking abilities with-
out reference to reading or listening materials may be misplaced:
"Writing,for example, could involve . .. the organization and rewriting
of lecture notes. Speaking instruction should include response to read-
ings or lectures rather than the preparation of dialogues or presenta-
tions" (p. 56).
A recent ethnographic study by Mason (1995) consisted of interviews
of 26 foreign graduate students and 18 instructors at Georgetown
University. The student interviews were designed to discover the sub-
jects' "perceived degree of lecture comprehension" (p. 201); for the
faculty interviews, the purpose was to "provide a context in which to
consider the student perceptions" (p. 202). Mason concludes that

The whole body of interviewsmakesclearthatthere is a growingexpecta-

tion of oral participationin the lecture hall. For graduatestudents,that
includesthe lectures,the small group study for the lectures,oral reports
and discussionin the lecturesand for some, the role of lecturers,as TAs
themselves.For [foreigngraduatestudents],it meansthatgreaterattention
must be paid towardenhancingauralandoral skills.(p. 217)

Research on Academic Listening and Speaking

In addition to the survey research that examined instructors'require-
ments and students' priorities, various studies have examined aspects
of listening and speaking for academic purposes. These have included
discourse and ethnographic analyses of academic lectures, research
on listening comprehension processes and learner strategies, studies
of L2 students' speaking abilities (including formal speaking and pro-
nunciation) and interaction with native speakers, and a wide variety

ACADEMIC ORAL COMMUNICATION NEEDS OF EAP LEARNERS 33

of suggestions for teaching academic listening and speaking, ranging
from the very traditional (dictation) to the very modern (use of com-
puter simulations, closed captioning, videodiscs, etc.). (For reviews, see
Flowerdew, 1995; Mendelsohn & Rubin, 1995; Ferris & Tagg, in press.)
In reviewing the relevant literature, several generalizations important
for this study emerged.

1. There is little published research of any type that describes,from the

instructorsor of EAP studentsthemselves,
perspectiveof subject-matter
the natureof listening/speaking
tasksor abilitiesexpectedand required
of college students. The EAP survey research described above (Johns,
1981;Mason,1995;Ostler, 1980)providedvaluableinsightsand direc-
tions for future research;however, in each case, the inquirywas re-
strictedto a single universitysetting (a large, publicteaching-oriented
universityand two large,privateresearch-orientedinstitutions,respec-
tively).

2. The degree and type(s) of oral/aural interaction expectedin university

classes vary considerablyacross disciplines, across class types (graduate
vs. undergraduate, upper vs. lower division), and across relative class
sizes. For instance, speaking and interpersonal communication tasks
of all types appear to be crucially important for business majors (Johns,
1981; Kaplan & Stefanopolous, 1994; Ostler, 1980). Some researchers
have claimed that graduate students in general have a greater need
than do undergraduates for formal speaking practice, including indi-
vidual presentations and panel discussions (Graham & Picklo, 1994;
Mason, 1995; Ostler, 1980). However, there is disagreement as to the
significance of some of these variables. For instance, Hansen and
Jensen (1995) found "the level of interactivity to vary according to
class size: the larger the groups, the less the interaction" (Flowerdew,
1995, p. 15). In the same volume, however, Mason (1995) points out
that even fairly large classes (such as law classes with up to 120 students)
may be conducted in a highly interactive style she characterizes as
"report-and-discuss" (p. 203).

3. Instructors themselves vary considerably in their preferred level of

classroominteraction. A number of discourse and ethnographic studies
have identified characteristics of academic listening contexts (Chau-
dron, 1995; Flowerdew, 1995). Dudley-Evans (1995) notes that such
studies have identified three major types of lecture format:
the readingstyle, in whichlecturerseither read the lectureor deliverit as
style, in whichlecturersdeliver
if they were reading it, the conversational
the lecture from notes and in a relativelyinformal style with a certain

34 TESOL QUARTERLY
 amount of interaction with students, and the rhetoricalstyle, in which lectur-
ers give a performance with jokes and digressions. (p. 148)
To these three broad types Mason (1995), in her ethnographic analysis,
has added the report-and-discussmode, in which
the lecturer initiates topics for small groups to study and present for discus-
sion in the class. The lecturer frames the issues and intervenes when appro-
priate to ensure that all the important issues are raised and all important
contributions are noted. In short, the oralparticipationof studentsbecomesan
integralpart of the lecture[italics added]. (p. 203)
Another issue affecting individual differences among lecturers is the
fact that the instructors themselves may be nonnative speakers of the
language of instruction (Flowerdew, 1995; Mason, 1995), which quite
likely could affect their willingness and ability to allow or promote in-
class interaction. Though this variable was not measured in the present
study, several of our survey respondents commented that they them-
selves and many of their peers were nonnative speakers of English.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

To investigate the issues outlined above, a large survey research

project was completed. Following models of previous projects that
examined EAP requirements in general (Johns, 1981; Ostler, 1980)
and EAP literacy tasks in particular (Bridgeman & Carlson, 1984;
Horowitz, 1986; Kroll, 1979), we chose a survey approach as an effi-
cient means to collect a relatively large amount of data in a short
period of time. This approach enabled us to obtain an "aerial view"
of academic oral tasks and requirements at several different types of
institutions. We anticipated that our results could provide baseline
data for ESP/TBLT needs assessment purposes and suggest follow-
up projects using a wider variety of analytic techniques (e.g., discourse
analysis, ethnography, case studies). To accomplish this, subject-matter
instructors at four tertiary institutions were surveyed by mail about
the aural/oral tasks they require of their students in general, the ways
in which ESL students in particular struggle with these expectations,
and areas of oral proficiency to which these instructors wish their
students' ESL teachers would give (or had given) more attention. (A
complete copy of the survey is provided in the Appendix.) The project
was guided by three research questions:
1. What types of listening and speaking tasks do subject-matter in-
structors expect or require of college/university students?
2. In what way(s) do the academic listening/speaking abilities of ESL

ACADEMIC ORAL COMMUNICATION NEEDS OF EAP LEARNERS 35

 students fall short of enabling them to complete these classroom
tasks successfully?
3. What could university and university-preparatory ESL classes do
to better equip their students for the oral/aural tasks they will face
in their college and university classes?
However, the resulting corpus of data collected was so extensive that
in this article we focus exclusively on the outcomes related to the first
research question (i.e., results from survey Sections A-C [Questions
1-8, 12-21], Part G, and selected comments from Part F).'

METHOD

Subjects
The survey recipients for this study were chosen according to two
parameters: (a) the type of institution in which they taught and (b) their
specific academic discipline. For the first parameter, four tertiary insti-
tutions in California were chosen: Sacramento City College (SCC), a
large community college with a sizable ESL population; California
State University, Sacramento (CSUS), a large public university that
focuses primarily on undergraduate teaching; the University of Cali-
fornia, Davis (UCD), a large public university that focuses heavily
on research and graduate programs; and the University of Southern
California (USC), a large private school that also emphasizes research
and graduate programs. By including four different types of schools
in our investigation, we expected to obtain a more complete picture
of the academic listening/speaking tasks required of college students
in a variety of settings than if we had only surveyed instructors at one
institution.
Second, we restricted the sample to instructors in the academic disci-
plines at each school in which ESL students are significantly repre-
sented. This information was obtained by contacting the ESL coordina-
tors at each school and asking them to provide us with a list of the
majors most commonly pursued by ESL students. We then obtained
current catalogues from each school, which included faculty names
and campus addresses, and sent the survey to all full-time faculty in
each department we had identified. This resulted in a mailing list of
946 instructors (Table 1).

'The results of data collected to address the second and third research questions are detailed
in a separate paper, which is available from the authors (Ferris & Tagg, in press).

36 TESOL QUARTERLY
Survey Development and Administration
An original survey was developed to address the three research
questions we had outlined (see the Appendix). In designing the ques-
tionnaire, we opted for a survey (Parts A-E) that would be relatively
user friendly and would bring us the greatest number of responses.
However, in consideration of concerns raised by previous researchers
(Horowitz, 1986; Johns, 1981) about forcing respondents into prede-
termined categories (which may or may not be accurate reflections of
their actual practices), we also provided space for additional comments
(Part F). Further, we asked respondents, at their option, to send any
relevant course descriptions or assignments (Part G). A pilot version
of the survey was sent to members of one academic department at
CSUS. After slight adjustments, the survey was then mailed with a
cover letter and a stamped, self-addressed return envelope. Mailed
responses were collected over a 6-week period.

Analysis of Survey Responses

Survey responses were coded for statisticalanalyses and entered into
a computer database. In addition to examining overall frequencies,
percentages, and other descriptive statistics, two statistical procedures
for nonparametric data were applied: Kruskal-Wallisone-way analyses
of variance (ANOVA) (to examine differences in survey responses
across academic majors) and Spearman rank-order correlations (to
examine relationships among the demographic variables and the re-
sponses to survey items about classroom practices [survey Part C, Ques-
tions 12-21]). Qualitative data (from survey Parts F and G) were tabu-
lated and classified into larger categories, as applicable.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Response Patterns
Of the 946 surveys that were mailed out, 25 were returned as unde-
liverable. Of the remaining 921 surveys, 234 (25.4%) were completed
and returned. Because the response rate was fairly low, it should
be emphasized that the results do not reflect the opinions of all the
instructors in the academic departments surveyed. As the responses
were tallied, it became clear that most respondents fell into one of
several groups based upon their academic discipline. These post hoc
groups were business, engineering (including a few responses from

ACADEMIC ORAL COMMUNICATION NEEDS OF EAP LEARNERS 37

computer science and mathematics instructors), music, natural sciences
(including a wide variety of majors), and miscellaneous.2
Profile of Respondents (Survey Part A)

The average respondent has been teaching at his or her institution

for about 15 years (mean 14.95) (although the large standard deviation
attests to the wide range [1-32 years] of responses). The respondents
teach primarily graduate and upper-division courses, except for SCC
instructors, who teach lower-division courses exclusively. They claim
that their most common delivery modes are lecture (61.7%),3followed
by seminar/discussion (41.6%). We were especially gratified by the fact
that nearly 56% (130) of the respondents chose to add their own
written comments (Part F) and that 55 provided their names and
addresses so that we could send them our findings. In addition, a
further 18 (7.6%) sent assignments or course descriptions that related
to listening/speaking requirements or expectations. These responses,
which represented the faculty member's willingness to cooperate in
completing the survey, confirmed intuitions we had as we processed
the surveys: Our respondents were, in general, interested in and con-
cerned about their ESL students and had strong opinions about their
needs. Table 1 (Part A) provides an overview of respondents' institu-
tions, academic departments, and types of courses taught.
Specific Course Information (Survey Part B)
The courseschosen for more detailedcomment by the respondents (Part
B) were mostly upper division (50.4%) and graduate (31%). The over-
whelming majority (84.6%) of these classes were described as lecture or
lecture/discussioncourses. There was a wide range of class sizes (4-500),
and classsizesvaried considerablyacrossthe other demographicvariables.
Specific class size information is summarizedin Table 2.
The ESL students at the various institutions represented in this
survey are operating in a wide variety of contexts (Table 2). The variety
is particularly apparent when class size is broken down by school,
major, and class type. For instance, upper-division and graduate busi-
ness classes at CSUS are considerably smaller than those at USC. In
engineering (the only discipline for which we have data from all four
schools), students at the research institutions (UCD and USC) are
generally in much larger classes than those at the teaching institutions
(SCC and CSUS). In general, graduate classes are fairly small, averag-
2Though miscellaneous responses are included in the totals, they were not entered in the
statistical procedures that measured differences across disciplines.
3Because respondents were allowed to check more than one category for this question,
percentages total to greater than 100%.

38 TESOL QUARTERLY
 TABLE 1
Survey Respondents and Their Courses

A. Respondents
Surveys Academic areas
Returned
Engi- Natural Miscella-
School Sent No. % Business neering Music sciences neousa

SCC 43 12 27.9 2 2 0 0 7
CSUS 136 35 25.7 23 12 0 0 1
UCD 368 101 27.5 0 56 0 48 3
USC 399 86 21.6 27 40 10 0 4
Totalb 946 234 25.4 52 110 10 48 15
(22.2%) (46.6%) (4.3%) (20.5%) (6.4%)

Types of courses taught No. %

Graduate 189 77.7
Upper division 186 76.5
Lower division 89 36.6
Lab 89 36.6
Lecture 150 61.7
Seminar/discussion 101 41.6

B. One course taught by respondents

Level No. % Delivery type No. %

Graduate 70 31.0 Lecture 105 44.2

Upper division 114 50.4 Lecture/discussion 96 40.4
Lower division 42 18.6 Seminar 8 3.4
Lab 25 10.7

Average no. of students ESL students

0-15 32 14.6 % of class

16-30 63 28.6 0-10 35 17.1
31-60 79 35.9 10-25 86 42.0
61-99 12 5.5 25-50 55 26.8
More than 100 34 15.6 More than 50 29 14.2
Status
International 62 30.1
Immigrant 55 26.7
Both 89 43.2

aAeronautics (1), architecture (4), dentistry (2), food science (1), nursing (4), textiles (1),
viticulture (1), unknown (1). bof the total sent, 25 were returned undelivered.

ACADEMIC ORAL COMMUNICATION NEEDS OF EAP LEARNERS 39

 TABLE 2
Class Size by Academic Area, School, Level, and Delivery Type

School
SCC CSUS UCD USC
Academic area
and level of class M SD M SD M SD M SD

Business
Lower division 35.00 00.00 82.50 53.03 41.00 1.41
Upper division 37.35 14.82 55.71 45.80
Graduate 23.00 00.00 36.75 15.13
Engineering
Lower division 22.50 3.54 25.00 7.07 87.50 40.27 55.00 30.41
Upper division 33.44 11.16 41.17 17.75 45.42 27.68
Graduate 7.00 4.24 12.58 5.88 27.54 20.03
Music
Lower division
Upper division 21.67 11.55
Graduate 25.71 7.87
Science
Lower division 210.77 165.35
Upper division 159.96 114.31
Graduate 15.33 3.12

Delivery type M SD
Lecture 74.99 93.87
Lecture/discussion 50.41 65.73
Seminar 26.86 11.78
Lab 26.86 11.78

ing around 24 students, though not so small as those to which humani-

ties graduate students may be accustomed. Upper-division major
courses are quite large in some contexts (e.g., upper-division science
courses at UCD average 160 students), whereas lower-division classes
range from small (music, averaging 22 students), to medium sized
(business and engineering, averaging 45-80 students), to extremely
large (science, averaging 210 students in the lower division). Class size
also varied according to preferred delivery type, with lecture classes
being the largest (mean 75 students) and seminar courses being the
smallest (mean 27 students); this finding is similar to the results re-
ported by Hansen and Jensen (1995).
Correlation Analysis:
Relationships Among Demographic Variables
A summary of all significant correlations is provided in Table 3.
The most significant relationships among the demographic variables

40 TESOL QUARTERLY
 TABLE 3
Demographic Variables: Significant Correlations

Variables r p

Number of students and class type .51 .000

Number of students and delivery type -.22 .001
Number of years and class type .19 .005

were between number of students and class type, which confirms the
relationship indicated by the raw numbers and percentages shown in
Tables 1 and 2 (graduate classes have the fewest students whereas
lower-division classes have the most); and number of students and
delivery type, which provides evidence for the commonsense assump-
tion that instructors opt for a less interactive delivery type (i.e., lecture
rather than lecture/discussion or seminar) when they are teaching large
classes.
One relationship among the demographic variables that proved not
to be significant was the correlation between class type and delivery
type. In other words, it could not be assumed from these data that
graduate courses are always conducted as seminars or that lower-
division courses are always delivered in a lecture format. In fact, in
tabulating the surveys we noted that some respondents described their
classes as lecture classes even though their classes were graduate level
and had as few as 12 students. In general, choice of delivery type
appeared to be related far more to academic discipline and number
of students than to whether the course was graduate, upper division,
or lower division. This result challenges the assumption likely held by
many ESL teachers coming from humanities or social science back-
grounds (and asserted in previous studies such as Mason, 1995; Ostler,
1980) that ESL graduate students in general need specialized prepara-
tion, such as developing formal presentation and seminar discussion
strategies, to function in their academic majors.The correlation data in
this study indicate that this assumption may be true for some graduate
students in particular fields (such as business and the humanities) and
at certain types of institutions (in particular, schools that offer relatively
small classes) but not necessarily for all ESL students pursuing graduate
degrees.

Aural/Oral Tasks Required of All Students

Table 4 shows the rank-ordered responses of all faculty members
to Questions 12-21, which asked them to provide information about

ACADEMIC ORAL COMMUNICATION NEEDS OF EAP LEARNERS 41

 TABLE 4
Oral Skills Expected of All Students, Rank-Ordered by Mean (Lowest to Highest),
From Survey Responses, Part C

Response
1 2 3 4
Item (Always) (Often) (Sometimes) (Never) M SD

Class participation
(Question 12)**
Business 30 5 4 13 1.98 1.27
Music 3 4 0 3 2.30 1.25
Miscellaneous 4 1 2 8 3.02 1.30
Natural sciences 7 1 4 34 3.38 1.05
Engineering 16 3 7 81 3.44 1.07
Total 60 14 17 139
Small-group work
(Question 13)**
Miscellaneous 4 7 2 2 2.13 0.99
Business 12 9 21 10 2.56 1.06
Music 1 3 2 4 2.90 1.10
Natural sciences 10 7 6 24 2.94 1.24
Engineering 7 9 26 64 3.38 0.88
Total 34 35 57 104
Working with peers
(Question 14)**
Business 21 8 10 11 2.29 1.24
Miscellaneous 2 3 5 5 2.87 1.06
Engineering 14 18 40 35 2.88 1.03
Music 1 1 2 6 3.40 1.17
Natural sciences 0 2 11 33 3.66 0.56
Total 38 32 68 90
Oral presentations
(Question 15)**
Miscellaneous 6 3 2 4 2.33 1.29
Business 15 12 11 14 2.51 1.16
Music 2 1 3 4 2.90 1.20
Engineering 16 8 20 63 3.24 1.08
Natural sciences 3 1 7 34 3.51 0.91
Total 42 25 43 119
Leading discussions
(Question 16)**
Business 3 5 18 23 3.22 0.95
Miscellaneous 2 1 3 9 3.33 0.98
Natural sciences 0 1 8 36 3.75 0.61
Music 0 0 2 8 3.80 0.42
Engineering 1 3 8 95 3.84 0.48
Total 6 10 39 171
Debates
(Question 17)**
Business 6 6 17 22 3.12 0.99
Miscellaneous 2 1 3 9 3.27 1.10
Music 0 2 1 7 3.50 0.85
Natural sciences 0 2 6 37 3.79 0.51
Engineering 2 2 11 84 3.82 0.53
Total 10 13 38 159
continued on next page

42 TESOL QUARTERLY
 TABLE 4
Continued

Response
1 2 3 4
Item (Always) (Often) (Sometimes) (Never) M SD

Assignments with
native speakers
(Question 18)**
Business 9 7 16 19 2.80 1.13
Miscellaneous 4 1 4 6 2.80 1.27
Music 4 0 0 6 3.10 1.45
Engineering 13 17 15 64 3.30 1.03
Natural sciences 0 1 1 44 3.94 0.32
Total 30 26 36 139
Notetaking important
(Question 19)**
Music 10 0 0 0 1.00 0.00
Natural sciences 31 10 4 0 1.43 0.75
Miscellaneous 9 4 1 1 1.53 0.92
Engineering 52 25 23 8 1.75 0.93
Business 19 17 13 3 2.02 0.93
Total 121 56 41 12
Students ask questions
(Question 20)
Music 8 2 0 0 1.20 0.42
Natural sciences 27 15 4 1 1.48 0.66
Miscellaneous 9 3 3 0 1.53 0.74
Engineering 47 42 13 3 1.72 0.79
Business 15 29 6 0 1.78 0.64
Total 106 91 26 4
Students come to
office hours
(Question 21)*
Natural sciences 25 16 5 0 1.54 0.69
Miscellaneous 8 3 4 0 1.67 0.82
Music 3 5 1 0 1.70 0.68
Engineering 41 51 13 1 1.88 0.88
Business 13 26 11 0 2.00 0.69
Total 90 101 34 1

Overall total 537 403 396 938

*Differences in responses across majors (Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA): p < .05.

**Differences in responses across majors (Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA): p < .005.

their expectations and requirements with regard to listening/speaking

tasks. The differences in responses across majors that proved statisti-
cally significant in the Kruskal-Wallisone-way ANOVAs are also noted.
For all items except Question 20 (whether or not students asked ques-
tions), the differences were significant, most at the .005 confidence
level (or lower).

ACADEMIC ORAL COMMUNICATION NEEDS OF EAP LEARNERS 43

 The responses to Questions 12-15 showed clear patterns of differen-
tiation across academic disciplines. Business classes, followed by music
classes (with one exception), were more likely than engineering and
science classes to have required class participation, regular in-class
small-group work, graded assignments that necessitated collaboration
with classmates (whether with native-speaking peers or other nonnative
speakers, not specified by respondents), and assigned oral presenta-
tions. The exception to this pattern was the responses to Question 14,
which showed that the engineering students in this study are more
often required to work with classmates on graded projects than are
the music students. This quantitative finding was supported by the
written remarks of several engineering instructors, who commented
that collaboration on homework assignments was actively encouraged
even when it was not required.
The responses to Questions 16 and 17 showed that few instructors
in any discipline required their students to lead in-class discussions or
participate in debates. This suggests that such interactive oral tasks
may be less important in some contexts than previous studies (Mason,
1995; Ostler, 1980) have found. Similarly, few respondents indicated
that their students were required to complete assignments that demand
interaction with native speakers (Question 18). This finding is similar
to that of Ostler (1980), whose student respondents felt that interviews
were the least important of the six aural/oral tasks they ranked.
Instructors in all disciplines felt that competent notetaking was im-
portant for success in their courses. However, in business classes, which
appeared to have the greatest degree of interaction, strong notetaking
skills appeared to be somewhat less important than in the other fields.
There was also little variation in responses to Questions 20-21. Most
instructors, regardless of discipline, claimed that their students often
asked questions before, during, and after class and that the students
generally took advantage of professors' office hours.

Correlation Analysis: Relationships Among

Demographic Variables and Responses to Part C
Class Type

A summary of the significant correlations between the demographic

variables (obtained from survey Parts A and B) and the responses to
Part C is provided in Table 5. There were also several significant
correlations between class type (lower division, upper division, gradu-
ate) and responses to Part C of the survey. A negative correlation
between class type and Question 13 (small-group work) meant that
respondents teaching graduate classes were less likely to utilize in-

44 TESOL QUARTERLY
class small groups than were instructors of upper-division and lower-
division classes. This finding seems counterintuitive and certainly con-
tradicts our own experiences as both students and teachers in graduate
courses. However, it should be remembered that, for some of the
respondents' disciplines, even the graduate courses had relatively large
class sizes (e.g., the business and engineering graduate courses at USC
ranged from 26 to 36 students; see Table 2). This finding is still
surprising and should be examined more closely in other contexts and
using other research methods. On the other hand, class type correlated
positively with both oral presentations (Question 15) and leading dis-
cussions (Question 16), indicating that instructors of graduate classes
were more likely to require such tasks. These findings support the
previous survey results of Ostler (1980) and the ethnographic data of
Mason (1995).
TABLE 5
Significant Correlations Between Demographic Variables
and Survey (Part C) Responses

Variable r p
Class type and small-group work (Question 13) -.19 .003
Class type and oral presentations (Question 15) .16 .017
Class type and leading discussions (Question 16) .14 .041

Delivery type and Questions 12-19 .000

No. of students and class participation (Question 12) .17 .009

No. of students and oral presentations (Question 15) .32 .000
No. of students and leading discussions (Question 16) .15 .029
No. of students and notetaking (Question 19) -.24 .000
No. of students and office hours (Question 21) -.18 .006

No. of years and class participation (Question 12) .16 .016

No. of years and notetaking (Question 19) -.15 .031

Preferred Delivery Type, Class Size,

and Length of Time at Institution

Not surprisingly, there were strong positive correlations between

Questions 12-19 and the respondents' preferred delivery type (lecture,
lecture/discussion, seminar), implying that instructors who described
their classes as primarily lecture courses were less likely to require class
participation, utilize small groups, assign oral presentations, and so
forth. Similarly, the significant relationships between class size and
responses to Part C indicate that instructors with fewer students require

ACADEMIC ORAL COMMUNICATION NEEDS OF EAP LEARNERS 45

more class participation and are more likely to assign oral presentations
and discussion-leading responsibilities, whereas strong notetaking
skills (Question 19) become more important as class sizes increase.
Finally, there were small but significant correlations between the num-
ber of years the respondents had taught at their institutions and the
questions relating to class participation (Question 12) and the impor-
tance of lecture notetaking (Question 19). Instructors who had longer
tenures were less likely to require class participation and more likely
to say that effective notetaking was essential for success in their classes.
The explanation for these last two relationships may simply be that
instructors who have been teaching longer prefer traditional pedagogi-
cal styles, such as formal lecturing modes. (One of our own senior
colleagues, on principle, routinely writes negative evaluations of junior
faculty members who allow their students to work collaboratively or
discuss issues in small groups.)

Qualitative Data About Classroom Practices

Twenty-five comments were written in Part F of the survey, in which
the instructors offered descriptions and explanations of their own
classroom practices. The comments, together with the 27 course de-
scriptions and assignments sent separately, provide additional detail
about the classrooms in which today's college/university ESL students
are functioning. These 25 comments broke down into several major
categories:
1. descriptions of required speaking activities, including oral presenta-
tions, teamwork with peers in the lab, and an oral final examination;
2. discussion of strategies that the respondents themselves employ
to make their lectures more comprehensible to students, such as
distributing lecture outlines, writing formulas on the blackboard,
incorporating visual information such as graphs and charts to intro-
duce new technical vocabulary, and using eye contact with students
in the front rows to pace the lectures;
3. descriptions of special accommodations or support provided for
ESL students (extra time for assignments and exams, easier grading
standards, tutoring, testing struggling students for learning disabili-
ties); and
4. a number of statements to the effect that aural/oral tasks were not
required in the course or field and that reading and writing were
much more important.
For instance, one instructor stated, "I lecture about math formulas I
write on the board. I often make mistakes on the blackboard, and the

46 TESOL QUARTERLY
chief two-way verbal interactions are when the students point them
out." On the other hand, respondents in the same fields and even in
the same institutions also stated that communication abilities were very
important, indicating that individual instructors differed in the value
they attached to aural/oral tasks in general and to classroom interaction
in particular.
Assignments and Course Descriptions
The other facet of the qualitative analysis in this study was the
consideration of assignments and course descriptions sent by some
respondents (in response to Part G of the survey). Eighteen respon-
dents sent materials; because some sent more than one example, 27
distinct course descriptions or assignments were analyzed.
A good deal of the information received dealt with class participation
(including the importance of class participation and descriptions of
how such participation would be evaluated) and oral reports (descrip-
tion, tips for presentations, and criteria for evaluation). More specifi-
cally, a number of respondents described pair or group projects of
some type-oral presentations on research or term projects, lab work,
and presentations of case studies. Also, the nature of the required
class participation was defined in some cases: Students were to take
part in simulations, prepare case studies for in-class recitation and
discussion, or make regular, brief presentations on assigned course
readings. Other information included extended descriptions of how
the students could contact the professor (one instructor explained at
some length his rationale for only holding office hours by appointment;
another set up e-mail accounts for all of his students), lists of tutoring
centers or support services for ESL students, and one semihumorous
list of prescriptive grammar rules that the students must follow ("Parts
of speech exist. If you deny their existence you will lose many, many,
many points.").

CONCLUSIONS
Demographics
This study is unusual among EAP survey research projects in that
it examined four distinct types of tertiary institutions across a variety
of disciplines and class types. To assess the needs of and design tasks
for college/university ESL students, we must consider the type of insti-
tution in which they are or will be studying, the academic majors they
will be pursuing, and their class standing. Even within specific academic
disciplines (business and engineering in this sample), we found major

ACADEMIC ORAL COMMUNICATION NEEDS OF EAP LEARNERS 47

differences in class size and delivery type across institutions and class
type (Table 2). These differences further affected the general level of
interaction as measured by the responses in Part C and referred to in
many of the instructors' written comments.

What are the types of listening and speaking tasks that subject-matter
instructors expect their students to be able to complete? Six important
generalizations emerged from the quantitative and qualitative data of
the present study in answer to this question:

1. Respondents in all fields felt that effective lecture notetaking is very

important (Table 4, Question 19).

2. The degree of interaction reported in respondents'classes varied sig-

nificantlyacross academic disciplines (Table 4, Questions 12-18; Table
5) regarding class participation, small-group work, collaboration with
peers, and so on, with business courses clearly being the most inter-
active and science courses the least so. Figure 1 summarizes the major
differences found across the responses of the three largest groups of
faculty (business, engineering, and science).

FIGURE 1
Sni..amty of MajorDifferences Across Disciplines

Discipline
Characteristic Business Engineering Science

Class size small-medium small-medium mostly very large

(except graduate)
Class participation always
-- often sometimes -> never sometimes -- never
required
In-class small-group often -- sometimes sometimes -- never often -- sometimes
discussions held
Working with peers often -> sometimes often -> sometimes sometimes -* never
required-graded
assignments
Oral presentations often -- sometimes sometimes - never sometimes - never
required
Assignments often -> sometimes sometimes -* never almost never
requiring interaction
with native speakers
often -e sometimes -- often -- often
Notetaking always always
important for
success

48 TESOL QUARTERLY
3. Tasks such as in-class debates, student-led discussions, and out-of-
class assignments that require interaction with native speakers appeared
to befairly uncommonin any context (Questions 16-18, Table 4). Given
that these sorts of tasks are often integral parts of highly regarded
EAP texts, it is important for teachers and materials developers to
know that such tasks are found less frequently in the real academic
world.4

4. The frequencies of the various interactive tasks were also clearly

correlated with class size (Table 5). Teachers of smaller classes gener-
ally included more of these tasks whereas instructors of larger classes
were less likely to require them.

5. Traditionalformal speaking assignments-in which the studentsstand

up in front of the class and give a prepared report/speech-are not as
common in subject-mattercourses as we might think, even in graduate
courses (Table 4, Question 15, and qualitative data). Even in business
courses, in which oral presentations appeared to be most common,
the average response to Question 15 was closer to sometimes than to
always or often.

6. When students do make in-class oral presentations, the growing trend

is for them to work in pairs or groups rather than alone (qualitative
data and Table 4, Questions 14 and 15). This trend was observed
particularly in the responses of business and engineering instructors.

Implications for Pedagogy

According to Long and Crookes (1992), the results of needs assess-

ment research can be used to guide EAP teachers in planning courses,
developing materials, and assessing students:
Once target tasks have been identified via the needs analysis, the next step
is to classify them into target tasktypes.... Pedagogictasksare then derived
from the task types and sequenced to form the task-basedsyllabus.It is the
pedagogic tasks that teachers and students actuallywork on in the classroom.
They will be increasingly complex approximations to the target tasks which
motivated their inclusion. (p. 44)

4However, it can be argued that such activities and tasks are valuable for second language
acquisition in general-building confidence, motivation, listening comprehension skills, and
spoken fluency-even if they do not exactly duplicate the tasks required of students in
their subject-matter courses.

ACADEMIC ORAL COMMUNICATION NEEDS OF EAP LEARNERS 49

 Several general implications and a number of specific suggestions
for both ESL teaching and materials development arise from these
findings.

1. EAP teachers should not assume that all graduate students or all
students in a particular major will need exposureto the same oral tasks.
For instance, it appears in our study to be very important for upper-
division and graduate engineering students to know how to work effec-
tively with peers on graded projects (not just small-group discussions)
and less important to complete formal speaking tasks or to focus on
pronunciation. Business majors, on the other hand, may need practice
in a variety of in-class speaking tasks, including presentation of case
studies, participation in simulations, and brief, informal reports or
recitations on assigned course readings; for them, traditional lecture
comprehension tasks may not be as important as learning to function
in a variety of interactive situations. Undergraduate science majors
(especially in contexts like UCD, in which students are enrolled in
very large classes) may need especially to know how to follow lectures
containing new scientific terms and how to work with others and give
on-the-spot oral reports in the laboratory, whereas formal speaking
tasks and in-class participation in discussions appear to be less crucial.

2. EAP programs should consider offering context-specificEAP courses

wheneverfeasible. This argument has been made in the EAP literature
before, particularly as it pertains to reading/writing tasks (e.g., Johns,
1995; Ramanathan & Kaplan, in press; Swales, 1990), and many ESL-
EAP programs do offer such courses (including USC, one of the institu-
tions surveyed for this study). In addition, besides bearing in mind
the specifications of particular genres, course/materials developers and
teachers must also consider whether their students are currently pre-
paring to take large lower-division classes or small graduate classes
and take into account the other demographic issues touched upon in
this study (e.g., the mix of ESL students and native speakers, the type
of institution, and the resultant impact on class size and delivery style).5

3. Teachers should be aware that lecturing styles vary and that college/
university classrooms of the 1990s appear to be evolving toward less
formal, more interactive styles (Lynch, 1995a, 1995b; Mason, 1995).
They should thus prepare students for academic listening comprehen-
sion tasks in a variety of contexts (e.g., in large or small classes), with
5Another concern not touched on in this study is the needs of students who will be taking
primarily general education courses, rather than major courses, once they complete their
ESL training (see Johns, 1995, for a discussion). A follow-up study currently under way is
investigating this issue.

50 TESOL QUARTERLY
a variety of lecturers, and in a variety of delivery styles. Lynch (1995a,
1995b) discusses the characteristicsof interactive lecture styles and the
difficulties such styles may pose for L2 listeners, and gives suggestions
for training both L2 listeners and subject-matter instructors in strate-
gies to maximize student comprehension. Brown (1994) presents a
taxonomy of microskills, with suggested pedagogic tasks, for teaching
listening comprehension to students at different levels of L2 profi-
ciency, and Morley (1995) provides principles and models for academic
listening comprehension instruction.
The survey findings and general pedagogical implications also suggest
several specific teaching applications and tasks, described in Figure 2.

Directions for Further Research

This research project surveyed subject-matter instructors from dif-

ferent types of institutions in a number of disciplines who teach a
variety of classes. To establish a solid base of authentic data on which
EAP teachers can base their own instructional decisions, more data
(from a greater number of instructors and from a wide range of
institutions) should be gathered and analyzed. Because of the broadly
based goals of the survey, we did not examine closely specific issues
such as lecturing styles, types of oral presentations, the nature of
small-group interactions in the various contexts represented by the
respondents, or the way students in general and ESL students in partic-
ular function in collaborative projects or assignments. Our understand-
ing of the nature of these listening/speaking tasks would thus benefit
from in-depth research that utilizes discourse analytic and ethno-
graphic techniques, including case studies, and classroom observations
(for discussions and examples of such techniques, see Cumming, 1994;
Johns, 1991; Leki, 1995).
EAP and TBLT are still relatively new, though vibrant, areas of
inquiry and teaching. Because of its reliance on careful needs analysis,
Long and Crookes (1992) assert that TBLT offers teachers "a princi-
pled approach to content selection" (p. 45). Johns (1991) notes that
There hasbeena tendencyfor teachersandcurriculumdesigners,especially
of "general"Englishclasses,to "intuit"the needsand futurelanguageuses
of students,ratherthanto attemptto discoverthem. .. Insteadof guessing
at studentneeds... we mustconstantlydevelopnewtechniquesfor examin-
ing the tasksstudentshave to performin English,for understandingthe
target situationsin whichthey willoperate,for analyzingthe discourseof
targetsituations,and for determiningstudentlearningstrategies.(p. 72)

6Flowerdew (1995) presents such a mix of research models, as well as an excellent agenda
for further research on academic lectures .

ACADEMIC ORAL COMMUNICATION NEEDS OF EAP LEARNERS 51

 FIGURE 2
Pedagogical Suggestions
Characteristic Goal
1. Class size Make students aware of
the characteristics of
different class sizes
2. Class participation Expose students to various
types of in-class activities;
build their skills and
confidence in classroom
interactions
3. Working with peers Build students' abilities to
work cooperatively both in
and out of class
4. Oral presentations Train students to make in-
class oral presentations of
different types
5. Lecture Expose students to
comprehension different presentation
styles and notetaking
6. Interacting with Help students develop
native-speaking peers confidence in working with
peers who are not ESL
students
7. Interacting with Help students feel more
professors comfortable
communicating with their
instructors
52
Suggested activities and tasks
Discuss strategies with students:
interacting with teaching
assistants (TAs), getting help
from professors of large classes;
discuss implications of very
small classes; have professors or
TAs visit to discuss these issues
Give students opportunities to
take part in large-group and
small-group discussions, ask and
answer questions, agree/disagree
appropriately with peers and
instructors
Discuss pros and cons of
collaborative work; assign in-
class and out-of-class graded
projects-library research,
surveys, interviews, oral
reports-that must be
completed in pairs or groups
Give students training and
practice with a variety of
speaking tasks: prepared formal
speeches reporting the results
of a small-group task or project
to the class, brief oral
summaries of course readings
or case studies
Model different lecture styles:
invite other EAP and subject-
matter instructors to guest-
lecture; analyze audio- and
videotaped lectures and
transcripts for comprehension
cues, strategies for asking and
clarifying questions, and so on
Set up conversation partner
groups, social events, etc.; invite
native-speaking students in for
small-group discussions,
interviews, and so on
Invite subject-matter instructors
to discuss expectations about
office hours, telephone calls;
discuss appropriate behavior
(e.g., addressing instructors)
TESOL QUARTERLY
U.S. education has changed and continues to evolve rapidly, particu-
larly with advances in technology, which will soon change permanently,
if they have not already changed, the shape of college/university course
delivery. To equip EAP students for the variety of challenges awaiting
them, EAP instructors, materials developers, and teacher trainers need
to be aware of what is really happening in college/university classes
today. Information about and description of real-world academic tasks,
provided by those who actually assign and implement them, are an
important source of this crucial knowledge.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to the Faculty Professional Development Mini-Grant Program at

California State University, Sacramento, which partially funded this research.

THE AUTHORS

Dana Ferris is Assistant Professor in the English Department at California State

University, Sacramento, where she is Coordinator of the MA TESOL program.
Her research interests are in L2 writing, EAP, and teacher training.

Tracy Tagg is an MA candidate in TESOL at California State University, Sacra-

mento. She has interests in all aspects of ESL teaching but has particular expertise
in composition (both LI and L2).

REFERENCES

Bridgeman, B., & Carlson, S. B. (1984). Survey of academic writing tasks. Written
Communication,1, 247-280.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Regents.
Chaudron, C. (1995). Academic listening. In D. J. Mendelsohn & J. Rubin (Eds.),
A guidefor the teachingof academiclistening (pp. 74-96). San Diego, CA: Dominie
Press.
Cumming, A. (1994). Alternatives in TESOL research: Descriptive, interpretive,
and ideological orientations. TESOL Quarterly,28, 673-770.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1995). Variations in the discourse patterns favoured by different
disciplines and their pedagogical implications. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic
listening: Researchperspectives(pp. 146-158). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ferris, D., & Tagg, T. (in press). Academic listening/speaking tasks for ESL stu-
dents: Problems, suggestions, and implications. TESOL Quarterly.
Flowerdew, J. (1995). Research of relevance to second language lecture compre-
hension: An overview. InJ. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academiclistening:Researchperspec-
tives (pp. 7-29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

ACADEMIC ORAL COMMUNICATION NEEDS OF EAP LEARNERS 53

Graham, J. G., & Picklo, A. R. (1994, March). Increasingrelevancyin a speakingcourse
for graduate students. Paper presented at the 28th Annual TESOL Convention,
Baltimore.
Hansen, C., & Jensen, C. (1995). Evaluating lecture comprehension. InJ. Flower-
dew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives(pp. 241-268). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Horowitz, D. M. (1986). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the
ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly,20, 445-461.
Johns, A. M. (1981). Necessary English: A faculty survey. TESOL Quarterly, 15,
51-57.
Johns, A. M. (1988). The discourse communities dilemma: Identifying transferable
skills for the academic milieu. English for SpecificPurposes, 7, 55-60.
Johns, A. M. (1991). English for specific purposes (ESP): Its history and contribu-
tions. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a secondor foreign language
(pp. 67-75). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Johns, A. M. (1992). Academic English: What can we do? Journal of Intensive
English Studies, 6, 61-69.
Johns, A. M. (1995). Genre and pedagogical purposes. Journal of SecondLanguage
Writing, 4, 181-190.
Kaplan, M. A., & Stefanopolous, L. (1994, April). Before we get down to business:
Acquiring conversationalskills in a foreign language. Paper presented at the 13th
Annual Conference on Languages and Communication for World Business
and the Professions, Ypsilanti, MI.
Kroll, B. (1979). A survey of the writing needs of foreign and American college
freshmen. English Language TeachingJournal, 33, 219-227.
Leki, I. (1995). Coping strategies for ESL students in writing tasks across the
curriculum. TESOL Quarterly,29, 235-260.
Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design.
TESOL Quarterly,26, 27-56.
Lynch, T. (1995a). The development of interactive listening strategies in second
language academic settings. In D. J. Mendelsohn & J. Rubin (Eds.), A guide for
the teaching of academiclistening (pp. 166-185). San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.
Lynch, T. (1995b). Training lecturers for international audiences. InJ. Flowerdew
(Ed.), Academic listening: Researchperspectives(pp. 269-289). Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Mason, A. (1995). By dint of: Student and lecturer perceptions of lecture compre-
hension strategies in first-term graduate study. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic
listening: Researchperspectives(pp. 199-218). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mendelsohn, D. J., & Rubin, J. (Eds.). (1995). A guide for the teaching of academic
listening. San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.
Morley, J. (1995). Academic listening comprehension instruction: Models, princi-
ples, and practices. In D.J. Mendelsohn &J. Rubin (Eds.), A guidefor the teaching
of academic listening (pp. 186-221). San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.
Ostler, S. E. (1980). A survey of academic needs for advanced ESL. TESOL Quar-
terly, 14, 489-502.
Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R. B. (in press). Audience and voice in current L2
composition texts: Some implications for ESL student writers. Journal of Second
Language Writing.
Reid, J. M. (1989). English as second language composition in higher education:
The expectations of the academic audience. In D. Johnson & D. Roen (Eds.),
Richnessin writing:EmpoweringESLstudents(pp. 220-234). New York: Longman.

54 TESOL QUARTERLY
Shih, M. (1992). Beyond comprehension exercises in the ESL academic reading
class. TESOL Quarterly,25, 289-318.
Spack, R. (1988). Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community:
How far should we go? TESOL Quarterly,22, 29-51.
Swales, J. (1990). Nonnative speaker graduate engineering students and their
introductions: Global coherence and local management. In A. M. Johns &
U. Connor (Eds.), Coherencein writing: Researchand pedagogicalperspectives(pp.
187-207). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
West, G. K., & Byrd, P. (1982). Technical writing required of graduate engineering
students. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,12, 1-6.

ACADEMIC ORAL COMMUNICATION NEEDS OF EAP LEARNERS 55

 APPENDIX
Survey: Academic Listening and Speaking Skills for ESL Students
A. Demographic Information
1. Institution (circle one): CSUS UCD SCC USC

2. Department:

3. Number of years at your institution:

4. Courses you generally teach (check all that apply):

graduate courses
undergraduate upper-division courses
undergraduate lower-division courses
lab courses
lecture courses
seminar/discussion courses
B. Specific Course/Student Information
For this section, please choose one course which you teach regularly and in which you have
significant numbers of interactions with English as a second language (ESL) students.

5. Is this course (circle one): graduate upper division. lower division?

6. Title of course:

7. Average number of students in course:

8. Type of course (circle one): lecture lecture-discussion seminar lab

9. Approximate percentage of ESL students in course (circle one):

over 50% 25-50% 10-25% under 10%

10. Most common nationalities/first languages of ESL students in this course:

11. Are your ESL students in this course primarily (circle one):

international (visa) immigrants both

C. Listening/Speaking Skills Needed by All Students

Please answer these questions with respect to the same course you described in Section B.
Please respond with reference to all students in your course.

For each statement, please make a check mark under the appropriate heading.

Always Often Sometimes Never

12. It is stated in the course requirements that
oral participation is counted in the course
grade.
13. Students discuss course material or do exer-
cises in small groups during class time.
14. Students must work with other students out-
side of class to complete graded projects.

56 TESOL QUARTERLY
 Always Often Sometimes Never
15. Students must give oral presentations in
front of the class.
16. Students must facilitate or lead whole-class
discussions or activities.
17. Students must take part in debates with other
students in the class.
18. Students must complete out-of-class assign-
ments which require oral interactions with
native English speakers (e.g., interviews, sur-
veys, etc.).
19. Strong notetaking skills are essential for suc-
cess in this class.
20. Students ask questions about course content
before, during, and after class.
21. Students talk to me in my office about course
content and/or about class assignments.

D. ESL Students' Difficulties in Oral Skills

Again, please respond with reference to the same course you described in Sections B and
C, but this time focus on the ESL students you have/have had in that course.

Always Often Sometimes Never NIA

22. ESL students receive low grades in
class participation.
23. ESL students have difficulty working
with other students in small groups
during class.
24. ESL students have difficulty working
with other students on out-of-class
projects.
25. ESL students struggle with giving up-
front oral presentations.
26. ESL students are unsuccessful at lead-
ing class discussions.
27. ESL students have difficulty partici-
pating in large group discussions or
in debates.
28. ESL students struggle with out-of-
class assignments which require inter-
action with native speakers.
29. ESL students have trouble under-
standing lectures and taking effective
notes.
30. ESL students ask me questions before,
during, and after class.
31. ESL students come to my office to ask
me questions.

E. Oral Skills ESL Students Need Work On

Please answer the questions in this section with reference to the same ESL students you
thought of in Section D above.

If you could talk to the English language teachers your ESL students have either before or
during the time they take your classes, what advice might you give them about oral skills
that ESL students need help with?

ACADEMIC ORAL COMMUNICATION NEEDS OF EAP LEARNERS 57

Please rank all skills below in order of importance (1 = most important):

pronunciation/intonation/stress patterns of American English

lecture notetaking

general listening comprehension (besides formal lectures)

ability to give formal speeches/presentations

ability to participate effectively in class discussions

ability to communicate effectively with peers in small-group discussions, collaborative

projects, or out-of-class study groups

ability to communicate effectively with you in or out of class

other (please specify and rank):

F. Summary Comments
Are there any other comments that might be helpful in assessing what oral skills you expect
in general of your students, what specific difficulties ESL students encounter in classroom
oral production and aural comprehension, and what ESL classes should do to better prepare
them for subject-matter courses?
G. Assignments
If you have any course materials-either a course description or assignment sheets-that
provide information about your expectations for your students with respect to their oral
skills, please enclose copies. If not (if your requirements are more implicit and informal),
please return your completed survey form to me in the envelope provided!

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE WITH THIS RESEARCH PROJECT!

If you would like a copy of our findings, please provide your name and address below:

58 TESOL QUARTERLY