An Example of Needs Analysis Implementation Into An ESP Course

FAULTY OF ARTS
An Example of Needs
Analysis
Implementation into an
ESP Course
Master's thesis
ALENA FIALOVÁ
Supervisor: Mgr. Jitka Sedláčková, Ph.D.
Department of English and American Studies

Teaching English Language and Literature for
Secondary Schools
Brno 2021
AN EXAMPLE OF NEEDS ANALYSIS IMPLEMENTATION INTO AN ESP COURSE
Bibliographic record
Author: Alena Fialová

Faculty of Arts
Masaryk University
Department of English and American Studies
Title of Thesis: An Example of Needs Analysis Implementation into an ESP
Course
Degree Programme: Master’s degree programme
Field of Study:
Supervisor: Mgr. Jitka Sedláčková, Ph.D.
Year: 2021
Number of Pages: 97
Keywords: needs, needs analysis, English for Specific Purposes, situation
analysis, evaluation
2
Abstract
The qualitative study deals with needs analysis for an ESP course and strives to
answer questions what learners´ needs and the context are, how to incorporate the NA
into the present curriculum and how to evaluate the NA. The target group are 4 adults
and the main method is questionnaire survey. The study demonstrates that NA is part
of a curriculum and it produces changes that are reflected in curriculum as a whole.
The final evaluation shows relatively high level of learners´ satisfaction proving the
main mission of the NA, which was to meet learners´ needs, was fulfilled.
3
Declaration
I hereby declare that this thesis with title An Example of Needs Analysis Implemen-
tation into an ESP Course I submit for assessment is entirely my own work and has
not been taken from the work of others save to the extent that such work has been
cited and acknowledged within the text of my.
Brno April 29, 2021 .......................................

Alena Fialová
5
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor Mgr. Jitka Sedláčková Ph.D. for her kind help and
valuable advice.
.
Šablona DP 3.2.2-ARTS-dipl-obor-english (2021-04-29) © 2014, 2016, 2018–2021 Masarykova univerzita 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
List of Tables 11
Glossary 12
1 Introduction 13
2 History and Character of ESP 16
3 Individual Characteristics 19
3.1 Motivation ............................................................................................................................ 19
3.2 Learning Style ..................................................................................................................... 20
3.3 Needs ..................................................................................................................................... 22
4 Needs Analysis 25
4.1 The Notion of NA ............................................................................................................... 25
4.2 Content of NA...................................................................................................................... 27
4.3 NA Design ............................................................................................................................. 29
4.3.1 Goals of NA ................................................................................................................ 29
4.3.2 Process of NA ............................................................................................................ 31
4.3.3 Context ........................................................................................................................ 32
4.3.4 Sources ........................................................................................................................ 34
4.3.5 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 35
5 Application of NA and Evaluation 39

5.1 Adapting a Textbook ........................................................................................................ 39
5.2 Curriculum and its Evaluation ..................................................................................... 41
6 Research in Needs Analysis 45
7 The Present NA 49
7.1 Research Topic ........................................................................................................................ 49
7.2 Situation Analysis .................................................................................................................. 50
7.3 Process - Preparatory Stage ............................................................................................... 53
7.4 Participants: Class Profile ................................................................................................... 54
9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7.5 Data Collection ........................................................................................................................ 55

7.6 Method of Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 60
7.7 Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 61
7.8 Implications ............................................................................................................................. 65
7.9 Other Changes in the Curriculum .................................................................................... 70
7.10 Evaluation .............................................................................................................................. 73
7.11 Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 75
8 Conclusion 76
Bibliography 78
Appendix A Questionnaire for the Employer 84
Appendix B Piloting Questionnaire 86
Appendix C Questionnaire for Employees 88
Appendix D Learning Needs Questionnaire 91
Appendix E Piloting Evalution 92
Appendix F Online Evalution 93
Appendix G Analysis of Learning Styles 96
Appendix H Analysis of Evaluation 97
10
INTRODUCTION
List of Tables
Table 1 Results of the placement test ....................................................................................54

Table 2 Weighted frequency of situations in working setting .....................................62
Table 3 Weighted frequency of situations in personal setting ....................................62
Table 4 Target functions .............................................................................................................63
Table 5 Problematic areas .........................................................................................................64
Table 6 Preferred class activities ............................................................................................65
Table 7 New syllabus ...................................................................................................................68
11
INTRODUCTION
Glossary
EFL – English as a Foreign Language

ELT – English Language Teaching
EAP – English for Academic Purposes
EOP – English for Occupational Purposes
ESP – English for Specific Purposes
GE – General English
NA – Needs analysis
12
INTRODUCTION
1 Introduction
The very beginning of this study lies in an English lesson, at the moment when a
group of four adult learners expressed their dissatisfaction with the article they read
and worked with. It is not unimportant and pointless to make a remark about the topic
of that article and about the class. The title of the text was “What colour is Dead
Salmon” and it was one of the lessons of a language program funded by an employer, a
private large-size automotive company, and organised by a language school. The 25-
unit course had been running for 7 weeks at that point and its content was based on a
general English textbook.
A discussion was set off and the teacher decided to meet her clients´ needs, which
is one of the basic preconditions of success of such courses. So she decided to apply
some theoretical knowledge and carry out analyses of her clients´ needs with the aim
to meet them. By the way, such analysis should have been conducted also before the
language program was launched.
So demand arose to carry out such analysis with practical outcomes reflecting in
the effectiveness of the language program. However, it was also desirable to take in
consideration all the circumstances and environment, in which the course, which is
still ongoing, is realised.
The description of that real world situation described above has just outlined the
importance of learners´ needs as one of the main characteristics of significant domain
in English teaching and that is English for specific purposes. It is learner-centeredness
and specific needs that are sometimes simplified and narrowed into occupational ori-
ented ones. That will be elaborated further in the chapter about ESP.
ESP started its development about 60 years ago and can boast abundance of liter-
ature, including an international research journal bearing the same name – English for
Specific Purposes.
The central phenomenon of this study, which will be explored qualitatively, is a
process of designing and implementing NA into a curriculum of an ESP course. From
13
INTRODUCTION
history of NA it is obvious that development of needs analysis is connected with focus-

ing on learners and their needs. However, the central phenomenon does not concern
only learners themselves, its conception is much wider and complicated. There enter
interests of various stakeholders and they act along with the context of a language pro-
gram. However, the factors of the context should not be understood as simple con-
straints as the agents from the setting of a language course can work both ways, i.e.
exert both positive and negative influence.
Similarly, the object of NA exploration is complex. It does not include mere learn-
ers´ language needs viewed from the linguistic perspective, i.e. probable language
needs in target situations, but their perceived problems and desires, too. Moreover, it
should allow for individual characteristics as well.
This NA is specific in its timing and small scale. It is administered by the teacher,
which is another feature of ESP language programs.
In general, the process of NA does not only mean getting information about learn-
ers and other stakeholders and the situation, in which a program takes place. Besides
them it involves making decisions and their implementation. Although literature ded-
icated to NA is rich, there is lack of work dealing with not only doing NA and presenting
its findings but about NA itself and its methodology (Long, 2005). So, the purpose of
this qualitative study is to demonstrate designing needs analysis and its implementa-
tion in the form of changed curriculum for a group of four professionals in a language
class financed by their employer. The objective is to describe mechanism of finding out
learners´ needs and their right application in curriculum of an ESP course considering
the context.
It induces following research question: How to carry out and implement NA for a
particular ESP course? This question produces other questions:
What are the learners´ needs and the context of the ESP course?
How to incorporate the NA into the curriculum?
How to evaluate the NA?
14
INTRODUCTION
The study is divided into theoretical and empirical parts. The theoretical part
deals with basic notions centralised around needs analysis and research in NA.
First it looks back at the history of ESP and its close relation to NA. The second
chapter deals with chosen individual learner´s characteristics – motivation, learning
styles and learners´ needs. As the study examines how to implement NA into a course
curriculum, the third chapter is dedicated to NA design, its elements and process. It
provides deeper insight into the concept of NA and various approaches to it. The theo-
retical part is closed by research in NA.
The empirical part follows the NA from setting its goal, through individual steps
in its process to final evaluation. As mentioned above, NA is not a simple concept and
therefore the context and different sources and stakeholders´ views are examined. The
core part is research focused on students. It is described in chapters dedicated to data
collection, their analysis and application of findings. The empirical part is closed with
the course evaluation so that the whole process of NA holds its meaning.
15
HISTORY AND CHARACTER OF ESP
2 History and Character of ESP
The history of NA is inextricably linked with the history of ESP as NA was imple-
mented into teaching languages through ESP movement, which happened in the 60s of
the last century. From then, call for specialized language courses rose along with num-
ber of implemented needs analyses. (Richards, 2017). Hutchinson & Waters (1987)
connect the increase in ESP with changes in society and economy, advances in technol-
ogy and science and also developments in humanities. Progress in linguistics meant
that research started to be more real life-oriented. Creating materials based on real-
world language use was enabled by the discipline called corpus linguistics (Rogers, J.
et al., p. 142). Long (2005) states that it was the knowledge of insufficient character of
intuitions in NA that led to using frequency counts of lexical grammatical features. And
consequently, this have shaped the NA. In the domain of linguistics, Belcher (2006)
adds another prominent feature of ESP and that is knowledge of rhetorical motiva-
tions. In general, from linguistic view, the communicative approach is important for
ESP. Richards & Rodgers (2014) asserts this approach acknowledges functional
model of language, which sees language as means for expressing functional mean-
ings and approaching real-world activities. Richards & Rodgers (2014) also claims
the communicative approach is underpinned by more language theories, particu-
larly by interactional and sociocultural learning theory.
Also, another humanities discipline, educational psychology influenced teaching
English so that it became more oriented to learners´ needs. (Hutchinson & Waters,
1987). The fact the dawn of ESP is connected with efforts to make English language
courses corresponding with learners´ needs confirms Richards (2009) as well. Belcher
(2006), comparing ESP with other educational efforts, comes to the conclusion that
although ESP aims to remedy lacks and problems as well, ESP supposes that the prob-
lems are unique for specific learners and contexts. That leads to the fact that needs are
a base on which all decisions are made and ESP specialists are primarily needs asses-
sors. (Long, 2005, p. 1) notes about learners´ needs following: “Every language course
16
should be considered a course for specific purposes” and continues that only precision
of needs varies significantly – from none or little within small children to detailed in
ESP programs for adults.
Another consequence of the privileged status of needs in ESP is blurred lines be-
tween roles of researchers and teachers and curriculum designers and teachers.
(Belcher, 2006). Similarly, Dudley-Evans & St John (1998) state about positions of ESP
teachers that they are not those who have primary knowledge but those who should
prove understanding of the content and accept a role of collaborators that bear work-
ing closely with experts. The other core roles, besides being teachers of course, include
being a course designer, provider of materials, researcher and evaluator.
Moreover, there are other phenomena interconnected with origins and develop-
ment of NA and ESP. Richards (2017) see emerging NA in its practical form as part of
initial phase of learner-centred philosophy. Belcher (2006) specifies the time aspect
stating that since 1980 ESP specialists have questioned objective information about
learners and that gives ESP learner-centred character. Burçak (2013) asserts about
learner-centred teaching that it “embodies the application of a variety of methods that
place the student at the centre of education. As such, the teacher as a main source of
knowledge shifts to knowledge gained from involvement of students. Rather than, or
in addition to the transfer of knowledge through lectures where students are passive
listeners, active learning through cooperation and collaboration are encouraged to in-
crease students' self-relying capabilities, social and problem-solving skills.“ (p. 140).
This aspect of ESP can be contrasted with rather language-centred character of general
English (GE). For example, Robinson (1980) delineates a general language course ori-
ented for life, culture and literature as a “… course in which the language itself is the
subject matter and the purpose of the course” (p. 6).
Long (2005) associates the roots of NA with accountability. The same view as Long
is held by (Richards, 2001). He states that providing evaluation reports by individuals
and institutions involved in educational programs reflected in an increase in curricu-
lum evaluation importance and thus it had impact on NA that became a necessary part
17
in designing language programs and that meant beginnings of the scientific and sys-
tematic approach to needs analysis activity. About the notion of accountability, Sinclair
(1995) claims that accountability can be perceived as a synonym of responsibility and
continues: „Certainly though, accountability is a more fashionable term which benefits
from the association with the objective and scientific connotations of accounting meth-
odologies“ (p. 221).
Campion (2016) remarks about defining ESP that a lot of researchers make efforts
to delineate and determine ESP contrasting it with GE and gives a row of examples.
Then she continues stating that “Claims such as these are undermined however by a
lack of accompanying exemplification, or definition of what ‘General English’ is being
taken to mean. The terminology is also confusing, with writers variously using ‘General
English’, ‘ELT’ and ‘EFL’. However, if one takes EFL for example, it is not difficult to
think of situations such as Cambridge exam classes, which are very much ‘needs
driven’, ‘high stakes’ for many learners, and purposeful“(p.61).
Nowadays, as Belcher (2006) describes, with growing research and theory, there
exists diversifying and expanding range of purposes. The most known are academic
purposes (EAP) and occupational ones (EOP) that involve business, aviation, law, med-
icine, shipbuilding and even so specific areas as citizenship, literacy, AIDS education,
and others. That implies that ESP is not only aimed at “career aspirations and profes-
sional lives” (Antic & Milosavljevic, p. 69). From this point of view, more apposite def-
inition of ESP learners´ purpose as performing a role is offered by Robinson (1980) or
Richards (2009).
18
INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS
3 Individual Characteristics
3.1 Motivation
Gardener (2010) numbers among aspects of achievements in learning languages

learner´s experience and biological factors, language acquisition context, learning out-
comes and individual differences. Motivation is one of learner´s characteristics besides
language attitudes, language aptitude, learning strategies, intelligence and language
anxiety.
Dörnyei & Ryan (2015) state about motivation that not only is it an impulse for
starting learning second languages, it is also a stimulus to persist it. Furthermore, mo-
tivation is a basic precondition for achievements, especially in the long term. On top of
that, it can offset lacks in other areas, such as learning conditions or language aptitude.
Indisputably, besides intelligence, language learning aptitudes, learning styles, person-
ality and attitudes, motivation is one of individual characteristics that explain differ-
ences in language learning successfulness. Lightbown & Spada (2013) claim that despite
the fact there is no direct evidence of casual relationship between positive attitudes
and good outcomes of language learning, there exists abundant amount of proofs that
positive attitudes and willingness to continue learning are affiliated.
Dörnyei & Ryan (2015) label motivation with attribute changeable and fluctuating
over time both for individuals and groups and claim motivation changes in the long run
but also over such a short time period as a language class. They distinguish pre-actional
stage, actional stage and post-actional stages of motivation.
Lightbown & Spada (2013) discriminate two factors of motivation. The first factor
is learner´s communicative needs creating instrumental motivation and the second is
learners´ attitudes to language community making integrative motivation. From the
point of view of ESP they make an important point: “If learners need to speak the sec-
ond language in a wide range of social situations or to fulfil professional ambitions,
they will perceive the communicative value of the second language and are therefore
likely to be motivated to acquire proficiency in it “(p. 87). This instrumental type of
19
motivation for practical purposes is under certain circumstances better predictor of

success than integrative motivation, which on the other hand proves higher probabil-
ity of success in a long time horizon.
Another division of motivation is to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Dörnyei
(1998) delineates extrinsic motivation as coming from outside, whereas intrinsic mo-
tivation originates in a learner and means studying a language for their own sake. The
latter is important in teaching process since it brings learning profits both in the short
and long run. As motivation does not only have its individual characteristics but is set
in certain social and educational setting, the process of learning language in class ena-
bles a teacher to enhance learners´ motivation.
According to Lightbown & Spada (2013), teacher within a classroom is able to con-
tribute to learners´ motivation by setting challenging yet realistic goals, offering inter-
esting and challenging content, corresponding with their language level and age, and
creating supportive environment. Based on a study conducted by Dörnyei, Guloteaux,
Lightbown & Spada (2013) present four categories of recommendations for teacher´s
work with motivation in class: “1. Teacher discourse: arousing curiosity or attention,
promoting autonomy, stating communicative purpose/utility of activity. 2. Participa-
tion structure: group work/pair work. 3. Activity design: individual competition, group
competition, intellectual challenge, tangible task product. 4. Encouraging positive ret-
rospective self-evaluation and activity design: effective praise, elicitation of self/peer
correction session, class applause” (p. 88).
3.2 Learning Style
Learning style is one of individual characteristics. (Reid, 1995) defines the con-
cept as natural accustomed favoured way of ingesting, processing and keeping new
information and skills. Purpura (2014) refers to learning style as combination of stra-
tegic clustering, learner´s affect, motivation or personality characteristics. Griffiths
(2012, p. 151) claims that the concept has “the potential to greatly enhance learning
and to make learning more enjoyable and successful. It is a concept that acknowledges
20
individual differences rather than seeing all learners as similar. For teachers, it pre-
sents an opportunity to offer students methodologies and materials appropriate to
their own learning style preferences. For learners, it allows them the freedom to learn
in ways which are enjoyable and can help them to become the best that they are capa-
ble of.”
In terms of learning style characteristics, Lightbown & Spada (2013) state it is not
fully examined whether character of learning style is unchanging or can evolve over
time through experience. At the same time, there is a lot of unknown about how learn-
ing style influences success in learning.
Probably the best known division of learning styles is by senses, when learners
are divided into visual, auditory, kinaesthetic and tactile types. Another division is by
cognitive styles. Some learners prefer holistic approach to the learned material, whilst
other focus on detail and tend to separate if from the context. The other three most
acknowledged categories are, according Dörnyei & Ryan (2015): personality-based
learning styles, flexibly stable learning preferences and the last group is represented
by learning styles as approaches, strategies, or orientations.
Lightbown & Spada (2013) conclude that a teacher should support learners to use
all available means that facilitate learning and doubt the idea that a single teaching
method or teaching material will comply with the learners´ needs. At the same time
they asserts it is not practical and possible to accommodate instruction in a class to
learning needs of each student but on the other hand the assumption that one learning
style might deprive students of some learning opportunities.
Purpura (2014) states basically the same claiming that knowledge of learning
styles enables to develop style-based teaching strategies to accommodate learners´
learning styles or alternatively teachers may vary teaching styles in order that all
learners´ learning styles are accommodated some of the time.
Learning styles are closely related to learning strategies as they might determine
learning strategies (Purpura, 2014) but the difference is strategies can be learned and
developed (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015).
21
3.3 Needs
To be able to examine needs analysis, it is essential to grasp the substance and

character of the concept of needs.
Within the context of needs analysis, the domain of needs includes besides needs
based on objective linguistic deficiency also psychological phenomena, such as moti-
vation, wants, desires, demands, expectations and requirements (Richards, 2009).
Needs are wide range and can be seen from the perspective of their content.
Hutchinson & Waters (1987) classify needs into learning needs and target needs.
Learning needs are described as „what the learner needs to do in order to learn“(p. 54).
Graves (2000) maintains learning needs represent the way learners expect to be
taught and their motivation. Target needs, unlike learning ones, are delineated by
Hutchinson & Waters (1987) as “what the learner has to know in order to function
effectively in the target situation” (p. 55). The target needs are further segmented into
necessities, lacks and wans. Graves (2000) describes target needs similarly, that is
they comprise the language needs and for what purpose students need to learn a cer-
tain content. In connection with language needs she mentions overcoming so called
learning gap, which can be defined as the difference between learners´ present lan-
guage abilities and their aimed abilities.
Brown (1995) offers the dichotomy of objective and subjective needs, saying ob-
jective needs are grounded in observable data about the situation, learners and the
language and subjective needs are those, which have to do with expectations, wants
and desires.
Brown (1995) also presents classification of needs into situation needs including
physical, psychological and social context of learning and language needs concerning
target linguistic behaviour. About these categories he points out that although they are
interrelated and the line between them is not always clear, a needs analyst should
make decisions to balance them.
Richards (2009) observes that needs are constructed and also “dependent on
judgement and reflects the interests and values of those making such a judgement” (p.
22
54), which suggests their subjectivity and makes them complex. According to him,
needs can rise from varied subjects, called stakeholders, in other words those who are
involved in needs analysis. They are represented primarily by learners, teachers, fund-
ing bodies, etc. As a result, needs can be divided into categories by the way separate
stakeholders see and perceive them. Bervick (1989, p. 55) elaborates that further, dis-
tinguishing between “felt needs” and “perceived needs”. The first are learners´ and the
latter stakeholders´ ones.
Time aspect provides division of needs into immediate and long-term ones (Rich-
ards, 2009).
As far as needs character is concerned, Graves (2000) describes them as “multi-
faceted and changeable” (p. 98), which suggests their complexity and relation to time
that suggests they are relative in time and depend on timing of needs analysis.
Needs are definitely central for ESP that deals with specific learners´ needs
requiring tailored-to-fit instruction (Belcher, 2006). She names “needs-based” as first
descriptor of ESP and needs assessment counts among “prominent distinguishing fea-
tures” which are essential to the practice of ESP (p. 135). Richards (2009) describing
ESP learners´ needs in terms of performance states that for some ESP, especially for
very special purposes, it is easier to find out about needs, as there is more literature,
and also it is relatively easy to observe the tasks. To illuminate his stance he gives the
example of receptionists. In his view, the fact of being adult learners means that that
they should tend to have more specific reasons for studying English, compared to, for
example teenage learners who study English at secondary school in an ELF context and
for such domains of teaching English NA is not of so much importance (Richards,
2009). Long (2005) asserts basically the same when he compares courses for the most
young children with occupational programs for adults and calls for specifying needs
so that courses are relevant. He asserts it should be applied especially on advanced
courses with specialized instruction. He argues for that claiming the different groups
of learners do not differ only in language and skills required and texts encountered but
also in their roles, practises, beliefs, ways of speaking and cultures. Graves (2000) also
23
supports this saying that needs assessment is an important characteristic of ESP and
adult education courses.
24
NEEDS ANALYSIS
4 Needs Analysis
4.1 The Notion of NA
Needs analysis or needs assessment has accompanied ESP since its beginnings in
1960s.
In the broadest conception, needs analysis can be understood as part of reflective
analysis of practices connected with planning and teaching activities employed in a
language program. (Richards 2009, p. 286). In other words, it is “an integral part of
systematic curriculum building” (Brown, 1995, p. 35). As far its focus is concerned, the
term might be defined as collecting information about learners´ needs (Richards, 2009,
p. 51) though the concept is much wider and complex as will be elaborated bellow.
As a matter of fact, some teachers do needs analysis naturally and informally when
they ask students about their preferences, what they would like to do in class and also
through observation during lessons.
What exactly NA is, that can be viewed from different angles.
Serafini et al. (2015) see NA from the point of view of general learning outcomes,
when they claim that NA ensures “that students will learn precisely what they need”.
A more complex, yet similar perspective, is taken by Macalister (2012), who states that
NA not only determines the content of a course but it also establishes its goal, which
can be identified with target competencies meaning what a learner is able to do in a
target situation. This is with compliance with Richards (2009) who finds NA to be a
basis for a sound educational program and determinant of the nature and linguistic
features of goal activities, in other words goals and content of a language course.
NA is “the systematic collection and analysis of all subjective and objective infor-
mation necessary to define and validate defensible curriculum purposes that satisfy
the language learning requirements of students within the context of particular insti-
tutions that influence the learning and teaching situation.” (Brown, 1995, p. 36) When
a closer look is taken at this Brown´s definition of NA and NA is examined from the
25
NEEDS ANALYSIS
perspective of processes, it may be concluded that NA is a process of collecting and

analysing data. In accordance with this conception, Belcher (2006) sees needs analysis
as foundation for all other decisions. However, Graves (2000) counts making course
decisions among the processes of needs analysis itself.
Graves (2000) also looks at needs analysis in the context of involved parties and
their social interaction, as a set of dialogues between people who are participants of a
learning process. Similarly, Belcher (2006) calls needs analysis “a matter of agreement
and judgement” (p. 137), while learners remain in focus.
In terms of time frame of course development, Malicka et al. (2019) depict NA as
“a crucial first step”. Brown (1995) claims it “is typically conducted in the initial stages
of curriculum development” (p. 24) and adds that ideally it should start curriculum
development. Alternatively, some authors suggest it can be done during a course or
even after a course (Richards, 2009, p.84). Graves (2000) develops the idea and calls
need analysis “systematic and ongoing process” (p. 98) and talks about three time
frames of NA: pre-course, initial and ongoing (p. 110). Each of them has positives and
negatives, for example doing NA can be timed at the beginning of a program but it does
not have to provide desired information because learners, who do not understand the
questions or have not reflexed on them yet or do not want to respond openly. The rea-
son is that the skill of taking responsibility for thinking about one´s needs has to be
developed in some cases. On the plus side might be that needs shape the course from
its origin and signal students´ engaging in dialog with a teacher and decision making
process. The ongoing needs analysis strives to find out where the students are, it means
what their present abilities are and compare that with where they would like to be,
with the aim of adjustments. Graves (2000) advocates: “Any activity associated with
teaching is in some respect a work in progress because it will be transformed by those
involved in it.“, (p. 7)
All the above mentioned points of view and aspects of NA are included in a very
simple but at the same time highly apt definition of NA offered by Long (2005), who
compares needs analysis to a medical diagnosis.
26
NEEDS ANALYSIS
Malicka et al. (2019) , who deal with task-based NA, observe that besides tasks
themselves, NA provides information about content and goals of tasks, the steps taken
in performance of a task, the cognitive operations, communicative procedures, linguis-
tic requirements and the criteria for assessing the acceptable accomplishment.
4.2 Content of NA
The type of information that will be obtained through NA is influenced by the phi-
losophy in the background. Brown (1995) presents four philosophies. The first is the
discrepancy philosophy. In that philosophy a need is a difference between present and
desired performance. The second is democratic philosophy, which prioritizes majority
of the involved group in assessing what needs are. The third is analytic philosophy sup-
posing students should learn next what is based on their present knowledge and what
is next in the hierarchy of language development. The last diagnostic philosophy builds
on needs as lacks in performance that might prove harmful if not removed.
Graves(2000), in accordance with her conception of close relationship between
the course purposes and the purposes of the needs assessment, divides needs assess-
ment information into two basic groups, the first group involving information about
the present (about learners, their proficiency, intercultural competences, interests, at-
titudes and learning preferences) and the other group covering information about
their desired future states (learners´ goals and expectations, then the target situations,
roles, topics and content, skills and tasks they need and language modality).
This difference between the present state and desired target state is called gaps,
e.g. in Richards (2009), Brown (2016) and Belcher (2006) or lacks (Hutchinson &Wa-
ters, 1987). In this context, Brown (2016) emphasises the importance of assessment
of the present state in order not to teach learners already acquired skills.
Graves (2000) presents another dichotomy dividing obtained information into
objective and subjective information. The objective information describe learners,
their language ability and purposes they learn the language for. The other category,
27
NEEDS ANALYSIS
which is important as well and should not be neglected, contains subjective infor-
mation, such as expectations and attitudes. In relation to subjective character of needs,
Chan (2018) underlines the motivation role of learners´ wants and remarks they should
be handled as practicable. Moreover, the partly subjective character of needs means
that they should be consulted and negotiated (Richards, 2009).
Needs assessment sometimes overlaps with language assessment according to
Graves (2000), who explains that language assessment is focused on students abilities
and it can become part of needs analysis, when needs analysis deals with language
ability either through assessing proficiency at the beginning of a language program or
when language needs are diagnosed within ongoing needs assessment.
In some cases, needs analysis includes learning needs and the presence or absence
of learning needs is determined by the goal of needs analysis. For example, if the goal
is to develop tests, the analysis will not encompass learning needs analysis. In the case
the goal is designing or redesigning a course curriculum, learning needs will probably
be involved.
All the above mentioned content of NA can be divided into various categories but
in general covers three areas, according to Hutchinson and Waters (1987): Analysis of
target situation including language aspect of learners´ needs, learning situation analy-
sis (ways of learning and attitudes) and present situation that can be summarized as
SWOT analysis (Richards, 2001).
As a result, NA enables gathering wide variety of information but not all of it
should and can be aimed at. Graves (2000) gives reasons for choosing some and leaving
out other data. These are: the purpose of the course, the teacher´s beliefs or infor-
mation a teacher already knows about learners. Similarly, Richards (2009) makes an
important point, when he states that NA should not burden students and those who
carry it out. He asserts, that only information which can be used should be obtained.
Richards mentions prioritizing for reasons of practicality, feasibility and time frame of
the course. Then he states necessity of determining urgency of needs, too.
28
NEEDS ANALYSIS
To summarize the content of needs analysis, possible information outcome of NA

covers vast categories of language abilities, learning preferences and attitudes and this
content is selected with influence of the purpose of the NA, information already ob-
tained and author´s beliefs. Moreover, the result form of NA is subjected to many con-
straints that comes from various stakeholder views which means that it is not a dis-
covery but a result of consensus.
Richards (2009) adds to the form of NA outcome that it is influenced by users, who
he calls audience.
4.3 NA Design
According to Richards (2009), designing needs analysis is represented by choos-

ing those options which give comprehensive view of learner´s needs and take into con-
sideration involved stakeholders. Graves (2000) summarises it briefly as deciding the
best ways to gather desirable information.
4.3.1 Goals of NA
Indisputably, like in everyday life, the main direction of our doing should be
known and the point we head towards is our goal. The same applies to NA but before
we get to that topic, let us start with reasons of NA before its goals are approached. In
relation to reasons, Long (2005) asserts “language teaching using generic programs
and materials, not designed with particular groups in mind, will be inefficient” (p. 1).
That leads to striving for effectiveness and that indicates economic reasons in the back-
ground of the NA goals, besides other things.
Another phenomenon concerning goals of NA it its purposes. Graves (2000) as-
serts there is a close relationship between the purpose of a course and purpose of
needs assessment. Assuming the purpose of a course is to make progress from a cur-
rent state of language abilities, learning preferences and attitudes towards desired out-
come, then the purpose of needs assessment is to get information about both. However,
29
NEEDS ANALYSIS
the shape of both the present state and the future desired state might change over the
time and that should be considered performing NA. Graves (2000) observes another
function of needs assessment, when she characterizes it as a tool for students “to gain
a sense of ownership and control of their learning” (p. 98). At the same time, NA serves
teachers since it helps to manifest that they care about learners. Above that NA con-
tributes to reconciling different views and in some cases can mean a shift in perceiving
the role of a teacher and role of students. Long (2005) agrees, when he names, among
other outcomes of NA possible rising of awareness of both teachers and learners.
Goals of needs analysis, which should be identified at the beginning of NA, can be
basically viewed either from a general perspective or as particular aims.
In general, goals should be based on perceived difficulties and oriented to the
needed abilities, typical target situations, tasks and transactions with their language
characteristics or others, depending on a type of curriculum (Long 2005). Most au-
thors agree than the purpose of NA is to satisfy learners´ needs and expectations. Rich-
ards (2017) extends the range of goals with stakeholders´ standpoints, context, ascer-
taining learners´ learning styles and respecting individual differences.
Richards (2009) lists wide range of possible goals of particular NAs. For example,
identifying the gap between present learners´ competencies and their desired ones,
evaluation of existing course, redesigning a language program or creating a new one,
developing assessment procedures and others.
Also, the character of a goal of NA depends on the time, it means whether it is
carried out before, at the beginning, during or after finishing a course. The decisions
about goals are influenced by the size of NA as well. There are large-scale NAs, at na-
tional or organizational level or small-scale NA carried within a class. (Richards, 2017).
In any case, the goals should be purposeful and realistic.
30
NEEDS ANALYSIS
4.3.2 Process of NA
There is a variety of ways of doing needs analyses and they depend a great deal
on the type of a syllabus. There are two types of syllabi - synthetic based on linguistic
units and analytic syllabi built around non-linguistic units. (Long 2005)
The process of needs analysis can be described in several steps. The order of some
activities might be slightly different or some stages overlap according to the mentioned
authors but basically they are as follows.
At first, a particular problem is detected. This way the question why the needs
analysis is carried out should be answered. It results in situation in which the main
orientation of needs analysis is known. The goal of needs analysis is set and it might
range from designing a test to designing a language program. At this stage it is im-
portant to prioritize and select the type of information, considering its aiming at the
goal and then, during the whole process of NA, to keep the goal in mind.
The process continues with planning, in fact making decisions about administer-
ing needs analysis, collecting, then processing and analysing data. So, other key deci-
sions are made:
1) who will be involved in NA. Brown (1995) groups together all individuals tak-
ing part in NA, in contrast to Richards (2009). These are:
• the needs analysts (those who conduct the NA)

• the target group (about whom the information will be obtained). Richards
(2009) calls them target population and claims this group determines appro-
priateness of needs assessment activities.
• the resource group (those who will serve as source of information)
• the audience, who Richards (2009) defines as people whom the needs analysis
is intended to. The audience consequently influences the final form of NA.
2) what weaknesses, strengths, opportunities, and threats influence needs anal-

ysis. If the key factors are structured this way, the form is called SWOT analysis
31
NEEDS ANALYSIS
(Richards, 2009). Some authors call this context (Graves, 2000), some envi-
ronment analysis (Nation & Macalister, 2010) or situational analysis (Rich-
ards, 2009). It is obvious that the more information is known the easier de-
ciding is (Graves, 2000).
3) what type of information will be gathered. This decision is primarily affected
by the underlying philosophy. The wide choice of possible data must be lim-
ited so Brown (1995) offers three basic dichotomies for narrowing the scope
of NA. The first is situation needs versus language needs. It must be decided,
which will be preferred or how the two will be balanced. The second dichot-
omy represents directing at objective or subjective needs. The final decision is
made between orientation to linguistic content or learning processes.
4) how the data will be collected. Brown (1995) divides NA questions into 5 ar-
eas: problems, priorities, abilities, attitudes and solutions.
After the data has been collected and interpreted, it should be implemented, it
means practical actions should be built on it. Implementation is necessary as needs
analysis should be seen more as a tool than a target. Graves (2000, p. 100) adds an
extra step of evaluating the effect and effectiveness and then closes the ring because
the last stage is followed with going back, deciding on further or new information
needed and that makes the process cyclical. This corresponds with her approach to
needs analysis as an ongoing process.
This can be compared with Richards (2009) who states that after making decision
on basic things, such as audience, target population, stakeholders, administrators of
needs analysis and sources, there is a stage when data is collected, analysed and inter-
preted. In this model evaluation is missing and the process is linear.
4.3.3 Context
Talking about conditions, in which NA is executed, Nation & Macalister (2010)
employ the term environment and state about its role that grasping the environment
32
NEEDS ANALYSIS
and its possible consequences can help to ensure that the course will be “suitable, prac-
tical and realistic” (p. 5). So, seen from this stance, it can be said that language courses
take place in context that influences planning and executing language programs and
thus also has impact on the success of language programs. Graves (2000) states about
context that it leads to determining challenges and then it mobilizes resources.
In terms of its form, the context according to Graves (2000, p.15) is represented
by information a course designer needs to make decisions and plan the course.
Context constitutes amount of interrelated factors, which Richards (2009) calls
“variables that come into play in a specific situation” (p. 90) and also “key determi-
nants” (p. 90).
These determinants can be viewed, by the manner they influence a language pro-
gram, as either those of immediate impact or those of broader character, like socio-
political ones. To what extent they have impact then depends on character of the pro-
gram, for example if it is funded from public or private sources.
As far as immediate factors are concerned, there is wide range of them and differ-
ent authors pay their attention to different factors. For example Graves (2000) lists
setting the course, the group specification, amount of time and resources and other
constraints.
Talking about constraints, it seems necessary to point out that impact of contex-
tual factors can be both positive and negative. In other words, it is not only about con-
straints, as some factors facilitate reaching goals. It can be summarized that all these
factors, whether they affect directly or indirectly, are interrelated and shape the final
form of NA a great deal.
Determining key facilitators and obstacles and their impact is the aim of situa-
tional analysis (Brown, 1995). With regards to scope of the complex issue of the con-
text, Richards (2009) declares about situation analysis that it complements needs anal-
ysis but also can become a dimension of it. He recognizes social, political, social, eco-
nomic, project and institutional factors. Besides them, a teacher, students and adoption
33
NEEDS ANALYSIS
factors take effect as well (Richards, 2017). Doing situational analysis, various inter-
ests of various subjects should be considered, including their power and interests.
NA is a matter of making choices, as there are so much information students and
other sources can provide. However, because of existing limits, not all can be used. For
example, a long-terms course allows and requires more needs assessment than a short
course taking place once a week. Also, it is highly important to delineate the appropri-
ate amount so that students are not overwhelmed even though they are willing and
responsive. (Richards, 2009)
Making such choices, some factors seem to be very important to consider. They
are: purpose of the course, teacher´s beliefs (how they see effectiveness of different
teaching approaches and methods), information known about the students. (Graves,
2000). She also comes up with a very useful advice recommending that when it is not
possible to act on students´ expectations, it is desirable to say students why. Likewise,
Richards (2009) emphasises the necessity of collecting only this information which
will be actually used.
4.3.4 Sources
Indisputably, the quality of information collected within needs analysis is en-
hanced by using multiple sources. NA should form “cogent and useful picture” (Brown
1995, p. 233) of students needs and therefore should employ a lot of information
sources and study them from different perspectives.
Richards (2009) draws his attention to following sources: samples of students´
performance, opinions of experts, analysis of related literature and textbooks and in-
formation from learners. Long (2005) particularizes experts as applied linguists and
domain experts. When he deals with applied linguists´ intuitions and domain experts´
intuitions, he comes to the conclusion of discrepancy between them. Serafini et al.
(2015) complete the idea declaring that domain experts´ views should be balanced by
applied linguists´ or other ESP educators´ insights as they have better language
knowledge (p. 1). About learners, Long (2005) asserts learners are privileged source
34
NEEDS ANALYSIS
of needs analysis because they “have special rights when it comes to deciding the con-
tent of courses they are to undergo, ideally assessed before classes begin, at their in-
ception and as they proceed.” (p. 26). However, it does not have to mean they are the
best or the only acceptable source which needs analysis can depend on especially as
far as their language needs are concerned. (Long, 2005)
Sources can be divided by more dimensions. Serafini et al. (2015) distinguishes
between insiders, who are in-service learners, and domain experts. The category of
outsiders involves experts with relevant experience for developing procedures and de-
ploying different tools but with the lack of knowledge of relevant needs in discourse
domains.
4.3.5 Methodology
Having evaluated the context and decided on resources, the process of data col-
lection can start. Methodology of NA depends on above mentioned components of con-
text, including time constraints, and many other factors, like the aim of needs analysis.
Brown (1995) lists 3 characteristics of sound information-gathering process. Firstly he
defines reliability as ability to get nearly the same results every time the instrument is
used for the same object. Next, validity is described as the extent to which the instru-
ment measures what is supposed to measure. The last feature is usability examining
how easy it is to administer, score or interpret the data. Macalister (2012) names the
same requirements but the last one calls feasibility and relates it to the target group.
In addition to that, the result form of needs analysis should be understandable both for
teachers and students, time-saving and addressing learners´ needs (Graves, 2000).
There are a lot of ways of gathering data. They can be less formal, e. g. in informal
group discussion at the beginning of a course or meetings of teachers. This method
offers getting amount of information while saving time, but might be subjective and
uneven. Another method, which can be done with lower level of formality, is observa-
tion of learners´ performance. This assessing students´ production is based on both the
35
NEEDS ANALYSIS
content and the way learners carry it out and on top of that it informs about their in-
teraction. Chan (2018) advocates for asking learners about their perceived weak-
nesses, problems and difficulties in cases when it is not possible to observe authentic
learner´s performance.
Needs analysis can be done outside a class or as Graves (2000) suggests it is pos-
sible to integrate needs assessment into a lesson plan, for example as a speaking activ-
ity and rely more on observation. This way does not burden students but on the other
hand, other methods, such as questionnaire, give more systematic view and provide
checkable data. Definitely, the natural way is at least a good supplement of formal as-
sessment.
NA can be direct or indirect and the difference between the two options lies in fact
that whereas the first uses activities aimed at getting specific information, the other
utilizes class activities to get info, for example writing activity. If well prepared, it can
demonstrate, besides learners´ proficiency, problematic areas, needs and expectations.
(Graves, 2000).
Observation can be done also in work environment, when research in the work-
place is conducted to get information about target situations, skills, discourse, or tasks.
This is commented by Chan (2018, p. 29): “In practice many course designers may not
have the time and resources to do this. In such cases, the findings from target situation
analyses conducted in relevant contexts can serve as valuable sources of information“.
Methods of needs analysis differ in their structure – from open ended to closed
structures. Obviously, the latter ones are easier to analyse. Serafini et al. (2015) sug-
gest to utilize open-ended structures first, e.g. unstructured interview or non-partici-
pant observation.
The size of a target groups has impact on both the selection of the method and
might lead to necessity of sampling.
Favourite instruments in needs analysis and ones of most common are question-
naires (Richards, 2009). Long (2005) contends about questionnaires that nowadays
36
NEEDS ANALYSIS
they “constitute the most over-used and over-rated approach to NA at present, espe-
cially when deployed in an unfamiliar domain or alone.” (p. 64). They feature ad-
vantages when used for a big number of respondents since they enable collecting big
amounts of data. Further, questionnaires evince lower probability of being biased,
compared, for example, to interviews. On the other hand, likelihood of their return can
be low and they assume relatively good and particular knowledge on possible answers
(Long, 2005). Another drawback can be incomprehensibility of questions because of
respondents´ insufficient knowledge of language or terminology. They might also
tempt to overload respondents. Questionnaires can be open, or closed. The first group
is comprised of questions which can be answered in a way the respondent chooses,
whereas the second group of given limited number of answers. Using open questions
allows to get wider range of information but they are more time consuming both for
respondents and for interpretation, while close ones can be limiting.
Another method of needs analysis is interview. They do not have to be executed
in the form of a teacher interviewing learners. Also students can interview the teacher
or each other (Graves, 2000). Interviews can range in formality and size from individ-
ual or formal to group or informal discussions. If they are unstructured, their ad-
vantage is depth as they are not limited by pre-determined questions. Such are suitable
for getting basic ideas before using structured interviews. Another manner of using
them is recommended by Richards (2009), who suggests interviews as preliminary
step, before devising a questionnaire because they can give it basic orientation. In op-
posite, extreme cases, they are, as Long (2005) calls them ”oral administrations of a
questionnaire” (p. 37) and further describes them as still keeping advantages of clari-
fying possible misunderstandings, and developing unforeseen answers and ensuring
all items are answered. Additional positive feature is the possibility of their utilizing
for testing speaking or listening skills. However, in general, they might tend to be bi-
ased, containing influencing answers or unintentionally distorting interpretations.
37
NEEDS ANALYSIS
Besides above mentioned methods there exists other instruments, such as those
based on learners´ performance, among which there is language audit, which uses var-
ious types of tests. Some methods are built on the basis of regular learners´ contribu-
tions about study content, progress and plans, for example journals or learning logs
and diaries. They can be structured or unstructured (Graves, 2000). Another beneficial
way of getting data is portfolios, which gather learners´ work based on criteria. Self-
rating is quite frequent method but it is mostly integrated in other methods. Needs
analysis might also utilize ethnographic methods, which are suitable when little is
known about the domain. A good example is study conducted by Macalister (2012),
who used narratives to find out about seamen´s needs in his study. On top of above
mentioned ways of obtaining information about learner´s needs, Serafini et al. (2015)
add in the list expert and non-expert intuitions, too.
Long (2005) maintains that using multiple methods and sources allows to im-
prove the quality of gathered data. “Triangulation can involve comparisons among two
or more different sources, methods, investigators” (p. 28) so there are varied kinds of
triangulation, e. g. triangulation by sources, by methods, etc.
Determining the instrument of NA, it is necessary to consider language of NA as
well and that depends on the level and type of learners.
38
APPLICATION OF NA AND EVALUATION
5 Application of NA and Evaluation
5.1 Adapting a Textbook
Hutchinson and Waters (1987) explicate a syllabus as a document saying what

will or should be learnt and as a basis for testing. Richards (2009) defines syllabus in
the same way using other words. He explains that syllabus is “specification of the con-
tent of a course of instruction and lists what will be taught and tested.”(p. 2). Brown
(1995) complete the definition with order of what will be learned and with rationale
in the organization of the content. He lists following types of syllabi: structural, situa-
tional, topical, functional, notional, skills-based and task based. Structural syllabus is
organized around grammar and phonological structures. Situational syllabus features
using situations as an organizing principle. Similarly, for topical syllabus topics are the
organizing principle, functions for functional, conceptual categories known as notions
for notional, skills for skill-based and tasks for task-based syllabi. However, the pure
types of syllabi are rare. Syllabi are often mixed or there is a leading syllabus and one
or more underlying syllabi. Syllabi are grounded in approaches that Brown (1995)
specifies as “preconceptions, assumptions, and theoretical underpinnings for what
happens in the classroom” (p. 5). He presents classical, grammar-translation, direct,
audiolingual and communicative approaches. The last one is one of typical features of
ESP.
When teachers use textbooks as their primary teaching resource, a textbook be-
comes the basis for the content of lessons and thus functions as a frame for a syllabus.
Although using textbooks brings some disadvantages, it also features wide range of
advantages. Richards (2009) rates among their principal benefits that they provide
structure for the program, help standardize instruction, maintain quality, provide a va-
riety of sources, effective language models and they are visually appealing. On top of
that, books are time-saving for teachers who can concentrate on teaching, rather than
preparing materials.
39
About modern textbooks Hughes (2019) argues they include rich additional re-
sources, including online components, photocopiable materials, audio and video re-
cordings and guides for teachers. Then, it depends on teachers how much they will use
them as sources and to what extent they will supplement them or adapt. Graves (2000)
maintains about adapting a textbook: “The changes stem from your beliefs and under-
standings, your goals and objectives, your students´ needs and the requirements of
your context.” (p. 173)
The process of adapting a textbook can be divided into stages. According to Rich-
ards (2009), the first is analysing a present textbook with regard to its content and its
organization, which altogether imply the type of syllabus. According to Graves (2000),
getting insights in the syllabus content and its organization is based on investigating
items as follows:
• The way content is conceptualized
• The principles of the material organizing
• What the basis for sequencing the units is
• The content of a unit and its objectives and how the content allows to achieve
the objectives
Then, the syllabus can be changed. Richards (2009) describes the process of de-
termining syllabus as two procedures – selection and gradation (p. 4). Selection phase
is represented by choosing language units corresponding with results of needs analy-
sis and gradation developing new ones. Changes can be done at level of activity, unit or
syllabus and at the same time each level involves changes at lower levels. Therefore
Graves (2000) calls the process of adaptations cumulative.
However, any changes of syllabus requires redefining goals of the language pro-
gram. These are “general statements about what must be accomplished in order to at-
tain and satisfy students´ needs “(Brown, 1995, p. 21). And then, the course goal deter-
mines its objectives, which are “precise statements about what content or skills the
students must master in order to attain a particular goal” (Brown, 1995, 21).
40
5.2 Curriculum and its Evaluation
Undoubtedly, curriculum is one of central phenomena of educational process.

Nunan (1989) gives 2 basic views at the concept. He suggests that curriculum can be
viewed as intentions, it means what should happen in class as planned in syllabus,
course objectives and other planning documents. The other perspective is what really
happens in a language classroom.
Richards (2009) defines curriculum as “an overall and interlinked system of ele-
ments” (p. 286). The system involves needs, goals, syllabus, material, teaching, learners
and teachers. Brown (1995) provides an overall perspective stating that curriculum
can be seen as a product or a flexible process, which he characterizes as systematic
development. Its flexibility means adaptation to new conditions and from this point of
view the process of curriculum development is never completed. Brown (1995) counts
among curriculum activities needs analysis, objectives, testing, materials and teaching.
In his conception teaching activities take place at four levels. The first level is repre-
sented by ways of defining what and how the learners need to learn. That is grounded
in the theory in the background called approach. For this case study is central commu-
nicative approach. It includes all four skills approached in a communicative way, which
means learners learn meanings important to them. The communicative approach uses
both inductive and deductive learning and builds on semantics and pragmatics based
on analysis of natural discourse.
In the second category there are styles of organising the program and materials,
and they altogether are called syllabus. Syllabuses are named after their main organiz-
ing principles and are described in the chapter dealing with adapting a textbook.
Ways of teaching and presenting materials fall into the third category called tech-
niques, e. g. discussion or lecture on rules of language.
The last, forth category labelled exercises, covers forms of practising what was
presented and sometimes can overlap with the last but one. However, exercises are
activities usable for assessment, for example multiple choice.
41
Richards (2009) defines methods (or designs) as plans for presenting with speci-
fication of content and roles of learners, teachers and materials. Techniques (also pro-
cedures) by contrast describe what really happens in the class. They involve tactics,
practice exercises, activities.
Brown (1995) also mentions eclecticism, which he defines as “practice (or belief
in) making informed choices among the available approaches, syllabuses, techniques,
and exercises in order to adapt to a particular group of students in a particular situa-
tion for the purposes of most effectively and efficiently helping them to learn lan-
guage.” (p. 17)
Evaluation
Brown (1995) approaches evaluation as the core of the systematic approach to
language curriculum design and “the part of the model that includes, connects and
gives meaning to all the other elements” (p. 217). Richards (2009) states that in the
centre of curriculum evaluation there may be various aspects of curriculum, including
curriculum design, content, classroom processes, materials or people and institutions
involved in curriculum processes.
Detection of a need to improve curriculum produces demand to find out if the
changes are fruitful and if there are ways how to enhance the quality of changes. A tool
to satisfy this demand is a program evaluation, which is according to Brown (1995)
defined as “ongoing process of information gathering, analysis, and synthesis, the en-
tire purpose of which is to constantly improve each element of a curriculum on the
basis of what is known about all of the other elements, separately as well as collec-
tively.” (p. 24)
Specifying program evaluation as ongoing process means it can utilize broad va-
riety of information from different stages of the program ranging from designing its
goal to teaching process.
About timing of evaluation, Graves (2010) states that it can be carried out period-
ically, for example in the middle or the end of a program, at the end of natural units or
42
when an issue emerges. In the case evaluation is done as formative, during process of
developing curriculum, the aim is to modify the curriculum, in other words to retain
effective aspects and leaving out ineffective ones. About formative evaluation she re-
marks that not only assesses effectiveness of the language program and serves as the
basis for possible redesigning but it also enables learners to have their say and influ-
ence their learning. Contrarily, summative evaluation is examining effectiveness of a
program and is carried after its finishing and usually has large-scale consequences.
Richards (2009) states it assess values and worth of curriculum elements. He also adds
to formative and summative evaluation so called illuminative type of evaluation striv-
ing to assess whether and how elements of curricula work. Its primary orientation is
not changing the program but to obtain deeper insights in the course processes.
Evaluation can be realized as a formal or informal process. Richards (2009) dis-
criminates between accountability-oriented and development-oriented evaluation.
The first usually examines a program outcomes and is intended for external subjects.
The latter, on the contrary, is aimed at improving quality of a program.
Evaluation can be done quantitatively or qualitatively. Quantitative evaluation
provide results in figures and might be done through questionnaire (Dudley-Evans and
St John, 1998).
Evaluation might include testing, attendance records, questionnaires, teacher rat-
ings of students, student rating of teachers, classroom observations, case studies, in-
terviews and others. Graves (2000) adds observation, feedback and ranking activities.
That can be lead in various forms, it means individual or group, written or spoken.
According to Brown (1995), evaluation should feature certain qualities. It should
be systematic, site-specific and oriented on the particular curriculum. He distinguishes
4 approaches differing in the point of view taken by evaluators. Product-oriented ap-
proaches are focused on checking whether goals and objectives have been achieved
and a criterion is efficiency. Static-characteristic approaches mean evaluation is car-
ried out to measure also effectiveness but is done by outside experts. Process-oriented
approaches are aimed at curriculum improvement. The name of decision-facilitation
43
approaches prompts that they are focused on helping making decisions but do not em-
ploy judgement.
According to Dudley-Evans and St John (1998) the process of evaluation should
involve its subject matter, employed techniques and sources involved, timing and ways
of analysing the data.
Brown (1995) concludes that “it is best to view evaluation as a never-ending
needs analysis, the goal of which is to constantly refine the ideas gathered in the initial
needs analysis such that the program can do an even better job of meeting those
needs.” (p. 233)
44
RESEARCH IN NEEDS ANALYSIS
6 Research in Needs Analysis
The concept of NA as the central point of ESP has been dealt with in literature for
quite a long time. As a result, there is relatively rich literature dealing with this concept.
While authors, in general, acknowledge the key role of NA, there exists a need to pay
attention to NA itself and especially its methodology (Long, 2005).
Serafini et al. (2015), who deal with NAs in spam of 30 years in various contexts
and show shortcomings and problems, agree with Long (2005) that most studies in
this domain tend to report NA findings rather than discussing their methodology. The
authors divided the period into two parts and described used methodology. Whereas
in the first period between 1984 and 1999 some out of 10 examined studies lacked
even reporting number of respondents, medium, number of items or structure of ques-
tionnaires and interviews, the period between 2000 a 2014, including 23 studies,
proved apparent development to better description of methodology. The improve-
ment reflected in the fact that nearly all studies reported number of respondents,
structure, number of items, length, and medium. Moreover, there was clear shift to-
wards using mixed-methods design, reporting more information on participants and
materials, and higher occurrence of asking in-service respondents rather than pre-ser-
vice ones. But there were still some lacks detected in the domain of pilot-testing, sam-
pling, using methods from inductive to deductive, from open to closed ones and trian-
gulation. In the second part of the study the authors present a needs analysis model
that can be adapted for analyses in different context and they also offer a simple yet
adaptable methodological checklist to guide the practice of conducting needs analyses
for learners with domain-specific second language needs.
Chan (2018) spots another deficiency in the NA research and identifies “paucity
of articles that show not only how needs were identified but also how they were ad-
dressed, which leaves researchers and practitioners in the field with very little infor-
mation about curriculum innovations” (p. 28). A similar view is held by Macalister
45
(2012) pointing out that NA itself is not a target, it should serve its aim, which is that a
target group obtain desired competencies.
Varied spectrum of methods is presented in Long (2005), where 11 studies are
published, some of them from public sector, some from a private or and academic sec-
tor. Most of them use structured methods for large-scale NA and unstructured inter-
views if they are done for small groups. One of the studies by Holmes contains findings
beneficial for this current NA (see below).
Some methodological similarities can be found between the study composed by
Chan (2018) and the present study. Although the NA was a large scale, Chan (2018)
must face similar constraints, namely short time for redesigning syllabus. Therefore,
ongoing NA is conducted even after a course has started. That NA is realised in two
stages. The first stage frames the course and the second fine-tunes it. Chan (2018)
gives a valuable detailed description of stages of research–informed approach to car-
rying out NA and implementing the NA data in the syllabus design.
Also, Malicka et al. (2017) handle the ways how NA information should be exactly
transferred into syllabus design and how tasks should be sequenced. They conclude
that frequent and infrequent tasks are equally important, but the former should appear
in the curriculum before the latter and the same holds true for easy and difficult ones.
Other exploration that appears beneficial to the present study is the work dealing
with designing and administering a needs analysis survey to primary school learners
about EFL learning. In this case study Tzotzou (2014) as a teacher and administrator
conducts a small-scale NA and the NA uses a questionnaire instrument like the present
study. Tzotzou (2014) aims her NA at exploring learners´ attitudes, actual foreign lan-
guage needs and learning preferences from the point of view of topics, activities, and
modes of work in the classroom. Tzotzou (2014) in wide extent utilizes a process -
oriented view on teaching/learning and as she focuses on a general English 5th grade
classroom. Compared to the present study, the content of her study is more directed
to learner´s wants and likes, which is relevant to the age of the group.
46
One of sources of NA is analysing existing literature. From the point of view of this
function, Chan (2018) produces some useful findings about spoken working discourse.
In the first place, it is the conclusion that despite mostly task oriented interaction,
workers aim at establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships and are ori-
ented to relational goals. Therefore spoken business language has a lot in common with
casual language and learners should be aware of or interpersonal aspects of interac-
tions and should focus on domains like purposive vagueness, indirectness or polite-
ness, and they should be showed ways of manifesting it linguistically, using relational
talk, e. g. small talk or humour to moderate conflicts and build rapports. Chan (2018)
recons giving presentations, communicating via telephone or socializing to be common
activities but participating in meetings Chan (2018) classes as key spoken activity at
workplace. About this key activity Chan (2018) remarks: “ learners s with little or no
work experience discovered after working on some business meeting role-plays that
handling conflicts and reaching a compromise in meetings were difficult for them, es-
pecially when the parties concerned had different positions and interests to defend“
(p. 30). About graduate employees as participants of meetings Chan (2018) states that
they prefer participatory way to being engaged in meetings, which reflects in need to
be able to show they are following the discussion and make appropriate comments.
Holmes (2005) holds very close opinions, when she, talking about socio-prag-
matic skills, sees as crucial the ability to manage social interaction in a wide variety of
settings. This requires analysing dimensions, such as function, formality, power and
solidarity. Although, her study is focused on a specific group of recent immigrants and
workers with intellectual disabilities, the findings are applicable across various work-
places. She turns her attention to social talk and small talk and finds about its functions
that: „ It is often used for primarily social functions, expressing friendliness, establish-
ing rapport, and maintaining solidarity among people in the workplace.“ (p. 353). Be-
sides functions, she lists the most common topics of a small talk – weather, ritualized
inquiries about health, free time activities, sport (one of topics, which are not universal
47
in different work settings), complaints about the economy, positive comments on ap-
pearance and one safe topic - work itself. She also discusses factors influencing that
topics, e. g. culture, level of detail or distribution in sense of timing. She emphasises
signification of acquiring socio-pragmatic skills and maintains teachers should provide
opportunities to observe and practise sociolinguistic skills. Holmes offers 2 methods
for this: using soap operas set in workplaces and role-playing. She recommends that
students evaluate watched soap operas. The goal of evaluation is developing skills in
identifying various types of talk and speech functions and accurately interpreting so-
ciolinguistic meaning. So, learners evaluate appropriateness of topics, level of detail,
distribution and functions. And then role-play enables to develop automaticity in
wider range of workplace interactions. She evaluates 3 types of exercises the most use-
ful: practising automatic brief responses, extending small talk and spotting errors. In-
formation from the last two sources proved highly topical for the students, based on
informal observations in lessons.
48
THE PRESENT NA
7 The Present NA
7.1 Research Topic
The needs analysis was done for needs of an English course funded by an em-
ployer. All the details and context are described in situation analysis further in the text.
The necessity of performing the NA arose from the situation when the original
focus of the course was general English but obvious students´ discontent became clear
through informal needs assessment done by a teacher in the form of chats with the
group over initial several weeks. Disagreement between students´ needs and the pre-
sent course was spotted and this became a starting point of the needs analysis and its
subsequent implementation.
A research question was faced: How to carry out and implement needs analysis
for the particular course? This issue elicited other questions:
• What are the learners´ needs and the context?
• How to incorporate the NA into the curriculum?
• How to evaluate the NA?
Thus the goal of the needs analysis emerged and it was to make changes in the
present curriculum so that it satisfies learners´ needs and respects the context and
complies with various stakeholders´ interests.
The NA is grounded mainly in discrepancy philosophy and partly in democratic
philosophy (Brown, 1995). It is primarily focused on linguistic content of target situa-
tions and partly on the teaching process. From the point of view of needs, it addresses
both language and learning needs and objective and subjective needs.
The objectives of the needs analysis are as follows:
• To find out most frequent situations, in which students need English and also
activities they need to participate at work and outside work and focus on lan-
guage problems they face.
• To identify, through appropriate methodology, parts of the currently used
textbook that meet learners´ needs and find those which are missing.
49
THE PRESENT NA
• To incorporate new content into the curriculum considering learners´ prefer-

ences, learning styles and the context.
The NA is based on the assumption that needs specification is necessary in ESP
programs since it helps determine curriculum with regard to learning styles a difficulty
in learning English.
The audience of the needs analysis will be the teacher who teaches and learners
who are taught from the curriculum.
7.2 Situation Analysis
This analysis and its structure is based on Richards (2009). Employer can be con-
sidered to be a societal factor in this case. It is a large enterprise (classification by Eu-
ropean Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003) producing vehicles and doing
business with foreign partners. Its export makes about 75 % of production.
The employer buys language services in the form of a language courses from a
language school where the teacher works. So, the employer fully funds the course and
covers purchase of textbooks, which means employees are not involved in financially.
The course is based on voluntary enrolment and that is open.
The human resources department, on behalf of the company, does not verify re-
ported attendance and there is not any final testing required. The language program is
part of the training system within the company although language courses are strictly
realized outside working hours.
To summarize the findings about the societal factor, support of language educa-
tion in the firm exists but at basic level, more as part of employees´ benefits.
As far as physical setting is concerned, during the pandemic situation instruction
is realized online.
The time frame of the course is limited to 90 minutes a week outside working
hours. The course was planned for 25 units (each 90 minutes). The time devoted par-
ticular parts of syllabus is not set.
50
THE PRESENT NA
Direction of the educational activity was the main theme of the questionnaire (Ap-
pendix A), answered by a human resources worker responsible for language education.
The questionnaire consists from both open and closed questions. The data obtained is
mostly qualitative and is processed qualitatively.
Answers are very general, concerning both the reasons for organising the course
and its possible benefit. The same feature is striking when analysing working situa-
tions in which participants need English and their frequency.
About problems, the HR worker states area of technical English although the re-
quirement from employer was a general English course. Fortunately, the employer ex-
pects improvements in domain of technical English in the long not short term. In the
short run the employer expects autonomous communication in English. Similarly, the
organisation awaits making progress in speaking skill thanks to doing the course but
in the long run in writing on top of that.
So, the direction of the language program is clear and that is communication in
everyday working settings, but it is still too general. In other words, the human re-
sources department has a rough idea of the desired outcome but does not seem to be
deeply interested in language courses they organize and does not negotiate or strive
for measurable educational results with the language courses provider. That has two
consequences. On the one hand it does not ensure proper support but on the other
hand it gives a tutor enough freedom to make decisions.
When the needs analysis is approached as a project, it is observed there is not any
team and the needs analysis is administered by the teacher that is one of typical fea-
tures ESP courses. Methodological support from the school is in the form of adminis-
tering placement tests but the school on the other hand, requires the needs analysis
not to be carried out in class.
The environment in the institution, which provides the language course, is not
supportive and does not encourage changes and their implementation. Instructors
work in isolation and there is no elaborated mechanism of discussing and solving prob-
51
THE PRESENT NA
lems. Staff morale among teachers is not observed as high and teachers are not com-
mitted to the school. As a consequence, textbooks do not have to be the core of lessons
but teachers are not motivated not to base on them. In the institution there is some-
thing which might be called culture of external quality. That means, seen from outside,
that all standard quality criteria are officially met but in fact the quality is not suffi-
ciently monitored and the driving force behind, for the school, is financial. The evi-
dence of that assertion is that the school relies on self-employed teachers, no matter
how much training and experience they have. On the whole, teachers are driven more
by their professional responsibility and their inner motives than incentives from out-
side. On the other side the school provides rich professional support in the form of
webinars and training and sufficient administrative support in the area of organising
work.
In terms of material background, textbooks (some titles) are easily available, a
photocopier, too but no other technologies are afforded (e.g. laptops, tablets).
Teacher is the only administrator of NA. She has master´s degree in economics
and bachelor´s degree in English and is working on master´s degree in English. She has
been teaching English for about twenty years. She believes in learner-centred princi-
ples in language course design and teaching process, in which learners have a voice to
express how and what they should be taught. In terms of theoretical underpinnings,
she inclines to communicative approach acknowledging functional model of lan-
guage and interactional and sociocultural learning theories. The teacher directs her
efforts to teaching students meanings that are perceived as significant to them so that
they are able to express what they need. She is convinced skills should be seen from
communicative angle. She is willing to use deductive and inductive procedures while
teaching and utilize knowledge results of natural discourse semantics. At the level of
presenting techniques or ways of practicing she advocates eclecticism and does not
avoid using elements from other approaches, for example drills from audiolingual ap-
proach or elements from direct approach, for example avoiding using mother language,
52
THE PRESENT NA
especially for more advanced students. She believes in using modern textbooks as lead-
ing material along with extra materials. The reason for that are explained and sup-
ported in the theoretical part of this study.
To summarize the context, although there is not any special support from the com-
pany and the language school, these stakeholders do not hinder any changes of curric-
ulum, only the school requires the needs analysis not to be carried out in class. That
requirement should not be ignored as the teacher is accountable to the school. There
are time and subsequent content constraints. As a result, the course has to be adjusted
quickly, while the course is ongoing. The changed content will be planned for 18 weeks
and will be based partly on the existing textbook English File Intermediate Plus. It is a
type of synthetic syllabus primarily, built around language. The syllabus is partially
organized around the communicative purposes. It uses layered syllabuses operating
under structural syllabus. Underlying syllabuses are topical and skills-based. Language
is the centre of attention although a sociocultural aspect and sociolinguistic aspect are
addressed as well. The textbook is based upon the principles of multilingualism and
multiculturalism.
7.3 Process - Preparatory Stage
As Macalister (2012) claims, unnecessary constituent of NA is assessing present

learners´ level represented by competencies, knowledge, skills and lacks.
Assessing learners´ present level had been done by means of a placement test de-
signed by a course supplier (contracted language school) so part of the NA was carried
out as pre-course activity. Unfortunately, it was not possible to analyse individual ar-
eas as the test done online showed only percentage performance in individual areas.
53
THE PRESENT NA
Table 1 Results of the placement test
Read- Listen-
Student Total assessment Grammar and vocabulary
ing ing
1 B1 - 77 % 70% 80% 80%
2 B1 - 60 % 68% 60% 53%
3 B1 - 60 % 60% 53% 67%
4 B1 - 78 % 72% 93% 67%
The areas assessed were grammar, vocabulary, reading and listening. The test re-
sults indicate homogeneousness of the language level. It was B1 for all respondents,
with value ranging from 60% to 78%.
Some differences occurred in individual categories. The biggest divergences
emerged in reading and listening skills as in both the values fluctuated from 53% to
80%. Areas with the largest individual differences are reading and listening. Learner 1
performs at the same level in all categories, learner 2´s weakness is listening, learner
3 faces difficulties in reading, grammar and lexis, learner 4 is high in all categories and
stand out among others in reading skill.
Then, the employer (funding company) represented by a human resources man-
ager got an open-ended questionnaire (Appendix A) asking for learners´ target compe-
tencies. The aim was to frame the questionnaire for learners and tailor it for the group.
It is detailed in situation analysis.
7.4 Participants: Class Profile
The group consists of 4 in-service professionals – 3 men and 1 woman. For the
purpose of this study, they will be named respondent 1, respondent 2, respondent 3,
respondent 4. They are aged from 26 to 43, all are native Czech speakers. The group is
homogeneous as far as their educational background is concerned. They all are gradu-
ates from technical universities, where they had some courses in English. At work it is
their first course, with the exception of a man who has already had one-year GE course.
54
THE PRESENT NA
The current language program represents one of benefits from their employer. As
mentioned in the situation analysis, they do not pay any fees and the attendance is re-
ported by the teacher but is not verified. They all evince motivation to learn new things,
they are active and so voiced their dissatisfaction with some topics of the course. From
their reaction in class it was obvious they prefer more practical themes, usable primar-
ily for their work but in their private lives, too.
Possible changes in the curriculum offers advantages for the target group and
would be positively accepted by them. The teacher motivated for adoption of changes
as they correspond with her beliefs, and there are no obstacles from the side of the
school or the employer.
7.5 Data Collection
Questionnaire survey
About methods of NA Macalister (2012) claims that besides ensuring validity and
reliability of NA, all the methods used ought to be practical and corresponding with the
target group (p.1).
Based on this conclusion, questionnaire survey was evaluated as the best method
for obtaining both qualitative and quantitative data from student participants. Then, a
semi-structured follow-up interview was utilized to clarify possible ambiguities and
uncover the factors underlying learners´ needs and difficulties. Triangulation by the
source and method was applied in data collection in order to obtain more reliable in-
formation.
There was an array of reasons for this choice. Above all, there were constraints
mentioned in the situational analysis, particularly, it was strict requirement from the
school not to do any the research within instruction. The reasoning was based on the
contract concluded between the school and the funding organization. Moreover, even
though needs analysis can be integrated in the learning process and for example
Graves (2010) recommends it, other methods, e. g. interviews are time consuming and
demanding if they are done in group. Observation method of respondents´ target tasks
55
THE PRESENT NA
was evaluated as unnecessary given the type of syllabus and constraints. Moreover, it
would not have been feasible because of the pandemic restrictions.
Next, specific character of the target group and the context enabled to eliminate
some not very favourable features of the method of questionnaire survey, such as low
rate of returned questionnaires, making efforts persuading respondents, misunder-
stood questions or not fully completed questions.
The questionnaire also became a research instrument because of its simplicity
and willingness of students to pay a limited time to answering questions and sending
the questionnaires back, in other words the method was seen by learners as time effi-
cient. Furthermore, short length of the course did not demand wider extent of areas
covered as they could not have been integrated in the syllabus anyway.
Although some authors e.g. Serafini et al. (2015), Richards (2009) recommend to
do an unstructured interview first and then approach a structured interview or a ques-
tionnaire, in this case a structured questionnaire was the option for a range of reasons.
Primarily, there was some preliminary basic knowledge of the target group and direc-
tion of learners needs, which means there was some sense of appropriate topics,
namely assumptions that students need English at work and also occasionally in their
private lives. This was found out through the questionnaire for the employer and in-
formal group discussion with the learners during the course, so questions could have
been narrowed and tailored for this group.
The questions were presented as open ones with prompts with the intention to
stimulate possible extra answers. Ranking responses from the most important to the
least important was included for some items. Yes/no questions were avoided for there
is discussion among experts whether respondent tend to agree (Long 2005).
The learners´ language level allowed for English as the language of the question-
naire, which was sent via e-mail. There was no need of sampling because of the size of
the group.
The major part of NA was done as ongoing activity, throughout the course.
56
THE PRESENT NA
As Long (2005) argues, pilot-testing NA materials is crucial, particularly in the

case of questionnaire items, to avoid irrelevant questions, doubled questions, overly
complex and technical wording, leading questions, ambiguity, abstractness, and sensi-
tive or threatening questions. After obtaining piloting feedback, problematic target
tasks were identified, and modified as needed.
The questionnaire was piloted in two other groups, altogether 4 persons. The pi-
loting groups were chosen by two factors – both courses were ESP and they were
funded by an employer. The piloting questionnaire was administered via e-mail as
well. The questions were examined according Richards (2009, p. 72), it means whether
the questions are appropriate, unbiased, specific enough and closely related to re-
spondents´ personal experience and respondents will be willing to answer them. The
main aspect was whether questions are needed in the sense of the goal of the needs
analysis, in other words to asses to what extent and in which parts learners´ needs are
met by the current textbook and what is missing.
The outcome of piloting was significant changes that were made (Appendix B and
Appendix C), besides minor changes like more precise wording or paraphrasing the
questions to make them more comprehensible, the questionnaire was largely reduced,
from original 14 to final 9 items.
Major problems occurred for two reasons: either questions were doubled (e. g.
“What situations in English would you like to manage in the future” and “What are your
weaknesses in English”) or students were not able to distinguish little nuances in
meaning. For example “Things I need to be able to do in English” and “Things I wish to
learn in English”.
As a result, some questions were joined in one, some were left out because of their
low informative value, for example, “What are your strengths in English (you are good
at)”. In the end, apart from one question investigating level of formality of transactions
in English, bullets were added to show students a higher number of responses were
expected.
57
THE PRESENT NA
The final form of the questionnaire included 9 questions covering basically two
areas. The first was identification of perceived necessities and wants. It involved target
situations, task and problems in both working and personal life. The other covered
partly learners´ motivation and learning preferences. (see full form in Appendix C)
a) How often do you need English at work?
The question asked about frequency of transactions in English in working setting
and its aim was to verify an assumption based on preliminary knowledge.
b) Name situations in which you need English at work:
This question was oriented to target situations with the aim to identify topics of
new syllabus.
c) Who do you mostly communicate with (colleagues, superiors, subordinates,
business partners, others, …) in these situations?
This question was focused on the level of formality of target transactions and
learners´ roles, which is important for the syllabus, especially for its part of func-
tions.
d) What was the most difficult situation when you needed English (Describe in
detail: 1. what happened, 2. how you reacted, 3. what problems you had to face,
4. how you solved the problem, and others if needed)
This item was designed to identify the most problematic situation faced on the
job and its language characteristics and strategies used. It complements question
9 but focuses on the biggest perceived problem and strategy used to cope with it.
e) Activities I need or wish to be able to do in English at work are:
This question was pointed at perceived needs from the perspective of activities
and aimed at functions.
f) What do you need English outside work for? (in your personal life)
The query was meant to capture learners´ needs and motivation outside work.
g) What activities do you like doing in class?
The aim of this item was to find out preferred activities in class for the reason of
changes in this area.
58
THE PRESENT NA
h) What activities don´t you like doing in class?

This is question 7 vice versa, it means about class activities that should be
avoided.
i) Specify your problems (possible mistakes you make)/state you do not have any
in these domains: vocabulary, writing, grammar, reading, listening, speaking,
pronunciation.
The last question was composed of 7 subcategories. 4 dealt with skills and 3 with
structures, all from the point of view of problems, which should indicate which
spheres deserve enhanced attention and particular problems in these areas.
To sum up, the brief and open nature of the questionnaire allowed to obtain basic
information about particular problems learners had, how they use English, the activi-
ties they need to be able to participate in, all with the aim to assess to what extent and
in which parts learners´ needs are met by the current textbook. Part of the question-
naire was dedicated to learning process.
Follow-up interview
An interview for obtaining information from learners was opted to ensure higher
validity and reliability. Antic and Milosavljevic (2016) claim that „it is believed that
needs analysis should be supplemented by direct communication with the partici-
pants” (p. 70).
In this particular group, the interview proved to be feasible in the form of a com-
plement to the questionnaire. While a questionnaire was quite of general nature, more
specifically focused interview followed up to get more detailed information, deeper in-
sights and fuller understanding.
The language of the interview was English. The interview was structured, with
pre-set categories, questions were mostly open-ended e. g. “What is consultation
claims?”
59
THE PRESENT NA
In terms of its structure, the interview procedure followed the questionnaire an-
swers. When needed, the teacher gave word to a participant and they answered ques-
tions and clarified misunderstood questions or ambiguities. The respondents were
given an opportunity to clarify or state their attitudes more exactly.
Basically, there arose two groups of questions. First category of specifying ques-
tions was used for two areas - situations and activities. Questionnaire answers about
the latter area produced interview questions concerning functions. In other words, the
outcome of the questionnaire was, for the three questions b) and e) and f) a list of all
items mentioned by respondents in the questionnaire and the follow-up interview was
aimed at particularizing them. So, the respondents were asked about unclear items,
using either open questions or closed questions aimed at the purpose of inquiring, for
example a situation, e.g.: Q: “What do you mean by speaking face to face?” A: “Partici-
pating in meetings.”
The other group involved supplementary questions, for example: “What is the ra-
tio of using English in these areas: speaking, reading and writing?”
An affiliated goal of the interview was to demonstrate the process of changing syl-
labus was open for learners´ suggestions.
7.6 Method of Data Analysis
In the NA blend of qualitative and quantitative approaches was used. Descriptive

statistics were employed to depict numbers in a meaningful way.
Most questions produced a set of answers, which were quantitatively processed.
It means that either frequencies of individual answers were simply counted up or each
answer was weighted by its order ( first position answer was assessed with 5 points,
second position with 4 points,…5th position with 1 point) and then the weighted fre-
quencies were added up for each answer. The concerned areas were: frequency of us-
ing English, formality, the most problematic situation, using English outside class, class
activities and problematic areas.
60
THE PRESENT NA
For questions concerning situations and activities, narrowing was needed first. So,
after the questionnaire had produced answers, a list of all answers was made and at
that stage no category was excluded. Consequently, after doing the interview, overlap-
ping categories were clustered into common themes and joined, such as meeting and
call conferences because they are basically the same, except using some special
phrases for communicating online. Then, weight was assigned to each answer and
weighted frequency was found out.
7.7 Findings
Findings are the summary of the questionnaire results and the follow-up inter-
view as they constitute a logical unit.
They are organized in thematic clusters, it means that for example answers to
questions d) and i) are joined because they both deal with problems, although from
different perspectives.
Learners informed the NA in following areas:
Frequency
During informal discussions before the survey it was found out that each respond-
ent needs English at work more than outside work and the questioning revealed fre-
quency ranging from 3 to 7 times a week.
Situations
There were detected 7 most frequent working situations and 4 situations in pri-
vate lives. Given the length of the course, only 9 topics were needed to be detected. 2
situations from private spheres overlapped with working ones (social talk and reading
manuals) so they were incorporated into working ones.
61
THE PRESENT NA
Table 2 Weighted frequency of situations in working setting
Weighted
Situations
frequency
emails 13
business trip/visitors 10
meetings 9
designs 8
projects 7
tackling problems 7
reports 5
Table 3 Weighted frequency of situations in personal setting
Weighted
Situation
frequency
travel 24
social talks 11
shopping 7
reading manuals 3
Respondents reported modality of transactions as follows: 35 % of all working

transactions represents speaking, 42,5% writing and 22,5% reading.
Formality
Participants mostly communicate with people at the same level, i.e. they mostly
deal with their business partners, then colleagues. These two groups hold weighted
frequency 17, while communication with their superiors only 3.
62
THE PRESENT NA
Activities
The activities provided basis for target functions that were developed during the
interview. As the most frequent functions were evaluated, with the same weighted
frequency, describing designs, negotiating (with subcategories giving opinions, com-
paring options, agreeing, disagreeing) and reporting. All the found out functions made
a basis for a new part of the syllabus and were supplemented with several others.
Table 4 Target functions
Weighted
Target functions
frequency
describing designs 9
negotiating conditions 9
writing reports/describing past actions 9
comparing systems 8
explaining how something works 8
agreeing on deadline 7
reminding 5
asking for information 4
explaining a problem 4
promising action 3
asking for help 2
giving project updates 2
asking for advice 1
giving advice 1
changing arrangements for meetings 1
63
THE PRESENT NA
Problems
Answers to the question which asked about the most difficult situation respond-
ents had to face provided following information: understanding spoken word was
mentioned twice, technical vocabulary proved the same frequency, explaining a tech-
nical problem occurred once and ordering words to make understandable sentence
once as well.
The results are in accordance with detecting problematic areas.
Table 5 Problematic areas
Problematic area Frequency
grammar 3
listening 3
vocabulary 2
writing 1
speaking 1
pronunciation 1
reading 0
For some areas, respondents gave more particular information. For grammar it
was verb tenses (mentioned twice) and once general grammar rules. For listening re-
spondents made reference to accents, speed and catching main ideas, for speaking fast
reactions and fluency, in the area of pronunciation it was word pronunciation.
Class activities
Answers to questions concerning in class activities showed what learners prefer
to do in instruction and what should be avoided.
64
THE PRESENT NA
Table 6 Preferred class activities
Preferred class activities Weighted frequency
conversation on casual topics 19
quizzes and games 9
group work 8
vocabulary exercise 7
listening exercises 3
watching videos 3
When respondents were asked about unpopular class activities, they expressed
rare agreement mentioning only two. In the first place those were uninteresting or
impractical parts of the present textbook, followed with grammar. However, they at
the same time acknowledged it is important and they conveyed it should be presented
in context.
7.8 Implications
For application of NA, there exist some generally accepted rules but also practical
limits. The extent of changes depends on the fact whether the basis is large-scale NA
done by a team of specialists and its aim is to create new materials or the ground is a
small-scale NA carried by a teacher, and that was the case.
Since the goal of the present NA was to adjust and modify existing course, it was
necessary to set, in the light of information obtained from the learners and knowledge
of the context, a new goal of the course, which would form its syllabus:
65
THE PRESENT NA
By the end of the course students will have developed basic transferable commu-
nication skills for use in their everyday work interaction and will be able to react in the
most common situations in context outside work.
This goal comprised objectives:
1. The students will have become more aware of functions and structures they
need.
2. The students will obtain understanding of how they can improve their skills.
3. The students will learn how to write effective business emails and reports for
use in their work.
The crucial issue resulting from the needs analysis was that primarily, it had to be
decided about the basic orientation of the syllabus change. Here the teacher decided in
the spirit of what Serafini et al. (p. 3) claim in their study about ESP teachers and ap-
plied linguists, which is that they „are usually more useful than domain experts when
analysing the language involved in the target tasks.”
Basically there were two possible directions - focusing on technical or business
English. Two factors decided the dilemma. Firstly, in the domain of situations and func-
tions, occurrence those from the domain of BE prevailed. It was given by the orienta-
tion to everyday working communication, which is similar across different workplaces
and industries. Secondly, there was not a requirement of improving technical English
knowledge for the program since that was only defined in a long time horizon. Above
that, there were constraints from the side of the teacher with no experience in that
domain. So, BE was opted for and technical E became part mainly of the last topic but
preparation for that became content of ongoing self-study.
A digital document was shared with the learners and they were invited to create
and contribute to individual sectors. In the same file a technical dictionary was pub-
lished. Interestingly, the dictionary was available in the company but students either
did not know about it or had not made any efforts to search it. It implied a need to
persuade the learners to believe that “their desirable outcome would not be realized
without a significant rise marked rise in exerted effort“ (Dörnyei & Ryan 2015, p. 92).
66
THE PRESENT NA
This way the lack of technical vocabulary was used to motivate learners and demon-
strate how they can take responsibility for their learning success.
The teacher in this case, in view of the context, is not a creator of teaching materi-
als but aims to be a provider of good materials (Richards, 2009, p. 260)
In the given context, it was desirable to make use of the present textbook covered
by the employer. Analysis of the present textbook showed that its organizing principle
is grammar and topics associated with vocabulary, pronunciation speaking, listening,
reading writing and communicative functions (in a small extent). It was decided to
keep the grammar skeleton and partly change topics and adjust structures.
As a result, the changes were made at unit level, when some items of the syllabus
were deleted. The frame remained in the form of grammar content and from this as-
pect, the order of content remained the same. The reason was desirable order of pro-
cedures from most frequent and simpler to less frequent and more difficult (Malicka et
al., 2017). Some other areas were left, modified or extended, with respect to the NA
findings. The changes are demonstrated in the following table showing a new syllabus.
67
THE PRESENT NA
Table 7 New syllabus
TOPIC/SITUATION GRAMMAR VOCABULARY FUNCTIONS

HOLIDAY/TRAVELLING Arranging travel
Present tenses Air travel
BY PLANE Reporting lost luggage
Checking on an order,
SHOPPING/SHOPPING
Possessives Shopping complaining,
ONLINE
reminding.
Past trends Describing past actions
Past tenses
REPORTS/EMAILS summarizing,
Time prepositions
(writing reports) promising actions
Describing designs,
explaining how things
SYSTEMS Place prepositions System functioning work, comparing
systems, describing a
process
Asking for information,
stating a preference,
MEETIGS/SMALL TALK Future forms Planning meetings
changing
arrangements.
Giving opinion,
explaining a problem,
TACKLING Changing
1st/2nd conditional giving options,
PROBLEMS/NEGOTIATING arrangements
responding, agreeing,
disagreeing,
Asking for/giving
Present perfect Projects update, asking for help,
PROJECTS
simple Time expressions offering/declining to
do something
Giving advice/asking
Obligation, for advice, welcoming,
BUSINESS TRIP/VISITOR necessity, Business travel explaining the
prohibition, advice programme, ending a
conversation.
Asking about and
Dimensions, diagnosing a problem,
Can, could, be able
PRODUCT/DESIGNES materials, adjectives explaining the
to
describing products problem, changing
solution.
With regard to scheduled number of learning units, which was 25 in total, and the
fact that the NA was carried out during the course, approximately at the end of its first
quarter, the new syllabus was organised into 8 thematic units. Each unit was planned
68
THE PRESENT NA
for 2 sessions in the length of 90 minutes. 1 session is planned for revision. Its planned
form is a criterion-referenced test including speaking, listening and writing on topics
from the syllabus. The intention is to measure how much of the learned material learn-
ers managed to learn and are able to use. Although it is not demanded by the employer,
final revision through test will provide the course with a sense of and control and head-
ing to achievements.
Summary
Respondents use English more often for work then outside working settings,
which means work situations are more important for them and this is in compliance
with results of the situation analysis, or more precisely, the employer´s interests.
Most transactions at work take place at middle level of formality or are informal
and that should be reflected mainly in functions.
Grammar is acknowledged as problematic area, but it has to be taught in context
and in an interesting way showing practical use. Analysing mistakes the learners make
in reports and mails seems to be a good idea for instruction.
Listening, along with speaking makes 35% of transactions in English at work and
at the same time is by students evaluated as the top-level problematic. As a conse-
quence it should be practised, employing natural recordings because respondents
mentioned problems with speed and noise. Next, some exercises should be focused on
catching main ideas only.
Vocabulary is perceived as very problematic. It should be focused, in accordance
with topics, on technical English. For this purpose, also a textbook for technicians will
be used. Students will have a chance to keep the record of vocabulary.
Writing represents 35% of transactions in English and therefore should not be
neglected. The main focus will be emails and reports. A phrases bank with usual
phrases of different level of formality will be created and authentic material the re-
spondents handle at work will be used.
69
THE PRESENT NA
Speaking is not perceived as such a problem because the learners speak often but
mentioned problems were those with fast reactions and fluency. So the instruction
should teach students about social functions of communication at work and involve
strategies and aids, such as phrases for obtaining time, using nonverbal means, con-
nectors facilitating cohesion and the like. Conversation about common topic is needed
and desired but has to be planned and managed.
Despite the fact reading represents 22, 5 % of their activities in English, the re-
spondents did not reported any problems in this area so it can become part of other
activities in class.
Pronunciation will be part of syllabus as it is included in the original syllabus and
because although this area was not perceived as problematic, it might be one of many
possible reasons for difficulties with listening.
7.9 Other Changes in the Curriculum
Although the questionnaire and the follow-up interview gave an answer to the
question what to teach, they gave only a rough idea how to do it, in section dealing with
class activities. It meant that also learning styles, describing preferred and efficient
ways of individuals´ learning had to be examined. Griffiths (2012) advocates the con-
cept of learning style claiming that it has power “to greatly enhance learning and to
make learning more enjoyable and successful“ (p. 151). Then he continues saying that
it acknowledges learners´ individual differences and mentions impact both on teachers
and learners. For educators it is opportunity to offer appropriate teaching materials
and methodologies according preferred learning styles and for students it enables to
learn in enjoyable ways and use their potential.
For this purpose, a learning style questionnaire was administered to students. The
questionnaire is based on Learning Style Survey by Mikk et al. (2009). However, it was
significantly adapted in the sense of picking only questions that can directly influence
instruction. Some constraints were imposed by the online form of tuition, especially
the area of learning through complete body experience and hands-on approach to
70
THE PRESENT NA
learning. For example, a question “If I have a choice between sitting and standing, I’d
rather stand“ was preferentially excluded.
Moreover, the extent was subordinated to appropriateness and acceptability for
students, which resulted in extent of 20 simple questions (Appendix D). Analysing the
answers produced a table summarizing answers, their averages and ranges including
extremes (Appendix G).
Results
The results are presented both with average and extreme values as the instruction
should correspond with majority but respect individuality.
The first focus was about using physical senses. This group involved questions 1
to 8.
It resulted, from the responses to questions 1 and 4, that the learners rather do
not need visual input which implies audio recordings are sufficient. As a group, they
prefer verbal written tasks and at the same time using colour coding ranges from “not
often” to “often”. It follows it is suitable to share a screen or type tasks in the chat and
use different colours for writing during classes. Charts, diagrams, and maps help learn-
ers understand what someone says “very often”, so these visual aids should be used
along with spoken word. Music should be used as background only exceptionally and
two of the learners often need frequent breaks, which should be reflected in breaking
activities into smaller portions, making breaks and not leaving learners in chat rooms
for long.
Answers to questions 9 and 11 dealing with ways of exposing to learning situa-
tions were in agreement. The respondents “sometimes” prefer individual or one-on-
one games and activities and two of them “always“ and one “often” tend to keep silent
when in a large group. From this point of view, pair work seems to be a good alternative
of group work.
When it came to how literally the students take reality (questions 10 and 20), they
all answered that learning things through metaphors and associations with other
things, using stories and examples “sometimes” help them learn language. Only one
71
THE PRESENT NA
respondent once answered “often”. It means that it is acceptable both to apply meta-
phors and teach the language as it appears.
Answers to questions 12, 13 and 14, examining how the learners handle possibil-
ities, showed that it is more appropriate to opt deductive type of instruction, when
students get explicit rule-based instruction, for example when explaining grammar be-
cause they do not prefer discovering things themselves. Mostly average occurrence of
adding original ideas during class discussions means that abstract thinking and specu-
lations are not a problem but on the other hand, should not be used too often. All re-
spondents “often” prefer things presented in a step-by-step manner, which means they
prefer one-step-at-a-time activities, and want to know where they are going in their
learning at every moment.
In the question 15 about dealing with ambiguity and asking about whether they
worry about comprehending everything, the answers differed a great deal. That means
both explicit directions and discovery learning are acceptable and should be used in
turns.
Question 16 and 17 are about ways of receiving information. It follows that they
are not very good at catching new phrases or words when they hear them and that
corresponds with the findings in the opening part of this analysis. The learners quite
enjoy activities where they fill in the blank with missing words they hear so this activ-
ity is usable in class.
The answer 18 about processing information shows unequivocally they are syn-
thetizing persons, being able to summarize material well, enjoying guessing meanings
and predicting outcomes, and noticing similarities quickly.
The learners as a group rather need to think things through before speaking or
writing and that should be taken into consideration that it is important to give them
enough time for preparation.
Although the assumption to use a single approach to class instruction is not con-
sidered to be the right one, (see chapter Learning styles), the really small number of
students in the class enabled, in some cases using a unified method.
72
THE PRESENT NA
7.10 Evaluation
The present evaluation was done during teaching phase, particularly at the begin-
ning of last third of the course. The process-oriented character of the evaluation en-
deavoured to understand whether the program had been successful to that point of
time. The evaluation was focused on the course, or more precisely on its parts. The core
one was the NA which reflected in other parts of the curriculum. The focus point was
answering the question of how effective or to which extent the original learners´ needs
corresponded with the reality so the basic question is whether the NA succeeded in
identification learners´ needs.
The evaluation is carried out as primarily illuminative with the aim to get insights
in how the curriculum parts work. It is focused on learners´ interpretations of the
course.
The evaluation is done internally and internally motivated. As the method was se-
lected a brief questionnaire survey. The process of data collecting was realized through
an anonymous questionnaire to get more sincere responses. The questionnaire was
structured, with statements with scale judgmental ratings, i.e. qualitative data ws col-
lected. The method of analysing was quantitative.
The questionnaire (Appendix F) was framed with the course goal and objectives.
The evaluation was tailored for this program. Its items are concentrating on the parts
of the syllabus influenced by the NA, it means the content and teaching process, in or-
der to obtain only relevant information.
As the NA was focused on linguistic characteristics of target situations, problems
and learning needs, the evaluation examined the same areas. Preferred were problem-
atic ideas.
Results
The questionnaire was drawn up to check the NA. First it was piloted in two other
courses (identical with piloting for the NA questionnaire survey). Respondents were
asked to answer 17 questions (Appendix E) and evaluate them with marking, like at
73
THE PRESENT NA
school and besides, they were asked to give their feedback on comprehensibility of the
questions.
The first piloting revealed 3 questions were not understood (usefulness of func-
tions, communication strategies and getting information how to improve skills). After
the first piloting the item about improving skills was excluded because it overlapped
with questions concerning individual skills. The other two problematic questions were
completed with examples.
After the second piloting, the questions about communication strategies was de-
leted as students were not able to understand it. Another aspect they complained about
was the scale that was reported as “giving little space for choice” therefore the original
scale 1-5 was replaced with percentage rating 1-100%.
Then the students were asked to fill in the simple online questionnaire (Appendix
F).
The results of the final questionnaire are summed up in Appendix H. They show
following:
The choice of topics and satisfaction with learned language functions is high.
Slightly worse is assessed meeting learners problems. There might be two reasons: the
course has not finished yet, so all the problems could not be handled. Another reason
might lie in poor specification of problems in the NA. Improvements in individual skills
were evaluated quite well, except listening. From the sphere classroom processes the
planning and organisation proved lower level of satisfaction. That might have been
caused by technical problems with online teaching. Surprisingly, the lowest satisfac-
tion was with the pace of work.
To sum up the results, primarily it should be noted that the questionnaire was
anonymous so there was no point in analysing responses of individuals. In total, class-
room processes should be worked on. The dissatisfaction with the pace should be ex-
amined further. In terms of the NA, there are two implications. The NA should have
been more specific about learners´ problems and learning needs should be examined
in more detail in the future.
74
THE PRESENT NA
To sum up, the results are overall at a good level although area of class processes
proves slightly worse evaluation. Anyway, this feedback should be a kind of food for
thought for the teacher.
7.11 Limitations
The needs analysis is focused on language needs and learning needs and only in a
small scale on motivation.
Basically there are two reasons for that. Firstly, the teacher´s experience with ESP
learners in the domain of motivation is that they prove high level of motivation in gen-
eral. That can be influenced by many factors. They are mature, make decisions for
themselves, see practical application of their efforts and goals seem to be more achiev-
able to them. Particularly in this course, the teacher had been able to observe enthusi-
asm among the students before conducting the NA. They expressed their interest, par-
ticipated actively, did their homework. Secondly, this is supported by the theory saying
motivation of adults is different from young learners and children, with prevailing in-
trinsic motivation. The ESP character of the course assumes also instrumental motiva-
tion with the learners and that should contribute the learners´ success. The evidence
of the above mentioned motivation factors is the character of the language program,
which is intended as benefit more than obligation and participation in it is voluntary.
Another possible improvement is that the questionnaire, in regards to limitations
given by the context, could have been even simplified. The questionnaire offered learn-
ers open questions in expectation they will be creative and devise more items. How-
ever they either do not have enough knowledge, do not have space to think about these
matters or simply are under time stress. So as contribution for a potential next use it
would be better first plan the extended frame for the course and then ask learners
about their views, with the option of bringing up new ideas. Also, if there were not the
context constraints, the learner´s style survey would be used in full extent and incor-
porated in instruction.
75
CONCLUSION
8 Conclusion
An impulse for the study was the desire to satisfy articulated needs of learners in
an ESP course. So it was decided to meet their needs through NA. Its goal was make
changes in existing curriculum.
The objective of the study became describing mechanism of detecting learners´
needs and their right application in an ESP course considering the context. That pro-
voked the basic question: How to carry out and implement needs analysis for this
course? The response lies in answering other questions.
The first is: What are the learners´ needs and the context in this ESP course? The
learners´ needs were found out using instruments of a questionnaire and a follow-up
interview. Learners´ needs were examined in two basic areas: their language and
learning needs. For the first area were two sources selected – a representative of the
learners´ employer and the learners. Their needs were identified as changing topics
towards predominantly working ones, adding some language functions and meeting
their problems in varied language areas. Learning needs were reflected in form of
changes in teaching process. The context shaping the NA was dealt with in the situation
analysis that explored the environment of the course including all parties involved.
The next research question was: How to incorporate the NA into the curriculum?
That was done based on an analysis of the present syllabus of the course and grounded
in philosophy and approaches to teaching and learning which are accepted by the
teacher and acceptable for the learners. Necessary step involved in the process was
setting a new course goal. Then the syllabus was changed and set of recommendations
started being incorporated into the course.
The last question was: How to evaluate the NA? That provoked creation of a ques-
tionnaire illuminating to what extent the NA was successful, seen from the learners´
perspectives.
The study demonstrated that NA is not a goal but part of a curriculum and has
character producing changes that are reflected in a course as a whole.
76
CONCLUSION
The final evaluation showed a relatively high level of learners´ satisfaction prov-
ing the main mission of NA, which was to get closer to learners´ needs, was fulfilled, at
least in terms of subjective needs. Besides, there are still some items that can be im-
proved as the course is still running, for example to alter the pace of the instruction.
Surprisingly, although there were some limitations from the side of employer at
the beginning of the research, interesting experience was how students demonstrated
responsiveness during the NA process. Informal observations and talks in the class
proved that even showing willingness to make changes in curriculum and discussing it
with students enhances their interest and brings more active role and that is in accord-
ance with findings in the theoretical part of the study.
The NA was conducted in the ESP adult course but if the NA was applied at a sec-
ondary school, it would have to be more focused on students´ motivation. It stems from
the fact that needs and motivation with young learners are different. Irrespective of
the instrument used, it would be based on content of a present textbook directly and
the process of collecting data would be involved in instruction as it is recommended in
literature.
77
CONCLUSION
Bibliography
Antic, Z., & Milosavljevic, N. (2016). Some suggestions for modelling a contemporary
medical English course design based on need analysis. Lingua, 184, 69-78.
doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2016.06.002
Belcher, D. D. (2006). English for Specific Purposes: Teaching to Perceived Needs and
Imagined Futures in Worlds of Work, Study, and Everyday Life. Teachers of Eng-
lish to Speakers of Other Languages, 40, 133 – 156. doi:10.2307/40264514
Berwick, R. (1989). Needs assessment in language programming: from theory to prac-

tice. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.). The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum. A systematic Approach to

Program Development. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Brown, J. D. (2016). Introducing Needs Analysis and English for Specific Purposes. Ox-
ford: Routledge.
Burçak A. (2014) User-centered design through learner-centered instruction. Teach-

ing in Higher Education, 19:2, 138-155, doi:10.1080/13562517.2013.827646
Campion, G. C. (2016). ‘The learning never ends’: Exploring teachers’ views on the
transition from General English to EAP. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
23,59-70. doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.06.003
Chan, C. S. C. (2018). Proposing and illustrating a research-informed approach to cur-

riculum development for specific topics in business English. English for Specific
Purposes, 52, 27-46. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2018.07.001
Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language

Teaching, 31, 117-135.
Dörnyei, Z. & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New
York: Taylor & Francis.
Dudley-Evans, T. & St John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for Specific Purposes:

A Multi-Disciplinary Approach. Cambridge UP: Cambridge.
Gardener, R. C. (2010). Motivation and second language acquisition: socio educational

model. New York, Robert Lang.
Graves, K. (2000). Designing language courses: A guide for teachers. Boston: Heinle.
78
CONCLUSION
Griffiths, C. (2012). Learning styles: Traversing the quagmire. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, &
M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning: Insights from theory, re-
search and practice (p. 151–168). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Holmes, J. (2005). When small talk is a big deal: sociolinguistic challenges in the
workplace. In Michael H. Long (ed.) Second language needs analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.344-371
Hughes, S. H. (2019). Coursebooks: Is there more than meets the eye?, ELT Journal, (p.
447-455), 4, doi-org.ezproxy.muni.cz/10.1093/elt/ccz040
Hutchinson, T & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes: A learning-centred

Approach. Cambridge UP: Cambridge.
Lightbown, P. M. & Spada N. (2013). How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Long, M. (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.
Macalister, J. (2012). Narrative frames and needs analysis. System, 40(1), 120-128.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2012.01.010
Makk, S. H. (2019). Analyzing the needs of EFL/ESL learners in developing academic

presentation competence. RELC Journal, doi:10.1177/0033688219879514
Malicka, A., Gilabert Guerrero, R. & Norris, J. M. (2019). From needs analysis to task de-
sign: Insights from an English for specific purposes context. Language Teaching Re-
search, 23(1), 78-106. doi:10.1177/1362168817714278
Mikk K., Cohen B. & Paige, A.D. (2009) “Learning style survey: Assessing your own
learning style”. https://carla.umn.edu/maxsa/documents/LearningStyleSur-
vey_MAXSA.pdf
Nunan, D. (1989). Toward a Collaborative Approach to Curriculum Development: A Case

Study. TESOL Quarterly, 23(1), 9-25. doi:10.2307/3587505
Purpura, J. (2014). Language learner styles and strategies. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. Brin-

ton, & A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (4th ed.).
(532-549). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning.
Reid, J. (1995). Learning styles in ESL/EFL classroom. New York: Heinle and Heinle.
Richards, J.C. (2009). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge UP:

Cambridge.
79
CONCLUSION
Richards, J. C. (2017). Curriculum development in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cam-

bridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (1980). English for Specific Purposes. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching
(3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rogers, J. & et al. (2021). The creation and application of a large-scale corpus-based
academic multi-word unit list. English for Specific Purposes, 62, 142-157.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.01.001.
Serafini, E. J., Lake, J. B., & Long, M. H. (2015). Needs analysis for specialized learner
populations: Essential methodological improvements. English for Specific Pur-
poses, 40, 11-26. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2015.05.002
Sinclair, A. (1995). The chameleon of accountability: Forms and discourses. Account-

ing, Organizations and Society. 20, 219-237. doi.org/10.1016/0361-
3682(93)E0003-Y.
Švaříček, R. & Šeďová, K. (2007). Kvalitativní výzkum v pedagogických vědách. Praha:

Portál.
Tzotzou, M. (2014). Designing and Administering a Needs Analysis Survey to Primary

School Learners about EFL learning: a Case Study. Preschool & Primary Education
(PPEJ).2, 59-82. DOI:10.12681/ppej.62
Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles: SAGE.
80
CONCLUSION
Resumé
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to demonstrate designing needs
analysis and its implementation for a small group of professionals in a language class
financed by their employer. The central phenomenon of the study was a process of de-
signing and implementing NA into an ESP course. The main research question was:
How to carry out and implement NA for a particular ESP course? The study strived also
to answer other questions: what learners´ needs and the context were, how to incor-
porate the NA into parts of the present curriculum and how to evaluate the NA.
The study also briefly described history of ESP, its characteristics and its close re-
lation to NA. Chosen individual learner´s characteristics – motivation, learning styles
and learners´ needs were depicted, too. One part was dedicated to NA content, its char-
acteristics, elements and processes of NA design. Also, research in NA was included.
The empirical part followed the NA from setting its goal, through individual steps
of its process to final evaluation. The core part was the research focused on the stu-
dents. That was described in chapters dedicated to data collection, their analysis and
application of findings. The empirical part was closed with the course evaluation.
The target group were 4 adults, and the main methods were questionnaire survey and
a follow-up interview. The questionnaire was used for two sources - the students and
a representative of the employer. The NA included situation analysis that explored the
environment of the course and all parties involved. Necessary step involved in the
process was setting a new course goal. Then the syllabus, based on a textbook was
changed, that was done on the basis of an analysis of the present syllabus of the course
and grounded in philosophy and approaches to teaching and learning which were ac-
cepted by the teacher and acceptable for the learners. Then a set of recommendations
started being incorporated into teaching activities. That provoked creation of a ques-
tionnaire illuminating to what extent the NA was successful, seen from the learners´
perspectives. The evaluation proved the main mission of NA, which was to get closer
to learners´ needs, was fulfilled, at least in terms of subjective needs. There were still
some items that could be improved because the course was still ongoing at the moment
81
CONCLUSION
of finishing the study. If the NA were applied at a secondary school, it would be more
focused on students´ motivation that is different with young learners. It would be
based on content of a present textbook directly and the process of collecting data
would be involved in instruction as it is recommended in literature.
RESUMÉ
Účelem této kvalitativní případové studie bylo demonstrovat navržení analýzy potřeb
a její implementaci pro malou skupinu profesionálů v jazykovém kurzu financovaném
jejich zaměstnavatelem. Centrálním pojmem této studie byl proces navržení a apli-
kace potřeby analýz do kurzu spadajícího do domény angličtiny pro specifické účely.
Hlavní výzkumnou otázkou bylo: Jak provést a implementovat analýzu potřeb pro
konkrétní kurz v oblasti angličtiny pro specifické účely? Studie se snažila nalézt odpo-
vědi i na další otázky: Jaké jsou potřeby studentů a kontext kurzu, jak zapracovat ana-
lýzu potřeb do části současného kurikula kurzu, a jak ohodnotit tuto analýzu potřeb.
Studie také krátce popsala historii oboru angličtina pro specifické účely, její charakte-
ristiku a blízký vztah k analýze potřeb. Studie rovněž zachytila individuální charakte-
ristiky studenta – motivaci, styly učení a potřeby. Jedna část studie byla věnována ob-
sahu analýzy potřeb, jejím charakteristikám, elementům a procesu tvorby. Také vý-
zkum v oblasti analýzy potřeb byl zahrnut do studie.
V empirické části studie sledovala konkrétní analýzu potřeb od stanovení jejích cílů,
přes jednotlivé kroky jejího procesu až po závěrečnou evaluaci. Klíčovou částí byl vý-
zkum zaměřený na studenty. Ten byl popsána v kapitolách věnovaných sběru dat, je-
jich analýze a aplikaci. Praktickou část uzavřela evaluace kurzu.
Cílovou skupinou byli 4 dospělí a hlavními metodami byl dotazníkový průzkum a ná-
sledné interview. Dotazník byl použit pro dva zdroje – studenty a představitele zaměst-
navatele. Analýza potřeb obsahovala také situační analýzu, která zkoumala prostředí,
ve kterém se kurz konal a také všechny zúčastněné. Nezbytným krokem analýzy bylo
stanovení nového cíle kurzu. Potom byl sylabus kurzu založený na používané učebnici
změněn. Povedené změny se opíraly o teorii učení a jazyků a přístupy k učení přijímané
82
CONCLUSION
učitelem a přijatelné pro studenty. Následně byla sada doporučení pro výuku imple-
mentována. To posléze vyprovokovalo nutnost sestavení dotazníku ilustrujícího do
jaké míry byla analýza potřeb úspěšná, viděno z pohledu studentů.
Provedená evaluace dokázala, že hlavní poslání, kterým bylo přiblížit kurz potře-
bám studentů, bylo splněno, přinejmenším ve smyslu subjektivních potřeb. Objevily se
položky, které bylo možno vylepšit, protože v momentě, kdy byla studie zakončena,
kurz stále probíhal.
Kdyby byla studie aplikována na střední škole, byla by více orientována na moti-
vaci studentů, která je u mladších studentů jiná než u dospělých, a rovněž by byla přímo
založena na obsahu používané učebnice. Také proces sběru dat by probíhal ve vyučo-
vání a byl by jeho součástí, tak jak je doporučováno v odborné literatuře.
83
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Appendix A Questionnaire for the Employer
Dotazník pro zaměstnavatele
1. Z jakého důvodu organizuje vaše firma tento kurz?

Zvýšení kvalifikace zaměstnanců v oblasti jazykového vzdělávání.
2. Jaký přínos od kurzu očekáváte?

Zlepšení jazykové vybavenosti zaměstnanců.
3. Potřebují podle vás účastníci kurzu angličtinu v pracovních situacích?

Ano
4. Pokud ano, v jakých:

V komunikaci s obchodními partnery.
5. Pokud ano, jak často:

Různě, někteří i na denní bázi. Záleží na úseku, kde daný zaměstnanec pracuje.
6. Víte o nějakých problematických oblastech z hlediska angličtiny, se kterými se

pracovníci potýkají?
Technická angličtina
7. Jaké činnosti V AJ chcete, aby účastníci byli schopni vykonávat po absolvováním

tohoto kurzu:
Samostatná komunikace v cizích jazycích.
8. Jaké činnosti v AJ chcete, aby účastníci byli schopni vykonávat v dlouhodobém

horizontu:
Chceme, aby se postupně zlepšili ti, kteří potřebují, komunikovat i v technické AJ.
9. Jaké máte požadavky na znalosti a dovednosti účastníků v těchto oblastech po

skončení tohoto kurzu?
84
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Čtení
- Psaní
- Poslech
- Mluvení
- Slovní zásoba
- Výslovnost
10. Jaké máte požadavky na znalosti a dovednosti účastníků v těchto oblastech

v dlouhodobém horizontu?
- Čtení
- Psaní
- Poslech
- Mluvení
- Slovní zásoba
- Výslovnost
11. Měli jste v minulosti nějaká nesplněná očekávání od jazykových kurzů? Uveďte
jaká:
Ne
85
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Appendix B Piloting Questionnaire
How often do you need English at work? (with frequency per month/year)
Name the situations in which you need English at work (and rank them - 1 = most of-
ten)
What was the last situation when you needed English (Describe in detail what hap-
pened, how you reacted, what problems you had to face, how you solved the prob-
lem,…)
Things I need to be able to do in English are (rank them, 1 = most important for me):
Things I wish to learn in English are (rank them, 1 = most important for me):
What do you need English outside work for? (in your personal life)
What situations in English would you like to manage in the future?
What activities do you like doing in class?
What activities don´t you like doing in class?
When did you feel communicative problems in English? (specify what happened and
what exactly your difficulty was)
86
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Name situations or tasks in English which are not a problem for you:
Specify your problems (possibly mistakes you make)/state you do not have any in
these domains:
Vocabulary -
Writing -
Grammar -
Reading -
Listening -
Speaking -
Pronunciation -
What are your strengths in English (you are good at) ? Rank them, 1 = best.
What are your weaknesses in English (what causes problems)? Rank them, 1 = worst.
87
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Appendix C Questionnaire for Employees
Questionnaire
a) How often do you need English at work? (with frequency
per week/month/year)
(How many times)………./………….(time period)
b) Name the situations in which you need English at work (and

rank them – 1 = most often, 5 = least often)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
c) Who do you mostly communicate with (colleagues, superi-

ors, subordinates, business partners, others, …) in these sit-
uations (and rank them – 1 = most often, 5 = least often)
1.
2.
3.
d) What was the most difficult situation when you needed Eng-
lish (Describe in detail 1. what happened, 2. how you re-
acted, 3. what problems you had to face, 4. how you solved
the problem and others if needed)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
88
BIBLIOGRAPHY
e) Activities I need or wish to be able to do in English at work

are (rank them, 1 = most important for me – 5 = least im-
portant), for example: writing emails (what about), mee-
tings (what about) , answering inquiries (what about),
communicating with customers (what about), communica-
ting with other companies (what about), , writing reports
(what about), translating (what materials, reading docu-
ments (what about), interviewing candidates …)
1. …………………………………………
(………………………………………………….….)
2. …………………………………..……
(………………………………………………….….)
3. ………………………………………..
(……………………………………………………..)
4. ………………………………………..
(……………………………………………………..)
5. ……………………………………….
(……………………………………………………..)
f) What do you need English outside work for? (in your per-
sonal life) (rank them, 1 = most important for me – 5 = least
important)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
g) What activities do you like doing in class? (rank them, 1 =

most important for me – 5 = least important)
1.
2.
3.
89
BIBLIOGRAPHY
h) What activities don´t you like doing in class?

Jaké activity ve třídě nemáte rád/a
1.
2.
3.
i) Specify your problems (possibly mistakes you make)/state

you do not have any in these domains:
Vocabulary
Writing
Grammar
Reading
Listening
Speaking
Pronuncation
90
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Appendix D Learning Needs Questionnaire
0-never,1-not often, 2- sometimes, 3- often, 4- always

1. I prefer to learn with TV or video rather than other media. 01234
2. I use color-coding to help me as I learn or work. 01234
3. I need written directions for tasks 01234
4. I have to look at people to understand what they say 01234
5. I understand lectures better when professors write on the board. 01234
6. Charts, diagrams, and maps help me understand what someone says 01234
7. I like to listen to music when I study or work 01234

8. I need frequent breaks when I work or study. 01234
9. I prefer individual or one-on-one games and activities. 01234
10. I learn things through metaphors and associations with other things.
I find that stories and examples help me learn. 01234
11. When I am in a large group, I tend to keep silent and listen. 01234
12. I like to discover things myself rather than have everything explained to me. 01234
13. I add many original ideas during class discussions. 01234
14. I prefer things presented in a step-by-step way. 01234
15. I don’t worry about comprehending everything. 01234
16. I’m good at catching new phrases or words when I hear them. 01234
17. I enjoy activities where I fill in the blank with missing words I hear. 01234
18. I enjoy activities where I have to pull ideas together 01234
19. I need to think things through before speaking or writing. 01234
2O. I find that building metaphors in my mind helps me deal with language
(e.g., viewing the language like a machine with component parts that can be disassebled)
01234
91
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Appendix E Piloting Evalution
My satisfaction with topics.

Usefulness of the functions I have learned.(e.g.
arranging meetings)
The way my language problems have being met.
Improving my skills in listening.
Improving my skills in vocabulary.
Improving my skills in speaking.
Improving my skills in writing
The way instruction develops my communication strate-
gies . (e.g. the voice tone)
Getting information how to improve my skills.
Relevance of the content (whether is comprehensible – not too easy or too difficult)
Satisfaction with how lessons are planned and organised.
Clarity of setting tasks
Satisfaction with classroom processes (activities)
Satisfaction with the way materials are presented
Satisfaction with the pace of work.
Satisfaction with explaining new items.
Satisfaction with organising work as individual, pair or group work.
92
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Appendix F Online Evalution
93
BIBLIOGRAPHY
94
BIBLIOGRAPHY
95
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Appendix G Analysis of Learning Styles
students
extre-
question 1 2 3 4 average mes
1 2 1 1 2 1,5 1 2
2 1 3 2 1 1,75 1 3
3 2 2 3 2 2,25 2 3
4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
5 2 3 2 2 2,25 2 3
6 3 2 3 3 2,75 2 3
7 2 1 2 2 1,75 1 2
8 3 2 1 3 2,25 1 3
9 2 2 3 2 2,25 2 3
10 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
11 4 1 3 4 3 1 4
12 1 1 3 1 1,5 1 3
13 2 2 4 2 2,5 2 4
14 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
15 2 3 0 2 1,75 0 3
16 1 1 2 1 1,25 1 2
17 2 2 3 2 2,25 2 3
18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
19 2 3 3 2 2,5 2 3
20 2 4 2 2 2,5 2 4
96
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Appendix H Analysis of Evaluation
St. St. St. St.

1 2 3 4 % Question
100 90 90 85 91,25 My satisfaction with topics.
90 95 90 80 88,75 Usefulness of the functions I have learned.
85 85 85 78 83,25 The way my language problems have being met.
95 70 60 70 73,75 Improving my skills in listening.
100 90 85 80 88,75 Improving my skills in vocabulary.
80 85 85 92 85,5 Improving my skills in speaking.
90 75 80 85 82,5 Improving my skills in writing.

Relevance of the content (whether is comprehensible
100 90 95 80 91,25 – not too easy or too difficult)
Satisfaction with how lessons are planned and organ-
90 70 75 75 77,5 ised.
95 80 75 90 85 Clarity of setting tasks
90 90 85 85 87,5 Satisfaction with classroom processes (activities)
100 90 80 92 90,5 Satisfaction with the way materials are presented
90 85 85 75 83,75 Satisfaction with the pace of work.
95 90 90 85 90 Satisfaction with explaining new items.

Satisfaction with organising work as individual, pair
90 100 85 85 90 or group work.
97

An Example of Needs Analysis Implementation Into An ESP Course

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

An Example of Needs Analysis Implementation Into An ESP Course

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FAULTY OF ARTS

Supervisor: Mgr. Jitka Sedláčková, Ph.D.

Department of English and American Studies

Author: Alena Fialová

Brno April 29, 2021 .......................................

Šablona DP 3.2.2-ARTS-dipl-obor-english (2021-04-29) © 2014, 2016, 2018–2021 Masarykova univerzita 7

2 History and Character of ESP 16

5 Application of NA and Evaluation 39

6 Research in Needs Analysis 45

7.5 Data Collection ........................................................................................................................ 55

Appendix A Questionnaire for the Employer 84

Appendix B Piloting Questionnaire 86

Appendix C Questionnaire for Employees 88

Appendix D Learning Needs Questionnaire 91

Appendix E Piloting Evalution 92

Appendix F Online Evalution 93

Appendix G Analysis of Learning Styles 96

Appendix H Analysis of Evaluation 97

Table 1 Results of the placement test ....................................................................................54

EFL – English as a Foreign Language

history of NA it is obvious that development of needs analysis is connected with focus-

2 History and Character of ESP

Gardener (2010) numbers among aspects of achievements in learning languages

motivation for practical purposes is under certain circumstances better predictor of

3.2 Learning Style

To be able to examine needs analysis, it is essential to grasp the substance and

4.1 The Notion of NA

perspective of processes, it may be concluded that NA is a process of collecting and

To summarize the content of needs analysis, possible information outcome of NA

According to Richards (2009), designing needs analysis is represented by choos-

• the needs analysts (those who conduct the NA)

2) what weaknesses, strengths, opportunities, and threats influence needs anal-

5 Application of NA and Evaluation

5.1 Adapting a Textbook

Hutchinson and Waters (1987) explicate a syllabus as a document saying what

5.2 Curriculum and its Evaluation

Undoubtedly, curriculum is one of central phenomena of educational process.

6 Research in Needs Analysis

7.1 Research Topic

• To incorporate new content into the curriculum considering learners´ prefer-

7.2 Situation Analysis

7.3 Process - Preparatory Stage

As Macalister (2012) claims, unnecessary constituent of NA is assessing present

Table 1 Results of the placement test

7.4 Participants: Class Profile

7.5 Data Collection

As Long (2005) argues, pilot-testing NA materials is crucial, particularly in the

h) What activities don´t you like doing in class?

7.6 Method of Data Analysis

In the NA blend of qualitative and quantitative approaches was used. Descriptive

Table 2 Weighted frequency of situations in working setting

Table 3 Weighted frequency of situations in personal setting

Respondents reported modality of transactions as follows: 35 % of all working

writing reports/describing past actions 9

explaining how something works 8

asking for information 4

asking for help 2

giving project updates 2

asking for advice 1

changing arrangements for meetings 1

Problematic area Frequency

Table 6 Preferred class activities

Preferred class activities Weighted frequency