A Needs Analysis of The Into Usf Custodial Outreach Program MK Et Al

1
Running Head: NEEDS ANALYSIS OF A CUSTODIAL OUTREACH PROGRAM
A Needs Analysis of the INTO USF Custodial Outreach Program
Mariandreina Kostantinov et al. (2015)
The University of South Florida

2
NEEDS ANALYSIS OF A CUSTODIAL OUTREACH PROGRAM
A Needs Analysis of the INTO USF Custodial Outreach Program
Literature Review
As English expands as an international language for communication, there has been a
growing interest in research into courses focusing on English for Specific Purposes, or ESP.
While most researchers maintain similar understandings of ESP, many vary in their approach
towards English for Occupational/Vocational Purposes, or EOP/EVP (Mercado et al.. 2013).
EOP curricula, sometimes known as “workplace English” courses, have become a common
feature of vocational schools and company-based language courses, especially as the demand for
English-proficient employees increases (Bosher & Smalkoski, 2002; Cowling, 2007; Li & Mead,
2000).
One feature of ESP courses remains a standard practice among experts—individuals
looking to design an ESP course begin by analyzing the communicative needs of a target context
and population. This needs analysis “provides a basis for purposeful and strategic ESP
instruction,” aimed at inventorying the skills and communicative functions necessary to succeed
in a given situation (Mercado et al, 2013, p. 13). Course designers can then design a curriculum
that identifies both target communicative skills and learners’ knowledge gaps, with the purpose
of addressing them in a comprehensive and flexible manner.
In current discussions on curriculum development for workplace English, many
researchers argue that needs analyses are usually performed by outsiders, and often focus too
closely on meeting institutional expectations. Frye (1999) points out that some survival English
and functional English curricula adopt content that expects students to exist within certain social
hierarchies in the workplace (p. 30). Jasso-Aguilar (1999) points out that little attention has been
paid to learner wants and needs in traditional needs analyses, which limits both the final
3
curriculum and the in-class experiences of the learners (p. 30). Similarly, when designing
curricula for workplace English courses, the experiences and identities of learners are frequently
unexplored in efforts to save time or cut costs (Frye, 1999; Mercado et. al, 2013; Skilton-
Sylvester, 2002). These tendencies can lead to not only problems of data triangulation during the
needs analysis and later curriculum development, but also problems of learner participation,
motivation, and attendance in the class itself.
To address these issues, many experts are starting to apply a more comprehensive
framework for improving education in adult ESL programs by acknowledging learner identities,
their social contexts, and the classroom context (Skilton-Sylvester, 2002). Incorporating the
perspectives of those invested—learners, fellow employees, managers, and teachers—allows
developers to adopt a more comprehensive framework in their needs analysis. By gathering
further data through other qualitative research, such as analyses of job descriptions, work-related
tasks, and class observations, developers can ensure a multitude of attitudes and needs are well-
represented in the final curriculum (Jasso-Aguilar, 1999). Some researchers, such as Li and
Mead (2000), take these measures a step farther by performing two independent needs analyses,
comparing collected data and inferring avenues for more in-depth investigation (p. 354). Other
researchers, like Bosher and Smalkoski (2002), adapt this method of triangulation by continuing
their needs analysis throughout the course, surveying leaners’ subjective needs to “tailor course
content and pedagogy to the needs of students in the course” (p. 66).
Case Studies
Numerous case studies examine the effectiveness of this holistic approach to needs
analysis. While each differs in context, course objectives, and participants, these studies
frequently overlap in themes and conclusions. One study, performed by Jasso-Aguilar, details the
4
approach she applied to pinpoint the necessary workplace language skills that hotel maids in
Waikiki would require (1999, p. 33). She balanced her data collection methods by conducting
participant-observations, unstructured interviews, and distributing questionnaires, which helped
to triangulate her conclusions. The most useful method, however, of working alongside the
learners, served to highlight how “different actors in a social setting have different perceptions of
similar tasks and situations,” culminating in often contradictory attitudes and objectives in the
final analysis (1999, p. 44).
Cowling (2006) applies an open-ended needs analysis in order to develop an intensive
EFL course for workers at a major Japanese company. Cowling collected data by discussing
expectations with management, interviewing teachers and students, and distributing
questionnaires. Interestingly, Cowling discovered that the cultural element of Japanese social
hierarchy began to color his information on participants’ subjective needs, pushing him to adapt
his data collection methods to fit the cultural context of the company itself. Thus, while specific
learner needs were not always clear, Cowling emphasizes the importance of flexibility and
cultural awareness during triangulation of contextual factors (2006, p. 435).
Paralleling these methods of triangulation, Bosher and Smalkoski (2002) performed a
needs analysis for immigrant students in a Minnesota nursing program. They drew data from
interviews, observations, and questionnaires, focusing on target-situation and present-situation
analyses to pinpoint the communicative needs of the program. However, they stress that, despite
how critical needs analyses are in curriculum development, experts must integrate results in the
course design as context-appropriate course objectives, materials, and methods. Curriculum
design thus requires flexibility and a responsive awareness of the “objective, subjective, and
learning needs of…students” in a target environment (2002, p. 75).

5
Context
Custodial Outreach Program Overview
The Custodial Outreach Program, or the COP, is an established workplace English
program facilitated by INTO USF in Tampa, Florida. Working in conjunction with the custodial
department on campus, the main goal of the COP is to provide essential English skills to USF
custodial workers in need. The objectives of the program include developing basic workplace
language and technology skills, in order to improve communication with department supervisors,
coworkers, and USF dorm residents (Harvey & Lust, 2015).
The program began in 2013 when Giovanni Espinal, an INTO USF employee, expressed
an interest in providing custodial workers with complimentary English classroom instruction. As
this course would benefit both the USF Custodial Department and workers, department
supervisors offered participants paid leave, four afternoons a week, to attend this intensive
program. Classes were designed and taught by INTO USF staff members, and held in either the
Business Administration building or the INTO USF center on the Tampa campus. The Custodial
Department provided $2,000 funding for each five-week module, on the condition that no less
than 15 employees enroll in the course. In order to maintain weekly attendance of the program,
management stated that they encouraged participants with a commendation on their end of the
year evaluations for going “above and beyond” expectations (Appendix D).
The first session of the program began with around fifteen Spanish-speaking participants,
with attendance ranging from twelve to twenty-four participants in following sessions. Modules
began every five weeks, and met four times a week from 3:30 - 5:30 PM. Only four sessions of
instruction have occurred to date: Fall 2013, Spring 2014, and two modules in Fall 2014. Of
these sessions, INTO USF instructor Leslie Lust conducted three courses, and Dr. Jane Harvey,
6
the short-term program coordinator, conducted the fourth in Fall 2014. INTO USF agreed to
provide all necessary materials, such as notebook paper, pencils, and handouts (Appendix C).
Changing Methodologies, Goals, and Objectives
When the program began, the course targeted basic scenarios of English communication,
as developed in the four skills areas: speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Each five-week
session covered five general unit levels from TopNotch I, with topics ranging from getting
acquainted, going out, staying in shape, or shopping for clothes (Ascher, Morsberger, & Saslow,
2011). After completing two sessions of instruction, the Custodial Department requested that
instructors tailor class materials to the communicative needs of the workplace. Their goal was to
enable participants to communicate functionally and appropriately within their primary
workplace environment: on-campus residential housing. Indeed, the official USF job description
includes duties such as vacuuming and mopping, and indicates workers may need to
communicate with coworkers, supervisors, students, or even police officers (Appendix A). After
reassessing these factors, Leslie Lust developed her own workplace-themed lessons and class
materials, aiming to address the linguistic realities that participants experienced.
The most recent modules in Fall 2014 adopted a task-based format. This format
incorporated both workplace duties and personal activities, with the goal of using English to
communicate effectively. Lessons used in previous modules were then adapted to this new
workplace theme and task-based structure. For example, a lesson that previously focused on
family relationships would be extended to professional relationships, as well. This class would
consist of a warm-up activity to review the previous lesson, listening to a brief lecture about a
new work-related topic, and then a group activity centered on the new content. Other classes
would concentrate on improving computer skills, particularly those skills that salaried employees
7
must use to access their paychecks or indicate sick days. These lessons would focus on the
employee management program GEMS, and incorporate more basic computer tasks, such as
sending and receiving email, entering a web address, or using a search engine.
Assigning homework and encouraging individual study was not a target component of the
classes themselves (Harvey & Lust, 2015). Instructors did not administer tests, quizzes, or any
other form of assessment, hoping to avoid placing further stress to the participants’ already
demanding schedules. After completing the first module in Fall 2013, participants were not
assessed, but participants in the Spring 2014 module completed a written test, and participants in
both the Fall 2014 sections completed a written and oral skills test. Despite the continued support
of both the custodial management and INTO USF, the Custodial Outreach Program was not held
in Spring 2015 due to low enrollment.
Program Participants
A large majority of participants in the Custodial Outreach Program (COP) are Spanish-
speaking American citizens. These participants are custodial workers who immigrated to the
United States many years ago, and typically live within a Hispanic community, have children
and extended families, and participate in a church. Generally, these custodial workers have been
performing their jobs with limited English proficiency for some time. These jobs include their
daily duties as a full-time employee of USF, such as keeping residential buildings clean, sanitary,
and well maintained. However, many of these participants work additional jobs outside the
university, or have various responsibilities to their families and communities.
The levels of English proficiency among COP participants vary. Some are strong
communicators—capable of maintaining a fluid conversation—while others are weak, and able
to utter only a few words. Many express their desire to learn English not only to improve their
8
working lives, but their personal lives, as well. In addition, the majority of participants are
familiar with using technology as a language-learning vehicle or communicative tool, and most
have email accounts, Facebook, or even pocket translators to help in their studies. In sum, COP
participants have shown particular motivation to improve their overall English ability in the four
language skill areas (e.g. listening, speaking, reading, and writing). They all have one goal in
common: to improve their communication in English both in and out of the workplace.
Needs Analysis Methods
With these factors in mind, our team engaged in a needs analysis of the Custodial
Outreach Program. In order to build a comprehensive view of the current situation, we explored
the perspectives of those invested in the program and investigated the communicative needs of
the participants in the workplace. Our aim was to not to create a checklist of linguistic
requirements for the job, but to include the experiences and voices of everyone affected by the
COP (Jasso-Aguilar, 1999; Skilton-Sylvester, 2002). Thus, our team triangulated results through
a number of data collection methods: unstructured administration staff interviews, structured
interviews with custodial management, structured interviews with program participants, a pilot
study of the participant interview questions, and dorm resident questionnaires.
Data Collection Methods
Administration and staff interview. For our first interview, we arranged a meeting
between three members of our team and Dr. Jane Harvey, the short-term program coordinator,
and Leslie Lust, an INTO USF instructor (Appendix C). We spoke in a meeting room in the USF
Library, hoping to encourage an informal and insightful discussion. For this purpose, we adopted
an exploratory and unstructured approach in our interview questions. We began with six basic
question categories—who, what, where, when, why and how—and then tailored them to fit the
9
current features and issues of the COP. First, we addressed the location, structure, tasks, and
timing of individual classes through questions such as:
• What format does class usually follow?

• What tasks and activities do students generally engage in?
• How long do classes run for?
Secondly, we explored the approaches, background, and classroom experiences of the
instructors, as well as their understandings of the programs’ goals and objectives. Third, several
questions provided us with background information about the students and class as a whole.
Finally, we discussed the relationship between custodial management and INTO USF through
questions about management support, administrative expectations, and funding.
Custodial management interview. Following our interview with Dr. Harvey and Ms.
Lust, we then conducted a face-to-face interview with Mr. Roberto Jimenez, the Building and
Maintenance Operations Manager in the Housing and Residential Education Department. The
purpose of this interview was to determine administrative goals and expectations for the
Custodial Outreach Program, as well as the level of the support for and satisfaction with the
program and its previous iterations (Appendix D; Appendix E). This interview lasted about
twenty minutes. While it consisted of six formal interview questions, the tone of the interview
was casual and positive, thus providing quality information about the administration’s overall
perceptions of the program.
Interviews with program participants. After speaking with Mr. Jimenez, we
interviewed five previous participants of the Custodial Outreach Program. Mr. Jimenez arranged
the interviews himself, offering his office to us during the participants’ work hours. We
interviewed the participants according to a short bilingual questionnaire, which required brief but
descriptive responses and allowed for further explanation verbally (Appendix F). The
10
participants engaged in one-on-one interviews with the three interviewers, with each interview
lasting about ten minutes. The questionnaires consisted of five sections:
1. Background / Antecedentes
2. Student skills / Habilidades del estudiante
3. Classroom / Salón de clase
4. Material / Materiales
5. Technology / Tecnología
First, we focused on participant backgrounds, such as their first language, current job,
and experience with English. These questions gave us an understanding of how easily accessible
English was for that participant, especially in different contexts. Even though COP participants
live in and engage with American culture, many of their identities revolve among the Hispanic
community. Consequently, this background information revealed the limited number of outside
opportunities for language acquisition for COP participants.
The second part of the questionnaire focused on student skills. This section provided
important information regarding the different language tools used by participants, their attitudes
towards learning, and their perspectives on using English in a work environment and personal
lives. From this information, we focused on the classroom experience, specifically the materials,
activities, and assessments used in past courses. The enthusiastic responses garnered here
reflected the participants’ attitudes toward English, as well as their learning styles and
preferences.
The fourth and last part of the section covered technology. This section complemented
questions regarding English learning tools, as well as the overall program objective of
developing technology competency. Although formally structured, the casual atmosphere of
these interviews allowed us to elicit information from participants about how they perceived the
11
course structure, as well as how they perceived English for-and-beyond the workplace (See
Appendices G through K for copies of the participant questionnaires).
Student resident questionnaires. Finally, in order to gain a clearer understanding of
how custodial workers interact with dorm residents on a daily basis, we also presented a short
questionnaire to eight students currently attending USF. Five of these students lived in student
dormitories at the time of the interviews, and three had recently moved out of the dormitories.
The questions on this survey focused on interactions between the students and the custodial
workers.
Results
Pilot Study and Dorm Resident Questionnaires
Prior to our interview with the custodial workers, we conducted a pilot study of the
student questionnaire among other graduate students within the USF Applied Linguistics
program (see Appendix N for exact responses). We received insightful feedback and critiques
regarding the number and phrasing of the questions. Most responders felt that the questions were
appropriate and relevant, but also pointed out that there may be too many questions,
recommending combining similar questions.
From our surveys with the residents of the dormitories, every respondent reported having
short friendly conversations with the custodial workers, usually limited to greetings and a short
questions such as How are you doing? Only one respondent reported needing to communicate
with a custodial worker and being unable to do so due to a language barrier. Some respondents
emphasized how much they wanted to communicate feelings of gratitude towards the workers.
While these results may not seem significant, especially given our small sample size, they may
12
be a reflection of the interactions that make up a large portion of a resident’s daily activities.
Further investigation into these perspectives may be necessary later.
Interviews
We conducted three sets of face-to-face interviews: an interview with program
administrators, Dr. Jane Harvey and Ms. Leslie Lust; an interview with the manager of the
custodial workers, Mr. Roberto Jimenez; and a set of interviews with five of the custodial
workers involved in the program. Dr. Harvey and Ms. Lust were interviewed together, but all
other interviews were conducted individually.
Administration and staff interview. From our interview with Dr. Harvey and Ms. Lust,
we uncovered a considerable amount of valuable information regarding the program participants
and program structure, both of which were described previously. In addition to what we learned
about program structure, we were able to review our planned interview questions with Dr.
Harvey and Ms. Lust. They both demonstrated their personal concern and esteem for past
participants by encouraging us to be sensitive to their situations. They requested that we avoid
saying or asking anything that might be viewed as “out of scope” for the purposes of enhancing
this program, to which we agreed enthusiastically. Dr. Harvey particularly wanted us to avoid
questions about length of stay in the US, as this might have implied an inability or lack of
motivation on the participants’ part to learn English.
Custodial management interview. The interview with Mr. Jimenez, the manager of the
custodial workers, highlighted his enthusiastic opinions of the program. He was explicit about
his perceptions of its strengths and weaknesses, his observations about employee interest, and on
management’s high level of support for the program. Mr. Jimenez perceived English as a
necessary tool for custodial work, as it is fundamental to specific work situations, and specific
13
tasks within his department. Mr. Jimenez, thus, had only praise for the program and the
instructors, and he seemed very excited about the fact that his department was providing this
opportunity to the workers.
Interview with program participants. These interviews with the five custodial workers
provided highly informative data on their perceptions of the COP. Each participant expressed
similar opinions: that they wanted to continue in the program and hoped it would be restarted;
that they greatly respected and appreciated the instructors. They related personal experiences,
both in and outside of the workplace, in which they had needed a better command of English.
These experiences ranged from emergencies at work, such as dealing with flooding or broken
equipment, to personal situations, such as medical emergencies. The participants felt that they
had especially benefited from the final oral exams in each course, as they were tested on their
ability to hold an unscripted conversation. This, in their view, helped them understand how much
they had learned during the course.
Likewise, these participants found that learning workplace-related vocabulary was
helpful. However, as they grew as learners, they also expressed interest in conversational
English, wanting to focus specifically on conversation in class. All participants pointed to the
final assessment—speaking with American students—as enabling them to practice their
conversational English skills within an authentic context. They preferred this style of student
evaluation, perceiving this means of assessment as necessary for teachers to track individual
progress. Program participants also expressed satisfaction with the manner of instruction they
received, including how groups were divided for projects, and the emphasis on sharing, chatting,
and mini-presentation activities.

14
In addition to these experiences, when asked about the time required for the COP, many
participants expressed their involvement as a “sacrificio” of time for success. In keeping with
this philosophy, when management gave them one hour of paid time to attend the course,
participants would give an additional hour of in-class learning. In their words, “nada es
gratis”/“nothing is free,” and to become better English speakers required hard work. These
individuals also shared their concern for other employees who were not able to participate due to
prior commitments. These employees, they said, had either second jobs or needed to provide
childcare at home, and would not be able to attend the program in its current iteration.
Conclusions
The Custodial Outreach Program for USF custodial workers has clear benefits to the
workers and to the institution. It provides workers with the ability to communicate with other
staff regardless of native language. It helps workers develop the ability to communicate with
students, and the ability to understand work-related communications. It also helps workers better
understand payroll and benefits information, as well as safety and security information. Our
discussions with various stakeholders during the needs analysis process highlighted how
successfully the current curriculum fulfills participant’s linguistic needs (Mercado et al, 2013).
However, a few issues emerged during our analysis of the existing program’s structural
features. One issue was the lack of standard textbook, requiring instructors to create their own
materials. If a textbook suitable for the Custodial Outreach Program could be located and
purchased, it would shorten the instructors’ out-of-class preparation time and allow them to focus
on teaching the class itself. In addition, another principal issue for the program seems to be
maintaining a high enough level of interest in the program to justify institutional funding and
INTO USF involvement. In our investigations, we found little evidence that the program failed to
15
address participant language needs, attitudes, and individual experiences (Jasso-Aguilar, 1999;
Skilton-Sylvester, 2002). On the contrary, participants expressed a resounding sense of
satisfaction with their learning experiences, and strong desire to continue in the program.
However, while participant motivation is high, requiring employees to stay two hours after work
has affected participants’ interest in and ability to attend. This scheduling conflict has pushed the
number of participants below the necessary threshold for funding—fifteen individuals—leading
the Housing and Residential Education department to cancel the program this semester.
One possible solution consists of holding shorter classes during the day, as an extension
of the employees’ lunchtime. This change in schedule would help those individuals who have
after-work obligations, and better address their personal schedules. Another aspect of this
solution would include extending the course length from five weeks to ten weeks, helping to
compensate for the shorter classes. While changing the structure of the modules would be a
matter of rearranging content, this solution raises another issue—whether INTO would be able to
provide instructors earlier in the day. This possibility must be further explored in the future.
In conclusion, in order to address the constraints of the fifteen-student funding threshold
and instructor availability, the Custodial Outreach Program must continue to evolve. Given the
overwhelmingly positive feedback by both the program participants and their management, it
would be quite a loss to all involved if the program could not continue. In the hope that these
issues can be resolved, we agree with one participant’s declaration: “Fingers crossed.”
16
References
Ascher, A., Morsberger, R., & Saslow, J. (2011). TopNotch 1: second edition. Lebanon:
Pearson-Longman.
S., & Smalkoski, K. (2002). From needs analysis to curriculum development: Designing a course
in health-care communication for immigrant students in the USA. English for Specific
Purposes, 21(2002), 59–79.
Cowling, J. D. (2007). Needs analysis: Planning a syllabus for a series of intensive workplace
courses at a leading Japanese company. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 426–442.
doi:10.1016/j.esp.2006.10.003
Frye, D. (2015). Participatory education as a critical framework for an immigrant women’s ESL
class, 33(3), 501–513.
Harvey, J. & Lust, L. (2015). COP presentation to curriculum class. [Powerpoint Slides].
Retrieved from https://usflearn.instructure.com/courses/1012242/files/42333987/do
wnload?wrap=1
Jasso-Aguilar, R. (1999). Sources, methods and triangulation in needs analysis: A critical
perspective in a case study of Waikiki hotel maids. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1),
27–46. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00048-3
Mercado, L. A., Musetti, B., Querdraogo, L. H. & Salas, S. (2013). English for specific purposes:
Negotiating needs, possibilities, and promises. English Teaching Forum, 4, 12–19.
So-mui, F. L., & Mead, K. (2000). An analysis of English in the workplace: The communication
needs of textile and clothing merchandisers. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 351–368.
doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00011-3
17
Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2002). Should I stay or should I go? Investigating Cambodian women’s
participation and investment in adult ESL programs. Adult Education Quarterly, 53(1), 9–
26. doi:10.1177/074171302237201
University of South Florida. (2007). USF job class description: custodial worker. Retrieved
from http://usfweb2.usf.edu/human-resources/pdfs/class-comp/job-codes/6526.pdf
18
Appendix A
Custodian Job Description
USF Job Class Description

JOB CODE: 6526
JOB TITLE: Custodial Worker
PAY PLAN: 23
CAREER BAND: A FLSA: Non-Exempt
CBU : 31 Effective 3/23/2007
Job Title: Custodial Worker
Job Summary
Custodial Workers are responsible for keeping assigned areas in clean, sanitary and orderly
condition and for maintaining a positive and tidy overall appearance of assigned USF buildings.
Custodial Workers are responsible for general and detailed cleaning of various campus buildings
including classrooms, medical areas, administrative and faculty offices, and/or student housing
areas.
Nature of Work
This position typically reports to a Sr. Custodial Worker, Custodial Supervisor, Custodial
Superintendent, or other higher level maintenance position. This is a position requiring basic
skills that can be acquired through on the job training. This job requires physical abilities such as
trunk strength, manual dexterity, and wrist-finger movement in order to perform the essential
functions of the position. This position receives direct supervision and specific guidance with
regard to the areas or buildings to be cleaned and the timeliness in which these duties are to be
performed. This direction is the responsibility of the Sr. Custodial Worker, Custodial Supervisor,
or Custodial Superintendent.
This position comes into contact with co-workers, his/her supervisor and may come into contact
with occupants or visitors of a building such as students, staff members, faculty, police officers,
etc. depending on the shift of the employee. This position requires knowledge of appropriate
chemical handling and use of cleaning chemicals, which is learned on the job and through
training.
Examples of Duties
The following list provides examples of the most typical duties for positions in this job class.
Individual positions may not include all of the examples listed, nor does the list include all of the
work that may be assigned to positions in this job class.
19
• Sweeps and mops floors in assigned areas. Vacuums rugs and carpets.
• Picks up trash and refuse in rooms, hallways, restrooms, stairwells, elevators, classrooms, etc.
Transports waste and recycle bins to central area or main disposal receptacle.
• Cleans and sanitizes restrooms including vanity/sink, mirrors, walls, commodes, doors, etc.
May also restock restroom supplies as needed.
• Dusts, polishes, and/or cleans furniture, mirrors, doors, vents, walls, doorframes, ceilings,
window ledges, etc. Also removes cobwebs and may need to occasionally move small furniture
(e.g., chairs).
• Strip, buff, seal and/or refinish hard surface floors as needed or requested. Shampoo and/or
spot clean carpets, rugs and upholstered furniture as needed or requested.
• Perform routine maintenance or very minor repairs to custodial equipment. Notifies supervisor
of maintenance repairs that need to be handled by appropriate Maintenance staff.
• May perform specialized cleaning in student housing areas such as cleaning of phones,
stoves/ovens, sinks, grills, washers and/or dryers, etc.
• May be responsible for keeping outdoor walkways/breezeways and common entrance areas
clean by sweeping them or using a leaf blower.
• May be responsible for securing buildings during and after cleaning has been performed and
for stocking cleaning supplies for the cleaning route.
• Performs other custodial duties as required or deemed necessary to meet the needs of the
assigned buildings or areas.
Minimum Qualification Requirements
This position requires completion of the 9th grade. No specific experience required. A valid
Florida Driver’s License may be required if motorized vehicles of any kind are operated.
Special Working Conditions
This position may require discarding or cleaning up of blood borne pathogens. However, direct
contact with these items would occur infrequently.
20
Appendix B
Staff/Instructor Interview Questions
1. Who:
a. Who generally attends this course?
b. What sort of background do they come from? Educational, cultural, economic, etc.?
c. Are the students male/female?
d. What language proficiency level/ability/knowledge do students have?
e. What expectations and ideas about education and/or English do the students have?
f. Who usually teaches this course?
i. What training/experience do instructors have?
ii. What sort of expectations do the instructors have for the students?
g. Who helps provide funding for the course?
h. How many students usually participate?
i. Has management provided any input/expectations/guidelines for the course?
j. Any bilingual assistance provided/needed?
k. Are students generally exposed to the same type/amount of workplace English?
2. What
a. What format does a class usually follow?
b. What goals/outcomes does the course have for students?
c. What tasks and activities do students generally engage in?
d. What selected syllabus framework/structure (i.e. sequencing) does the course follow?
e. What motivated the students?
f. What are the student’s learning styles?
g. Are students taught any learning strategies?
3. Where
a. What sort of classroom environment do students learn in?
b. Do students have homework outside the class?
c. Do most students have computer access at home?
4. When
a. How long do classes run for?
b. What is the length of the course?
c. Are there any considerations to change the duration of the classes/length of the
course?
5. Why
a. What skills does this course hope to help students develop?
b. What goals and objectives does this course have? Why?
6. How
a. What methodologies do instructors incorporate in their classes?
b. Do instructors have any particular styles/philosophies about learning?
c. What approaches have been most/least effective in the past?
21
Appendix C
Staff/Instructor Interview Results
1. Who:
a. What sort of background do they come from? Educational, cultural, economic,
etc.? The majority of participants are Spanish speakers from Latin America, with
various educational levels.
b. Are the students male/female? Students are predominantly female. A couple of
male students have also participated. Men appear to be more ambitious in class,
although they typically also have more outside responsibilities such as a second job.
All students, however, are highly motivated in class.
c. Student language proficiency level/ability/knowledge Students are all at various
levels of proficiency, from little to no English to a very advanced understanding.
d. Who usually teaches this course? Dr. Jane Harvey and Leslie Lust
i. What training/experience do instructors have?
ii. What sort of expectations do the instructors have for the students?
e. Who helps provide funding for the course?
f. How many students usually participate? Usually the class has an average of around
15 students, with the highest attendance being 24 and the lowest 12. There have been
5 sessions so far in the program: 1 in Fall 2013, 2 in Spring 2014, and 2 in Fall 2014.
g. Has management provided any input/expectations/guidelines for the course? We
will be conducting an interview with management in the custodial department in
order to better assess what their expectations are for the course. At this time we will
also address current and possible future incentives for the participants. Dr. Harvey
sent out an email to Roberto and we are currently waiting on a response.
h. Any bilingual assistance provided/needed? No, students are all Spanish speakers
and therefore sometimes talk to each other in Spanish during class if they are helping
each other, but it is not needed or necessary.
i. Are students generally exposed to the same type/amount of workplace English?
2. What
a. What format does a class usually follow? Currently the classes follows a very task-
based format incorporating both work-related activities and personal activities that
they would be able to use the language in. A typical class would involve some sort of
short review from the previous class and maybe a vocabulary warm-up (for example,
Dr. Harvey mentioned that they participants seemed to really enjoy hangman), then
some sort of short lesson and group activity centered around the new content
provided for that day. They gave an example of how they incorporate personal and
work-related tasks into the same lesson like one week they were talking about
relationships. It began with relationships with family and friends, then they extended
the lesson to included different types of work relationships.
b. What goals/outcomes does the course have for students?
c. What tasks and activities do students generally engage in? They did state that
during lessons the class was most excited during listening activities and with lists of
vocabulary or phrases that were immediately applicable. When doing a listening
activity, the class liked to have a handout that they could read along with. English
22
pronunciation was also very important to them. Listening and speaking are the 2
primary areas the class focuses on since it is most what the participants need,
however there is also writing and reading skills addressed in many of the lessons.
d. Selected syllabus framework/structure (i.e.sequencing)
e. What motivated the students? The class is already highly motivated because they
want to be able to communicate in English in a variety of situations. Leslie mentioned
one workplace story where one of the participants needed to know how to tell the
students in the dorm to remove their clothes and things from on top of the sink
because she needed to clean it and was not allowed to move it herself. She said that
there are many situations like this where participants come into class with a specific
task that they need help with communicating in.
f. Student’s learning -styles?
g. Are students taught any learning strategies? The participants have not specifically
been taught any learning strategies in the class, although Dr. Harvey seemed very
interested in adding that into the curriculum. Noting that since the students come from
such varied educational levels, this may be useful to them.
3. Where
a. What sort of classroom environment do students learn in? The students learn in
classrooms in the Business building or the Education building at USF. They use the
computer lab at INTO when conducting lessons on technology.
b. Do students have homework outside the class? No. Since most participants already
have so much outside responsibilities, homework is never given.
c. Do most students have computer access at home? Not all do, it varies greatly
among student to student. Some are very advanced with technology and have iPads,
smartphones, or computers at home that they use on a regular basis. Others have little
to no knowledge of how to use a computer and do not have access at home. The level
of literacy in the participant’s native language also varies among the group.
4. When
a. How long do classes run for/length of course? 5 week intervals, 3:30-5:30, 4 days a
week. Participants leave work at 3, come to class at 3:30, however they are still paid
to work until 4:00pm.
b. Any consideration to change the duration of the classes/length of the course?
They are interested in gaining feedback from the participants if a shorter class time or
less days of the week would be more beneficial to them. Dr. Harvey has suggested
perhaps extending the course to 10 week intervals, and only conducting class 2 days a
week instead of 4.
5. Why
a. What skills does this course hope to help students develop?
i. -Workplace communication with staff and students
ii. -English pronunciation, vocabulary, listening/reading/writing skills
iii. -Basic technological skills in order for employees to check their paychecks
(Most employees are salaried and they also must put in requests for sick days
on GEMs)
23
6. How
a. What methodologies do instructors incorporate in their classes? / Do instructors
have any particular styles/philosophies about learning?
b. What approaches have been most/least effective in the past? It seems that they
have always used a more task-based approach, however in the past when the program
first started the book that they used (Top Notch) was not primarily workplace
centered. The USF Custodial Administration asked them if they would be able to
incorporate more specific workplace tasks into the curriculum. This led Dr. Harvey
and Ms. Lust to create their own materials instead of using the book and blend both
personal and workplace needs into the lessons.
7. Materials we need:
a. Course curriculum and syllabus: Sections of the actual materials used now will be
provided by Dr. Harvey, but not the entire notebook. The course curriculum shown in
their powerpoint presentation will also be sent to us by Dr. Harvey. Dr. Harvey also
expressed interest in the group looking for a new textbook for the class that is more
workplace centered and for ESL individuals seeking US citizenship. She suggested a
material like NorthStar although that specific textbook may be too outdated. Other
materials for the class such as pen and paper are all acquired from INTO and
participants are not expected to bring on their own.
b. Job description for custodians: Given on the USF website
24
Appendix D
Management Questionnaire
25
Appendix E
Management Interview Transcription
Interviewer: What were your goals/expectations for this program?
Roberto (Manager of Custodial Operations): For the custodials to improve their language skills. They
deal with students…you know…and parents to communicate… 80% of the custodials are Hispanics …
the language skills are not what we wanted it to be. We wanted them to be able to acquire some computer
skills, as some of the lacks. They have to be able to fill out the ‘request time off’ and view the ‘page
check’ through GEMS which is a program.
Interviewer: Would you have changed the program in any way? If so, Why?
Roberto: Nothing! Leslie and Dr. Harvey were throughout. They really cover everything it was expected
as far as language and computer skills….they were good at filling the expectation.
Interviewer: Are you satisfied with the level of commitment/participation from the employees? If not,
how would you suggest improvement?
Roberto: No! …because the schedule. The participants stopped going…they were not signing up for the
classes. Funding was not an issue…I have the money. But, only 9 people signed up…so improvements
weren’t showing …
Interviewer: In what language do you speak to them?
Roberto: …in Spanish…that probably doesn’t help, does it? (laughs)
Interviewer: Were there any incentives offered to the employees, or what incentives would you be
willing to offer the employees to make participation more attractive or more convenient for them?
Roberto: Performance rewards … accrue points for a day off.

Interviewer: Did you get any feedback (formal or informal) from the employees on what they thought of
the course?
Roberto: 9 loved it …they liked the teachers, class presentation, safe environment…
Interviewer: Would management be willing to schedule class time in the middle of the day instead of at
the end…this could even mean their normal 30 minutes lunch and then an extra hour after lunch for class
instead of the end of the day, maybe 3 times a week?
Roberto: No! Chaos! …then they might bring the meal issue into the classroom.
Interviewer: …how about after lunch?
Roberto: Hmm! It is feasible… (he nods as if he likes this new idea)

26
Appendix F
Participant Questionnaire
Date/Fecha: 2/09/15.
Questions for the COP Participants / Preguntas para los participantes del programa
extensivo (COP- por sus siglas en inglés):
A. Background / Antecedentes:
1. Sex / sexo:
2. Mother tongue / lengua materna:
3. Are you a full time USF employee? / ¿Trabajas tiempo completo en USF?
Yes/Si No/No
4. What is your job? / ¿Cuál es tu trabajo?
5. How do you get to work? / ¿Cómo llegas al trabajo?
6. Do you speak English at work? Whom do you speak English with/or would like to? /
¿Hablas inglés en el trabajo?¿Con quién o con quién te gustaría?
Yes/Si No/No
7. Do you have problems communicating at work (elsewhere)? / ¿Tienes problemas
al comunicarte?
Yes/Si No/No
8. Has there been a situation where you wanted to communicate at work but were unable to
(elsewhere)? / ¿ Has querido comunicarte y no has podido? ¿En qué situación?
Yes/Si No/No
9. Have you taken English class in the past?/¿Has tomado clases de inglés antes?
Yes/Si No/No
10. Which one?/¿Cuál (es)?
Classes/clases Courses/cursos Tutoring/tutor (tutorial)
11. Are you currently taking English classes?/¿Estás en estos momentos tomando clases de
inglés?
Yes/Si No/No
12. If you are, where?/ Si estas estudiando, ¿en dónde?
B. Student skills: (skip if running out of time)
13. Have you tried to learn through books or media?/ ¿Alguna vez has aprendido inglés a
través the libros u otro medio (technologia)? (e.g. tools/ej.herramientas)
Yes/Si No/No
14. Outside of the workplace, in what other context do you think knowing English would be
most beneficial to you? (For example…?) /¿Afuera del área de trabajo, ¿en qué contexto
crees que saber inglés te beneficiaria? (¿por ejemplo?)
Miscellaneous:
Do you have any hobbies? /¿Cuál es tu pasatiempo?
27
C. Classroom: (Highly important)
15. Would you like to continue with English Language Programs (COP)? /¿Te gustaría
continuar con el programa de inglés (COP)?
Yes/Si No/No
16. If not, what would you add or take away? / ¿Si no, qué le agregarías o le quitarías?
17. If yes, what part of it did you enjoy/was most helpful? / ¿Que partes más te gustó
(disfrutastes, ayudaron)?
18. How did you like the schedule? / ¿El horario, que te pareció?
19. Would you have changed it? / ¿Lo cambiarías?
Yes/Si No/No
20. If yes, what time would you have prefered? /¿A qué hora preferirías?
Morning/Mañana Afternoon/Tarde
21. How many days a week would you be willing to participate in a COP course? How long
would you prefer each lesson to be on those days? / ¿Cuántos días a la semana te
gustaría ir a clase? ¿Por cuánto tiempo? (ej. 1 hora, 2 horas).
Materials (text/activities/assessment)/Materials (texto, actividades, evaluacion):
• What activities did you enjoy the most (were the most helpful)? / ¿Qué actividades te
gustaron (ayudaron) más?
• Any problem communicating with the teacher? /¿Algún problema para comunicarte con
tu profesora?
D. Technology:
• Do you have access to a computer at home? / ¿Tienes acceso al computador/ordenador

en casa?
Yes/Si No/No
• Do you have an email account? / ¿Tienes correo electronico?
Yes/Si No/No
• Can you compose and send email messages? / ¿La usas?
Yes/Si No/No
28
Appendix G
Participant 1 Questionnaire Results (Page 1 of 3)
29

30

31
Appendix H
32

33

34
Appendix I
35

36

37
Appendix J
38

39

40
Appendix K
41

42

43
Appendix L
Dorm Resident Questionnaire
1. Have you ever had a conversation with a custodial worker?
2. Have you ever needed to speak with a custodial worker but were unable to? If yes, what was
the circumstance?
3. What are some things that you would like to communicate to the custodial workers?
44
Appendix M
Dorm Resident Questionnaire Results
1. Have you ever had a conversation with a custodial worker?
S1: Yes, they are all really nice. We'll say hello and I ask about their day.
S2: Yes, How's your day going? Have a nice day! How are you? Stuff like that.
S3: Yes, just things like good morning! how are you?
S4: Yes, I'm an RA in the dorms, we always greet each other and have simple
conversations.
S5: Yes, they are all super nice and sweet. We have conversations like hello! how are
you? how was your day? etc.
S6: Yes, I lived in the dorm for one year and a fraternity house for 2 years. I speak fluent
Spanish and English. The majority of the conversations were in English, basic greetings,
stories about our day, sometimes they were in Spanish.
S7: Just short exchanges, like Hi, Good morning.
S8: Just short exchanges, like Hi, Good morning. Sometimes the custodial workers would
start talking to me in Spanish and I would have to say “No Spanish.”
2. Have you ever needed to speak with a custodial worker but were unable to? If yes, what was
the circumstance?
S1: No, they always keep everything really clean.
S2: No.
S3: No.
S4: No, it's never been a problem.
S5: No, I've always been able to.
S6: No, I spoke with them often and never had an issue.
S7: No.
S8: No.
3. What are some things that you would like to communicate to the custodial workers?
S1: Nothing else.
S2: Nothing else.
S3: Nothing else.
S4: No.
S5: Nothing specific. I just want them to know that they are doing a really great job.
S6: The only thing that I remember specifically that was an issue was when I lived in the
fraternity house and the trash was not taken out on a regular basis. So we would have to
ask them to take the trash out a lot.
S7: Nothing.
S8: Nothing.
45
Appendix N
Results of the Pilot Study (Student Questionnaires)
Response 1: “I think the questionnaire is really thorough! You should get a lot of information
from it. On the other hand, I think it's a bit long. I am sure you have thought of this already, but
the more detail you have in your survey, the more you will have to sort through. Maybe pick out
some major points you really want to know about (totally up to you and your group, just a
personal, outsider thought).”
Response 2: “I think it's a very well-rounded questionnaire. Good idea to conduct the interviews
in Spanish; I think you all will get useful responses this way.”
Response 3: “I think the questions all looked great, but there just seemed to be A LOT of them. I
don't know if there is a way you guys could combine some of them or just eliminate some so it
doesn't seem so overwhelming.”
Response 4: “My only feedback is on questions 16-18: you might find that you'd like to know
what students would change, or what they liked best, whether they would take the course again
or not. Does that make sense? Instead of framing the follow up questions with "if not" and "if
so." But again, if this is an oral interview, chances are it will not be so formal that the exact
wording is THAT important.”

A Needs Analysis of The Into Usf Custodial Outreach Program MK Et Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Needs Analysis of The Into Usf Custodial Outreach Program MK Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Running Head: NEEDS ANALYSIS OF A CUSTODIAL OUTREACH PROGRAM

A Needs Analysis of the INTO USF Custodial Outreach Program

Mariandreina Kostantinov et al. (2015)

The University of South Florida

A Needs Analysis of the INTO USF Custodial Outreach Program

As English expands as an international language for communication, there has been a

towards English for Occupational/Vocational Purposes, or EOP/EVP (Mercado et al.. 2013).

One feature of ESP courses remains a standard practice among experts—individuals

of addressing them in a comprehensive and flexible manner.

In current discussions on curriculum development for workplace English, many

motivation, and attendance in the class itself.

perspectives of those invested—learners, fellow employees, managers, and teachers—allows

developers to adopt a more comprehensive framework in their needs analysis. By gathering

participant-observations, unstructured interviews, and distributing questionnaires, which helped

final analysis (1999, p. 44).

Cowling (2006) applies an open-ended needs analysis in order to develop an intensive

expectations with management, interviewing teachers and students, and distributing

cultural awareness during triangulation of contextual factors (2006, p. 435).

Paralleling these methods of triangulation, Bosher and Smalkoski (2002) performed a

interviews, observations, and questionnaires, focusing on target-situation and present-situation

course design as context-appropriate course objectives, materials, and methods. Curriculum

learning needs of…students” in a target environment (2002, p. 75).

Custodial Outreach Program Overview

The Custodial Outreach Program, or the COP, is an established workplace English

coworkers, and USF dorm residents (Harvey & Lust, 2015).

an interest in providing custodial workers with complimentary English classroom instruction. As

Changing Methodologies, Goals, and Objectives

enable participants to communicate functionally and appropriately within their primary

materials, aiming to address the linguistic realities that participants experienced.

in Spring 2015 due to low enrollment.

university, or have various responsibilities to their families and communities.

communicators—capable of maintaining a fluid conversation—while others are weak, and able

Needs Analysis Methods

a number of data collection methods: unstructured administration staff interviews, structured

study of the participant interview questions, and dorm resident questionnaires.

Data Collection Methods

timing of individual classes through questions such as:

• What format does class usually follow?

Secondly, we explored the approaches, background, and classroom experiences of the

questions about management support, administrative expectations, and funding.

perceptions of the program.

Interviews with program participants. After speaking with Mr. Jimenez, we

lasting about ten minutes. The questionnaires consisted of five sections:

opportunities for language acquisition for COP participants.

developing technology competency. Although formally structured, the casual atmosphere of

Appendices G through K for copies of the participant questionnaires).

Student resident questionnaires. Finally, in order to gain a clearer understanding of

Pilot Study and Dorm Resident Questionnaires

recommending combining similar questions.

Further investigation into these perspectives may be necessary later.

We conducted three sets of face-to-face interviews: an interview with program

other interviews were conducted individually.

we uncovered a considerable amount of valuable information regarding the program participants

participants by encouraging us to be sensitive to their situations. They requested that we avoid

motivation on the participants’ part to learn English.

opportunity to the workers.

they had learned during the course.

Likewise, these participants found that learning workplace-related vocabulary was

final assessment—speaking with American students—as enabling them to practice their

and mini-presentation activities.

Skilton-Sylvester, 2002). On the contrary, participants expressed a resounding sense of

number of participants below the necessary threshold for funding—fifteen individuals—leading