10-12-53-2-KLEANTHIDISIOANNIS-69540

Needs Analysis Assignment for AGG53

Why are students bored in the English Classroom?

A Needs Analysis on a General English Language Course in a

Greek Lyceum Class for English Language

Ioannis Kleanthidis

Wednesday 25 January 2012

10-12-53-2-KLEANTHIDISIOANNIS-69540 1

Contents:

Introduction……………………………………………………… p. 5

Aspects of Needs Analysis Theory:……………………………….p. 5

Description and Rationale:………………………………………..p. 7

Presentation and Discussion of Results:…………………...……...p. 7

Implications:………………..……………………………………..p. 9

Conclusion:……………………………………………………….p.10

References ………………………………………………...…......p. 11

Appendices ..…………………………………………………….p. 13


Introduction

The aim of this essay is to explore the needs analysis basics by conducting one

in a class I teach. This is a second year class in the General Lyceum of Chrisoupoli.

There are 28 students in the class between 16-17 years old. They are taught general

English and the course book used is at level B.1. While most of the students are quite

competent in English, they lack motivation, so my main concern in this analysis will

be to attempt an explanation on why is that happening and what, if anything can be

done in order to have a positive effect on the teaching process.

In this attempt I have constructed a needs analysis questionnaire (App. 1)

based on Watanabe’s (2006, pp.148-153) and Seedhouse’s (1995, p.65)

questionnaires. What follows is an explanation on why I chose the specific questions,

an analysis and a discussion on the results. But before all these I will try to offer a

glimpse on some issues of needs analysis theory that guided me to this work.

Aspects of Needs Analysis Theory

Needs analysis has sprung out of the ESP classes (Manolopoulou-Sergi, 2004,

p. 84 and Richards, 2001, p. 51) where learning English has a special focus on certain

areas of the language and allows the course designer to narrow his scope on what to

include in the syllabus. These decisions are not only based on what the “think tanks”

of education (curriculum officers, teachers, writers, e.t.c.) deem to be appropriate, but

they can also be drawn from what students or even prospective employers have to say

(Richards, 2001, pp. 55-56). Some of the means by which those opinions or trends can

be obtained are questionnaires, interviews, observation, e.t.c. (see Richards, 2001, pp.

60-63).

Although there have been several attempts to create a model for determining

what a learner needs to be taught like Munby’s Communicative Syllabus Design

(1978) and van Ek’s Threshold Level (1975), “there is no wholly adequate means of

identifying learner needs and learning objectives” (Cunningsworth, 1983. p. 150).

Cunningsworth’s critique states that van Ek’ model is not “exhaustive” and is based

on a rather ‘flimsy basis of information”, while Munby’s model seems like an updated

edition of the ‘Threshold Level’, but it is still unable to provide us with a universal


model that can automatically generate a syllabus content from a needs input

(Cunningsworth, 1983. p. 152).

Nunan’s work adopted a ‘bottom-up view of curriculum development’ by

taking into account what learner’s had to say about the way they are being taught, thus

introducing the “Learner-Centered Approach” (1988a). Brumfit suggests that even

though we might not be able to identify the exact needs of a learner, we will be able to

create a “needs profile” which can be used as “a way of measuring the syllabus

against the necessary demands of the real world” (1979, p. 186).

There has been some controversy though over the subject of handing out needs

analysis questionnaires to students of general English classrooms where the subject is

compulsory as a part of a secondary education system curriculum. Richards (2001,

p.53) says that the curriculum of English in secondary level is “based on what

curriculum planners consider best for students to study at school in the same way that

math, history and physical education are included in the school curriculum”, and that

English is usually just “considered as an important part of a child’s education”. This

argument entails that what students want or need from a general English course is not

that important and that the important thing is just to pass the end of the year exam and

get a good mark.

Hutchinson and Waters (1987, pp. 53-54) explanation of why needs analysis is

not widely used in the EFL classroom is that a “tradition persists in General English

that learners’ needs can’t be specified and as a result no attempt is usually made to

discover learners’ true needs.” They argue though that there is always “an identifiable

need of some sort”, while Richards stresses that “needs analysis is fundamental to the

planning of General English courses” (1990, p.2). Seedhouse (1995, pp. 59-60) also

pinpoints that the real problem is how to interpret the data collected from a

questionnaire and how to convert that data into materials to be used in class.

Although needs analysis might not be a perfect method, it can offer guidelines

and some useful insight when designing a curriculum or a syllabus. Its results might

be even flimsier in General English courses, nevertheless they can offer various

threads to solving problems such as that of unmotivated high school students,

especially when the students’ own opinions are taken into account.


Description and Rationale

The questionnaire is divided in 6 parts. In the first part the questions were

chosen having in mind that I have to put to the test some of the beliefs that I had about

student’s competency and qualifications in English as this would raise a serious

discussion about the course book. I have to comment that I had no part in choosing

the course book as the students had already bought it last year and we had to catch up

from where they had stopped in the First Grade. Their lack of motivation had also had

to be officially checked. Questions 13 and 14 were open so I could get some personal

opinions on why students were not motivated.

Part B was designed in order to explore the student’s attitude towards the

English language and it also left some room in the end for differed opinions. Parts C,

D and E were bent on the wants or desires of students as far as the areas of English

language (e.g. grammar, vocabulary, e.t.c.), the thematology and the procedure of

working in class. These parts dominate the questionnaire because the main aim was to

find out what students would like to do in order to motivate them. The last part is

dedicated on uncovering students’ needs, or at least to get a taste of what students

thought that it was their weak point.

By using closed-type answers I sought for easily measurable results

(Richards, 2001, p.60). There were no middle answer alternatives, so students would

need to give a positive or negative statement, and thus making the analysis easier. The

questionnaire was piloted in English but, due to many problems that students had in

understanding what exactly they were being asked, I administered it in Greek.

Presentation and Discussion of Results

The full results are on display in Appendix 2. In this section I will just

concentrate on the findings that can offer solid ground for reaching some valid

enough conclusion.

The vast majority of students who come to this class have already been

studying English for 8-9 years.(App. 2, p. 1, question 3) and have some diploma in

English or preparing to sit exams for one (App. 2, p. 1, questions 4,5,6,7,8,9). These

endeavors are undertaken not within the formal schooling system, but in private


language institutions or with the help of a private tutor teaching English.

Nevertheless, these same students have also been studying English for 6-9 years

within the formal school system. This ‘double’ schooling raises serious motivational

problems for the state English school teacher as more than half of the class does not

consider that it is important to learn English at school and would prefer to replace the

subject with something else like psychology, music, dance or even with a different

foreign language (App.2, p. 2, qs. 11-12).

It is also interesting to check some of the student’s “open answers” (App. 2

questions 13-14) which show why they feel unmotivated. Not all of the students

answered these questions, but some of the answers were surprisingly similar like:

-It’s an easy lesson and it helps us to relax (15 students)

-It’s boring because I have been studying English for too many years (6 students)

-It’s boring because I already have a certificate (5 students)

At this point we should mention that 79% of the students hold a certificate which is

above the level of the course book taught at school, something that explains the

answers above.

In part B students’ answers show that they feel very strongly about why they

are learning English. For example:

Positive

Attitude

Negative

Attitude

To get a certificate in English 26 2

To get a good job 28 0

Need English at University 25 3

To travel abroad 26 2

To talk to foreigners 25 3

To surf the net 27 1

Because English is an important international language 25 3

I don’t know why I am learning English 5 23

That shows that although students have many good reasons to learn and

perfect their English, English taught at Lyceum still fails to motivate them.

Part C presents two points of focus. The first one is that 24 students would

prefer to get speaking exercise at school, something which can be explained by the


way that students are being taught in both private institutions and at school. Because

teaching English in private institutions in Greece is mainly exam oriented, students

are trained on how to pass exams while authentic communication is usually not highly

regarded. Moreover, in the state school language system, students in their final exams

are tested only on reading and writing skills, while speaking and listening skills are

completely neglected. The result is students who are excellent in reading and writing

skills but awfully timid in expressing themselves orally. This consequence could very

well be associated with the most favourite answer in E group. Here 23 students would

prefer to attend lessons as open discussions and there are no students who object to

that. On the other hand, 19 students would hate to have just the teacher talking all the

time.

In group D the most popular subjects are travelling (25 positive votes) and

internet with cinema (22 positive votes), while the least popular theme is news (24

negative answers). In group E, apart from what I have previously discussed, it is

noteworthy to know that most students dislike doing presentations and writing tests

(23 negative votes). The feedback that we can derive from the last group is already

expected but important to be spelt out once again. English at school do not seem to

pose a challenge for students as most of them feel that nothing is too difficult to do in

English.

Implications

Although changing the course book might not be possible, supplementing it with

more challenging communicative activities with themes taken from travelling guides

and cinema would best fit this class. Working with movies and songs has already

proved adequately popular and should be carried on. Teaching materials that utilize

the internet, especially online communication with foreign people through the

medium of English, would be useful, too. Staging a play might be a bit far fetched,

but it could provide excellent learning possibilities. Travelling to an English speaking

country or asking for native speakers to join and make any kind of presentations in

class would certainly raise interest. Games are always a way to success as well. The

stress negative atmosphere of the English classroom should be viewed and treated as

an advantage where a different kind of teaching can take place, rather than as a

disadvantage.


Other than the class specific implications I would like to attempt some general

ones as well. Watanabe states that in some countries where “the government sets

national standards or guidelines, like Japan, educational goals and standards are

decided in a top-down manner and constrain text books and decision making in the

school curriculum” (Watanabe, 2006, p.84). I couldn’t avoid comparing the situation

with the reality in the Greek Lyceum. I had a close look at the new Greek national

curriculum for foreign languages (Ενιαίο Πρόγραμμα Σπουδών-Ξένων Γλωσσών,

2011) as well as the old one (Διαθεματικό Ενιαίο Πλαίσιο Προγραμμάτων Σπουδών)

where I couldn’t find any reference to student’s beliefs about learning. So, it was true

that “learner’s voices have not been well attended to in language curriculum”,

(Watanabe, 2006, p.84), and maybe that was a factor that took its toll on the much

needed but desperately absent motivation of Greek students in the two last classes of

the general lyceum.

Moreover, both of these curriculums seem to totally neglect the reality about

foreign language learning in Greece which is desperately interwoven with the role of

private language institutions. The state should acknowledge the reality and decide if

school will be supplementary to such institutions, or if it is going to render them

obsolete. In this light, if we think that most of the students already have a certificate in

English and that the Greek school cannot offer an equivalent one, it would not be

unwise to argue that tests do not have any real use in the English classroom in

lyceum. On the other hand, if students could obtain an official diploma through school

teaching and school exams, the dynamics of the classroom would change. Some steps

have already been taken towards this direction with the creation of the ΚΠΓ (Κρατικό

Πτυχίο Γλωσσομάθειας) which is a state administered language certificate, but this

should be more closely linked with the school syllabus.

Naturally, it is too obvious to argue that the above results, taken from a B

Class in a general Lyceum in northern Greece, cannot be overgeneralised and say that

they are valid for all the general lyceums in Greece. My experience though of being

taught English for 6 years within the same educational system as a student and of

teaching English for 10 years in similar classes all over Greece has led me to believe

so. In this paper, I was given the opportunity to test those beliefs in a class and I think

that the results have not proven me misguided, unless I have been mesmerized by the

demon of self-fulfilling prophecies. A large scale analysis on the dynamics between


state school language teaching and private language institutions would be both

enlightening and necessary, but this is not the subject of this paper.

2300 Words

References

Cunningsworth, A. (1983). ‘Needs analysis - a review of the state of the art’. System, 11/2: 149-154.

Brumfit, C. (1979). “Communicative” language teaching: an educational perspective. In Brumfit and Johnson (eds.) The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J.C. (1990). The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J.C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Seedhouse, (1995). ‘Needs analysis and the general english classroom’ ELT Journal, 49/1: 59-65.

Manolopoulou – Sergi, E. (2004). ‘Needs analysis’. In Ayakli C. Karavas, K. Manolopoulou – Sergi, E. & Spinthourakis, J. A. (2004). Course Design and Evaluation, Vol. 1. Patras: Hellenic Open University, 81 – 124.

Munby, J. (1978). Communicative Syllabus Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1988). The Learner Centered Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Watanabe, Y. (2006). ‘A needs analysis for a Japanese high school EFL general education curriculum’. Second Language Studies, 25/1: 83-163.

Van Ek, J. (1975) The Threshold Level. Strasburg: Council of Europe.

ΕΠΣ-ΞΓ: http://rcel.enl.uoa.gr/xenesglosses/sps.htm

ΔΕΠΠΣ: http://www.pi-schools.gr/lessons/english/pdf/eniaio_lykeio.pdf


Appendices

Appendix 1……………………………………………………………….. p. i

Appendix 2……………………………………………………………….. p. v


10-12-53-2-KLEANTHIDISIOANNIS-69540

Documents

Transcript of 10-12-53-2-KLEANTHIDISIOANNIS-69540