Needs Analysis: An Innovation in the Language Classroom in China

1. INTRODUCTION

Teaching primary students in an EFL context, the differential language proficiency

levels of students has been one of the obstacles I came across when planning teaching.

This essay opens with an introduction of needs analysis as an innovative solution to

tackle the difficulty in syllabus designing as well as lesson planning 1 in my own

context. The following part presents how to exploit needs analysis. The procedures of

implementation then lead to the investigation of the rationale of needs analysis. The

final part outlines the implication as well as suggestions of exploiting needs analysis

in the pedagogical field in my teaching context.

2. OUTLINE OF THE USE OF NEEDS ANALYSIS

In this section, explanation of why needs analysis might be an appropriate solution to

the difficulties I encountered in course designing will be specified. How to exploit and

implement needs analysis will then be illustrated as well.

As mentioned, teaching primary students English as a foreign language, one of the

major difficulties I encountered is how to manage the various discrepant proficiency

levels of students within one class and meanwhile, remaining teaching within the

scope of the assigned textbooks. In addition to issues related to language proficiency

and learning objectives, how to maintain motivation of young learners’ in the learning

process is also my concern when planning teaching. Searching for solutions to these

wonders, I realize the answer to the neutral balance among national curriculum,

1
In this writing sample, needs analysis is considered to be exploited at two levels of teaching
designing: syllabus design and lesson planning. In the macro level, syllabus design refers to ‘the
selected and organized content (areas of knowledge and particular skills and abilities) appropriate to the
particular aims of a course’ (Cater & Nunan 2001) whereas lesson planning refers to the specific task
designing to implement the syllabus in the micro level. ‘Course designing’ will be used to include the
both levels in teaching designing.

1
proficiency level and motivation of learners may very likely lie in the learners

themselves. Therefore, I resort to needs analysis as a way to elicit the individual

opinions about English learning from my students in order to make adjustment to the

teaching as well as learning pattern we currently have. As Stern (1992) suggests,

needs analysis of language enables the language course to meet ‘the needs of groups

of students working in various countries at different levels of proficiency and with a

variety of objectives in mind’ (p.43), and this is the reason I would like to introduce

needs analysis to my students and also what I expect to bring in to the course design.

To outline suitable procedures of implementing needs analysis in my teaching

context, here, I make reference to Tarone and Yule (1989), Linse (1993,cited in

Richards 2001), Richards (2001) ,Nunan and Lamb (2001) as well as my own

teaching experience to specify how needs analysis might work to provide information

to the course design process.

As can be seen in Chart 1(please refer to Appendix A), the starting point of needs

analysis is to decide the purpose of the analysis (e.g. to compile the profile of

language groups in class; to find out the students’ language use in daily life; to

discover students’ interests in topics). Then the consequential important step is to

identify the potential needs from students. In this essay, I adopt Brindley’s (1984,

cited in Nunan 1988) viewpoint of ‘subjective needs’ and ‘objective needs’ to

categorize learners’ needs, which defines ‘subjective needs’ as ‘wants, desires,

expectations or other psychological manifestation’ of learners while ‘objective needs’

as ‘those can be diagnosed by teachers on the basis of the analysis of personal data

about the learners along with information about their language proficiency and

patterns of language use’ (p.44). After these two sources of needs are identified, the

2
instruments used to elicit learners’ opinions of their needs can be chosen. The

following pilot study of the instrument is crucial, because of the age factor of my

students (most of them aged from eight to ten), this step could be very influential to

whether students can comprehend as well as express their opinions in the elicitation

process successfully. Once the data is collected, the teacher needs to interpret the data

based on considerations of elicited information, the national curriculum, and the

teaching objectives on the core textbooks…etc. Then the more neutral teaching

objectives, which reflect the needs of learners and the needs of language knowledge

or skills that are crucial for their learning, can be reached. What goes on next is the

adjustments made to teaching materials (especially when designing the whole-term

syllabus) and the arrangement and analysis of specific tasks. By using the general

analysis model from Tarone and Yule (1989), teachers can be oriented in designing the

specific knowledge, skills or function of target language features; meanwhile they can

examine whether the task reflects the needs from learners as well. If it does, then the

teachers can move on to the instruction phase. The last step in the analysis is the

assessment phase, which would not only give feedback to both learners and teachers

but may also become the new starting point of another needs analysis potentially.

3. RATIONALE OF NEEDS ANALYSIS: FROM DIFFERENT

PERSPECTIVE OF LEARNING TO DIFFERENT APPROACHES AND

FOCI

In this section, the main concepts that bolster needs analysis will be unfolded with

reference to literature and my own teaching context.

As mentioned in the previous section, to identify the needs from learners is the

3
keystone in needs analysis. The two categories of needs –‘subjective needs’ and

‘objective needs’ arise from the two orientations of needs analysis, which is the

‘product-oriented’ and the ‘process-oriented’ implementation of needs analysis

(Brindley, 1989). In ‘product-oriented’ analysis, to discover the discrepancy between

the current and anticipated proficiency level of learners’ and to set the beginning and

ending points of achievement are the target aims of the analysis. Therefore, the

descriptions of learners’ needs are based on their future use of the target language.

However, in the ‘process-oriented’ analysis, learners are viewed as individuals in the

learning process. Hence, individual factors of learners such as motivation,

expectations and learning styles are concerned. With different orientations of needs

analysis, it results in the different approaches, which are the ‘language proficiency

orientation’, the ‘psychological /humanistic orientation’ and the ‘specific orientation’

(Brindley, 1989)2. Table 1(please refer to Appendix B) outlines some salient

characteristics in terms of the view of learners, needs, emphasis and educational

rationale of these three approaches. In Table 1, it can be seen that the function of these

three approaches is mainly to categorize or to group learners based on different

perspectives of needs. Nunan and Lamb(2001) also indicate that needs analysis can be

used to enhance teaching planning: ‘the grouping function (of needs analysis)

facilitates the specification of content and learning procedures that are consonant with

some aspect of the learner data that has been gathered’ (p.39).

With consideration to what kind of approach to exploit in my context, the issue links

back to what sort of needs to be emphasized. In China, English teachers are required

2
Although Brindley uses the terms as ‘language proficiency orientation’, the ‘psychological
/humanistic orientation’ and the ‘specific orientation’, in his article (Brindley, 1989), the three
categories are summarized as the teachers’ approaches to needs analysis. In addition, for the title of a
comparison table of the approaches in the same article, Brindley names the title as ‘comparison of
approaches to need analysis’ (ibid.:67). Therefore, I would use these three categories as ‘approaches’
instead of ‘orientations’.

4
to use textbooks which are written according to the national curriculum guidelines.

Hence, with the preordained structure of curriculum and with the attention to learners’

expectations, an eclectic way, which is close to what Brindley (1989) deposits, of

conducting needs analysis in my own context would be using the objective needs as

the basis and then modify the syllabus with subjective needs. In this way, in the

course designing process, objective needs can be a start point to guide the teachers

and also as a way to ensure the development of proficiency level will be catered. Then

the individual factors related to learners can be draw into consideration as the criteria

to adjust the textbook materials and language use.

Another underlying issue for implementing needs analysis is whether needs analysis

can be suitable for general English classes. Despite needs analysis for language

originated mainly from ESP (English for Specific Purpose) courses; several

researchers (Tarone & Yule 1989; Seedhouse 1995; Richards 2001) do see the

importance of exploiting needs analysis in general language classes. Because by using

needs analysis, learners are involved in their learning actively. As Nunan (1988)

indicates, the involvement of learners is their rights in the learning process. Regarded

within my own context, primary students in China are neither learning English for

specific purposes (English is a compulsory subject) nor are required to pass language

tests like high school students do. But this does not mean they should be deprived of

the right to participate cooperatively with the teachers in deciding what to learn. As

Richards (1990) has pointed out ‘needs analysis is also fundamental to the planning of

general English courses’ (p.2). I believe that the purpose of needs analysis of enabling

the teacher to ‘translate these needs into linguistic and pedagogical terms in order to

teach an effective course’ (Mackey 1978) in ESP courses would function as well in

5
the general language class.

To sum up, by reviewing literature and reflecting on my own teaching, the rationale

underpins needs analysis is the consideration and respect of differences within

individuals as well as the teaching/learning processes. From this perspective, needs

analysis brings flexibility to the teaching/learning process and might very well

enhance the possibility of reaching a more neutral balance among learners, teachers,

curriculum, and language.

4. IMPLICATION ON PEDAGOGY

In this section, the implication of exploiting needs analysis in my teaching context

will be addressed in terms of the roles that learners and teachers play in the

implementing process.

4.1 Pre-application phase

As mentioned in the previous section, needs analysis could have the potential to

engage learners to participate learning more actively due to their involving in the

process of deciding what to learn. In addition to course design, needs analysis also

facilitates a channel for individual differences to be noticed and catered. However, in

my context, students are encouraged to be homogeneous rather than heterogeneous,

which is for the convenience of the long-used teacher-centered teaching. Up to the

present time, most of the language classrooms in China remain in a teacher-fronted,

textbook-dominant teaching. Regarding the roles that learners play in the needs

analysis process, Graves (2001) urges for a considerate preparation for learners before

implementing. Therefore, when introducing needs analysis to learners in my context,

there should be a certain period of time to provide learners strategies to be

autonomous in learning, which may enhance their awareness of the responsibility they

6
need to take in the needs analysis process. To achieve this, as Hedge (2000) suggests,

activities which can assist learners to ‘reflect on learning’ (e.g. self-evaluating or

peer-evaluating tasks such as providing feedback); equip them ‘with strategies’ to

take part in learning actively (e.g. training strategies needed in learning tasks, such as

cognitive or metacognitive strategies); encourage them ‘to monitor and check their

progress’ (e.g. self-assessment) need to be provided for facilitating learning

autonomy. With these autonomy-facilitating tasks, scaffoldings can be furnished in

order to reduce the potential sense of threat or insecurity resulted from the shift from

the more teacher-centered approach to the more learner-centered one and can provide

learners with the sufficient skills to participate and accomplish needs analysis.

4.2 Application phase

When applying needs analysis into the syllabus designing or lesson planning in the

classroom, teachers need to be alert constantly in the process, in particular when

making decisions about changing the current teaching/learning patterns. One reason is

because the potential problem lies in needs analysis is the remaining controversy of

the definition of ‘needs’ (Brindley 1989, Richards 2001). As Young (2000) has

mentioned the ‘there remains considerable ambiguity and potential conflict in the

identification and definition of these needs’ (p.73). This may lead to another issue of

how to interpret the information collected from learners. Richards (2001)

recommends using ‘triangulation approach’ to keep a more neutral perspective on the

interpretation of the data.

Another issue related to the implementation of needs analysis is the negotiation of

between the roles of teachers and students. Both Brindley (1989) and Finney (2002)

have specified the process of needs analysis as a process of negotiation between

7
teachers and students in order to reach the ‘teacher-learner negotiated learning

objectives’. As a teacher who is accustomed to the teacher-fronted teaching, I do see

the importance of teacher-training with regard to the more learner-centered approach.

Last but not least, considering the materials and actual tasks being taught after needs

analysis is done, I think the instruction process is as crucial as the forming process of

‘teacher-learner negotiated learning objectives’. When applying innovations into the

language classroom, what teachers need to bare in mind is that before catering needs

at higher levels of performance, those basic ones should be catered first (Waters and

Vilches 2001). If the basic skills can be performed by the learners (e.g. learners can

use language to express their own opinions), then it is more likely to encourage them

to move on to the higher level (e.g. they can express their needs).

5. CONCLUSION

In this essay, needs analysis is introduced as a way to tackle the difficulty I

encountered when managing course design for learners with different proficiency

levels. By the implementation of needs analysis, the curriculum structure and

teaching/learning patterns can have greater flexibility which allows both teachers’ and

learners’ voices to be included in the process. It is this flexibility needs analysis

brings to the language curriculum that propels me to adopt it in my teaching context.

With careful implementation, I do expect needs analysis to have the potential to

facilitate a more effective language course as Richards (1984) suggests.

[1] In this writing sample, needs analysis is considered to be exploited at two levels of teaching

designing: syllabus design and lesson planning. In the macro level, syllabus design refers to ‘the

8
selected and organized content (areas of knowledge and particular skills and abilities) appropriate to the

particular aims of a course’ (Cater & Nunan 2001) whereas lesson planning refers to the specific task

designing to implement the syllabus in the micro level. ‘Course designing’ will be used to include the

both levels in teaching designing. ! r% U6 V% u/ F& c

- i5 S' D! H) k+ J$ r; ]1 P% G9 }

[2] Although Brindley uses the terms as ‘language proficiency orientation’, the ‘psychological

/humanistic orientation’ and the ‘specific orientation’, in his article (Brindley, 1989), the three

categories are summarized as the teachers’ approaches to needs analysis. In addition, for the title of a

comparison table of the approaches in the same article, Brindley names the title as ‘comparison of

approaches to need analysis’ (ibid.:67). Therefore, I would use these three categories as ‘approaches’

instead of ‘orientations’.