Feature Article

Working to Meet Students’ Needs with
Optimal Topics

Alison Kitzman
Kindai University
Too often course content is determined solely by the text, teacher, or syllabus, disregarding
learner needs and learning styles, which can stifle internal motivation and any meaningfullearning that leads to communicative competence and life-long autonomous learning. This
paper first looks at potential reasons for, and the encouraging of, diversity in the classroom
and follows with a discussion of needs theory and classroom implications for addressing
such diversity. To illustrate, a simple ranking survey of 20 topics was used to analyze which
topics most interested 988 university students studying English in Japan. Results showedthat there were some topics students uniformly liked and others they uniformly did not
like, and there were minor correlations between gender, major, and school. The wide variety
of interests gathered from the additional write-in section of the survey further proves theenormity of trying to personalize learning for every student. Accordingly, methods ofchoosing optimal topics and manipulating less popular topics need to be developed in orderto make learning meaningful, to internally motivate students, to develop autonomy, and toencourage life-long learning.
“I never teach my pupils; I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn.”
Albert Einstein

Learners and teachers often have differing needs, interests, and expectations
regarding course content. However, teachers are not usually in a position tocontrol course content in ways that optimally motivate learners. With a lack ofneeds analyses, it is the textbook, teacher, or syllabus that predetermines content.
Ausebel (1963) argues that meaningful learning only takes place when an item
is related to something that the learner already comprehends and with which
the new item can be cognitively associated. Without a meaningful cognitive239

Kitzmanconnection, it is argued, students may be language learners but will never develop
the independent skills and strategies to be functioning language users. After six
years of structured English education, Japanese university students should have asolid foundation in the basics of English. As young adults, they are no longer at
the stage where they need to be told what to do yet may not be mature enoughto make responsible decisions. University educators must facilitate learning
while not stifling opportunities for self-regulation and growth by imposing theirown ideas. Furthermore, the interests of the teacher may not match those of
the students, and though Japan is considered a relatively homogenous culture,individual students have disparate needs and interests making it important to
involve learners and get them to reflect and voice their opinions on their learning.
Regardless of how fixed the course content may be, teachers should find ways they
can best negotiate and adjust instruction to be more student-centered, especiallyat the university level. A needs analysis can be indispensable in balancing thedivergent needs and wants of learners and educators in a fairly objective, albeit
self-reported, way.
Maslow, psychologist and “Father of Needs Theory,” studied humanpotential and argued that motivation was not mechanical. Instead, he felt people
strive to do their best and want to become capable, provided nothing inhibits
this. He proposed a basic hierarchy of human needs in which there were fivetiers (Maslow, 1954). Levels are independent and correlate to stages of life. A
higher level of need cannot be satisfied until the lower levels are, in the life-longprocess of psychological development. Later, in the field of language teaching,
Brindley (1984) posited two types of need in needs analysis. Objective needs
are determined by gathering a learner’s personal data about their proficiency
and usage in relation to a targeted communicative situation, information usefulfor creating course content even in the learner’s absence. Subjective needs, on
the other hand, are not easily determined by outsiders, as they encompass thelearner’s unique wants and expectations. Nunan (1999) characterized content
needs, or the selection and sequencing of topics, functions, grammar, and the likeat the syllabus level, as different from process needs, the selection and sequencingof learning tasks and experiences at the classroom level. Nunan also differentiated240Working to Meet Students’ Needs, OnCUE Journal, 9(3), pages 239-260

between somewhat static initial needs analyses, those beyond the control of theteacher and conducted before a course begins by curriculum designers, andongoing needs analyses, which can be conducted informally by teachers during thecourse of a program to make it more dynamic and potentially satisfying.
It was specifically the interrelationship between needs and satisfiers that
economist Manfred Max-Neef, and his colleagues Elizalde and Hopenhayn,
explored (1991). They argued it is not enough to know what need is, but it mustalso be understood whether and how those needs have been effectively satisfied.
They identified five types of satisfiers: destroyers, pseudo-satisfiers, inhibiting
satisfiers, single category satisfiers, and synergetic satisfiers. More of something that
dissatisfies than satisfies, destroyers fail to satisfy any need. For language students,
these can include negative affective barriers, a lack of feedback, a lack of purpose
or understanding of the purpose, or it may just be students simply do not likethe teacher or the topic. Pseudo-satisfiers give a false sense of satisfaction. Thissense may be brought on by too much group work or too many games not linked
to needs. Students may have finished the dialogue in the text, for example, butthey are aware they still cannot hold a free conversation. An inhibiting-satisfier
may satisfy one need, but inhibits the satisfaction of others, which can be foundin over-grading or peer pressure. Feeling forced to give one’s opinions or haveconfrontational discussions, a common cultural expectation of native language
teachers, may inhibit a student who is otherwise capable of conversing. Single
category-satisfiers satisfy a single need exclusively. Teacher-centered classes androte memorization activities are common examples of this in Japan. A student
may have learned to speak about something, but it may not be applicable to thestudent’s daily life. True satisfiers must simultaneously satisfy multiple needs;
ergo, they are termed synergistic. This includes personalized learning that is ofinterest and possibly self-selected, that is understood to be useful in the future,and that has language autonomously created by the learner. Satisfying multiple
needs like this can stimulate feelings of success, further interest, and motivation.
Understanding egocentrism and the stages of psychological development isalso pertinent to understanding the needs and satisfiers of Japanese university
students. In 1923, Freud (1990) described maturity as when a person becomes
241

Kitzmancapable of loving and working with others. This is achieved after experiencing
increasing levels of both self-awareness and self-control. Modern social
behavorialists continue to refine this, including Goleman (1995) who argued
that five domains of personal and social competence, which he termed emotional
intelligence, were vital to personal and professional success, possibly more thanstandard intelligence. Kitzman (2008) analyzed how the cognitive and emotional
development of young Japanese adults affects their needs. Applying Maslow’s
Hierarchy (Figure 1) to the cognitive parameters of Japanese university students,
it is shown that the basic Physiological and Safety needs are met. However,such young adults generally have not had the numerous independent and selfgoverned experiences that Goleman argues are necessary to gain the autonomous
self-regulation and self-awareness that lead to self-actualization. Their needs arestill at the Self-esteem and Belonging levels, thus highly concentrated on theegocentric development of self.

Figure 1. Maslow’s Hierarchy related to Japanese university students.

242

Working to Meet Students’ Needs, OnCUE Journal, 9(3), pages 239-260

Modern needs theory has evolved, but issues still exist. It now recognizes thatneeds are not strictly hierarchical; they are culturally and socially dependent.
However, methods of objectively and reliably measuring the development,
traits, barriers, and intelligence bound to the premises elude researchers. There
are no predictive values for those traits (Landy, 2005). Further, any statistics
may measure conformity, not ability (Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001).
Even if traits such as emotional intelligence were measurable, applying themeffectively in the classroom is questionable. What is important is that teachers
be aware of how they may impose their own preferences—learning style, cultural
expectations, or other personal values—in ways that fail to satisfy and result in
the demotivation of their students.
To mitigate this in a fixed-course context, teachers can spur motivationby playing to the egocentrism of the students. While covering mandatory
academic materials, teachers can maximize student interest, thus involvement, by
maximizing personalization. Tailoring topics may be the simplest way to achievethis. While research is ongoing to better determine optimal language learning
methods and rationales, this paper intends to determine the following:
1. Are there topics that specifically interest Japanese university students?
2. Is there any correlation of topic to gender, major, school, or year in school?

Methods

Prior to making it a research study, this simple ranking instrument (Figure 2) was
distributed to my second-year Oral English classes for several years to ascertain
the interests of students. The survey was based on the then required textbook,
Let’s Talk About It (LTAI, Drayton & Gibbon, 1997), and it asked students torank its 20 topics from one, most interesting, to 20, least interesting. Additionally,
students were requested to write in three other topics of interests that were not on
the list. Though instructions were given in both English and Japanese, 58% did
not contribute original topics, and 29 subjects either did not rank all 20 topics
or did not complete the ranking properly. Ensuring subjects used all numbers
without skipping or doubling of subjects was quickly identified as a weakness
in the instrument. Other issues included subjects not revealing their gender,
243

KitzmanFigure 2. Let’s Talk About It topic survey.

colluding with a partner for opinions, and not knowing the word “superstition”
until given the Japanese translation. With these flaws discovered and to get as
broad an opinion base as possible, a convenience sampling for research purposes
totaling 988 students was conducted with the cooperation of four teachers atseven Kansai-area universities in eight departments (Table 1).
Of the 90% who designated gender, female students accounted for 60% (532)
and males 40% (357). Of the 969 who reported their year in school, first-years
accounted for just over half (514) and the remaining were mostly second-years(400). Oral English is not generally required of third- or fourth-year students
in Japan, so returns for these students were weak at six percent combined. Dueto lack of availability, the eight majors and seven schools had uneven returns.
English and English Literature majors (269, 27%) were combined into one
major, as were 23 non-English foreign language majors (135, 14%) and fourtypes of Liberal Arts majors (27, 3%). Kindai University had the majority of
replies (Kindai, 591, 60%), followed by Osaka University (Osaka, 145, 15%),
Kobe College (Kobe Jo, 83, 8%), Doshisha Women’s University (Doshi Jo, 68,244

Working to Meet Students’ Needs, OnCUE Journal, 9(3), pages 239-260
Table 1
Let’s Talk About It Survey Demographics
Gendern = 889Major
n = 981

Schooln = 981Year in schooln = 969

male

357
(40%)

English269(27%)

Kindai591(60%)

1st year

514
(53%)

female532(60%)

Economics

162
(17%)

Shinwa35(4%)

2nd year

400
(41%)

unspecified

99
(10%)

Science30(3%)

Kobe Jo83(8%)

3rd year

39
(4%)

Law

35
(4%)

Osaka

145
(15%)

4th year

16(2%)

Business

283
(29%)

Shoin

49
(5%)

unknown

19(2%)

Education

40(4%)

Kyoto Jo

10
(1%)

Languages

135
(14%)

Doshi Jo

68
(7%)

Liberal
Arts

27
(3%)

N = 9887%), Kobe Shoin (Shoin, 49, 5%), Kobe Shinwa Women’s University (Shinwa,
35, 4%), and Kyoto Women’s University (Kyoto Jo, 10, 1%).
Rank was calculated by a simple count. Each topic was given the numericalequivalent of its rank which was then totaled, with the lower the value, thehigher the rank (Table 2). Average rank, median score, maximum and minimum
rank, standard deviation, and correlations between topics and demographics
were calculated. Due to the large and varying number of write-in topics, they
were not ranked. Instead they were categorized into one of 50 general themes
to which a number was assigned so they could be correlated to the demographic
information. For example, “blood type,” “horoscopes,” “tarot,” “magic,” and245

Kitzman
Table 2
Example of Rank Calculation
Subject 1
ranking

Subject 2
ranking

Subject 3
ranking

Total countconverted to rank

Food

1

3

5

9 to 1st

Japan

13

Shopping

4

+

9

+

11

14
15

=

36 to 3rd
30 to 2nd

“seeing my dreams” were grouped thematically under the number 42. Individual
write-in interests were also loosely examined for uniqueness or trends.

Popularity Ranking of LTAI Topics Results

It was immediately apparent that students had rather strong and somewhat
uniform opinions regarding the LTAI topics (Appendix). The top three LTAI
topics of interest “music” (213), “food” (127), and “shopping” (126) were chosen
as number one by almost half the subjects and were so tightly grouped that each
had held first place at various points of data input. Their median scores out of
20 were three, four, and four respectively. Their closest contender, fourth-ranked“travel,” garnered a median six. Standard deviations averaged 4.96. Second-ranked“food” had the tightest standard distribution at 4.05 showing subjects consistently
ranked it high. Proving its popularity, “food” had only a single subject rank it at
20. Every topic had at least one subject rank it in first place and one in 20th place.
“Sports,” with a median eight and the widest standard deviation of 5.55 showing
subjects ranked it both high and low to a greater variance, and “family,” also witha median eight but somewhat tighter standard distribution of 5.29, rounded out
the top six LTAI interests. Fewer than ten subjects ranked popular “travel” (4th)and “shopping” at 20th.
At the unpopular end of the spectrum, “education,” “transportation,”“nationalities,” “work,” and “superstitions,” were as close in their low ranking as
the high-end choices were with their high ranking. “Superstitions” garnered lastplace with a median 16, while the other four had a median 15, and all received
less than eleven first-place rankings. “United States” (14th), received only three246

Working to Meet Students’ Needs, OnCUE Journal, 9(3), pages 239-260

number one rankings though it manages a median 13. “Superstitions” was likely
lowest due in part to students not knowing the meaning of the word. Seeming
to be of little particular interest to any student, the remaining topics, fromhighest to lowest, “entertainment,” “Japan,” “animals,” “health,” “famous people,”“Europe,” and “home,” grouped around median ten.
Minor correlations between genders were indeed noticed, though ten
percent of subjects did not reveal their gender. The strongest correlation was-0.25, indicating 11.4% of the 536 females chose “shopping” as number one,while only 2.1% of the 357 males did so. Females also preferred “food” (-.20),“family” (-.20), and “travel” (-.14) more than males. Males on the other hand,favored “work” (0.26), “sports” (0.25), and “transportation” (0.19). Both top(“music,” 10.1%) and bottom (“superstition,” 0.6%) choices garnered a similar
number of votes regardless of gender.
Preferences by major were also considered. Due to convenience sampling,
most of the 981 subjects were either English Language or Literature (269, 27%)
or Business majors (283, 29%). Science and Engineering (30), Law (35), and
Education (40) accounted for less than five percent each, an n-size too small
to be useful. The highest correlation to major (-0.22) was with 18th placed“nationalities,” which was attributable to Foreign Languages majors. Both“shopping” and “family” showed minor trends of 0.10 and 0.09, respectively, but
this might stem instead from there being five all-girl schools.
School showed a slightly stronger possibility of trends, but the category isbeset by the same imbalance of subject numbers. Kindai had 60% of all subjects(591), but only 1% (10) were from Kyoto Jo. Both Kindai and Kobe Jo subjects
chose “music” as number one at almost 25%, and there was a minor correlation of
0.33 to indicate school mattered. However, every school ranked “music” highly,
so deciding which schools are more inclined to like music was not necessary.
Kindai is well known for its sports, so it was easy to understand why 15% chose“sports” first. It is not so clear why Shinwa students preferred “food” (31%) or all
universities except Shinwa (3%) preferred “travel” around 10%.
Year in school was the final demographic point considered; however, only
freshmen and sophomores were well enough represented, so statistics are moot.
247

KitzmanFuture analysis could try to ascertain whether or not older subjects have a greateraffinity, first, toward less self-centered topics, and second, with a broader outlook
to create a wider range of unique and original topics of their own. The latter issuggested by the few 4th-year student rankings, which are quite dissimilar fromother years’.

Write-in Topics Results

While certain trends were observed among the 20 pre-chosen topics, the diversityof write-in topics is quite noticeable. Only 58% (572) of all subjects wrote inadditional topics of interest not already on the list. Twenty subjects rewrote listed
topics. Males accounted for 33% and females for 67% of the 1,528 total write-inanswers. The majority contributed the three outside topics as directed, with theaverage being 2.4.
Education majors had the highest overall write-in response rate at 92.5%.
Law had the lowest at 10.4% and contributed the fewest additional interests(four). English and English Literature majors were most verbose with 131(61%) adding four write-in interests. Science, Liberal Arts, and Business only
contributed around half of the time.
Freshmen responded at 67.1%, with 76.4% contributing four original topics
to total 368. Sophomores had a lower response rate (49%) with fewer total
additions (196).
School offered the most compelling differences. While factors were similar,
there were two noticeable outliers. First, more than half (52.4%) of Kindai writein respondents contributed four original topics. Second, Doshi Jo had a 100%
response rate. Kyoto Jo and Shinwa each had low total numbers of subjects (10and 35, respectively) reported due to a lack of time and or teacher supervision of
the survey.
What was interesting about the difference in schools was not the rate of
response but what was written in (Table 3). Every university had some common
popular topics such as movies, fashion, or free time. One teacher’s name was
especially popular at all schools polled. Kindai alone had some unique topics
showing a possible lack of self-motivation and self-regulation skills indicative
248

Working to Meet Students’ Needs, OnCUE Journal, 9(3), pages 239-260
Table 3Sample Write-in Topics
Common Write-in Topics

Kindai Topics

Osaka Topics

movies, TV, video games

money (monkeys?)immigration, discrimination

fashion, beauty, clothing

sleeping

politics, religion

friends, lovers

drinking

sexuality

nature, the environment

pinking?

nuclear ~art, science, businessfigure speaking?

child laborcars, driver’s licenses

AIDS in Thailand[teacher’s name]of immaturity, with many saying “sleeping”. Others undecipherable topics like“figure speaking” (possibly “figure skating”), and “monkeys” (from a class that
had several “money” answers, which could be put down to misspelling). Osaka,on the other hand, included a wide range of social, political, and environmental
issues, such as child labor, showing both personal and social competence.
Some topics were unique to one or two individuals, such as the television show
Kidzania or the singer Aiko (Table 4). Most topics, however, were twists on thethemes already in the text (Table 5). For example, though there was a chapter on
sports, specific sports, such as “baseball” or “soft tennis,” were LTAI added. All
in all, most additional topics covered the spectrum of gender, major, and year inschool.
Table 4
Unique Write-in Topics
Common write-in topics

Kindai Topics

Osaka Topics

Tarot

noh

galaxies

grasses?

race horses

Disneyjumping

airplanes

cosmetics

Hanshin Tigers

new flavor drinks

249

Kitzman
Table 5
Self-personalized Write-in Topics
Chapter Topics

Personalized Chapter Topics

Educationschool life, study abroadWork

part-time jobs

Animalspets, turtles, catsFoodbeer, sweets

USA, Europe

sightseeing, China

Discussion

With 20 topics, getting repeatable, valid, and reliable statistics focusing on one
topic based on any demographic is not likely. However, even though gender,
major, year, and school were not equality represented here, trends existed toindicate some strong interests and disinterests alike, and the large n-size gave abroad enough view of a typical first- or second-year Japanese university student
to indicate both research topics were true to some extent. The lack of definitionof other topics and the variance of the trends based on demographics suggest
it would behoove teachers to create interest surveys of their own classroom
materials.
Compelling results were found in the write-in interests which revealed the
population to be at the stage where they are only beginning to become selfactualized. The majority of original interests were inward looking, so “animal,”became “my pet” (an extension of ‘me’). Even otherwise low ranking topics
were personalized; “education” became “school life”, and “work” became “parttime job.” Other topics, such as “party” and popular “friends,” spoke to a senseof belonging and the development of the social competencies of empathy,
persuasion, and effective communication common at this stage. Except for a few
Osaka Prefectural University students, there were few outside interests that did
not relate directly to the students’ immediate sense of self. Unmentioned topics
included the following:learning English, other college classes, career goals,
250

Working to Meet Students’ Needs, OnCUE Journal, 9(3), pages 239-260

learning needs/issues, personal responsibilities, and needed job skills.
Current events and global issues that refer to the needs of others were rare
write-in interests. Other than “part-time job” and “driver’s license,” there waslittle mention of personal responsibility. Save for “job-hunting,” “family,” or if asport is contextualized to be training in it, indications of the future or long-term
interests were also rare. Not a single student wrote an interest in learning English
for English’s sake, other classes, or other learning issues, though the survey
was distributed in English language class. Possibly a result of the researcher’scultural expectations, having taught in other countries, it read as a general lackof awareness or responsibility in the students’ learning. A reminder that teachers
need to check themselves and their expectations of what university students‘should’ be. A larger polling of older third- and fourth-year students might reflect
greater concern for the future, personal goals, and needs as students mature andthe end of university and job-hunting loom.

Teaching Implications

That students may simply not be interested in such removed, overly introspective,
or boring topics begs the question of what topics are deemed appropriate foruniversity English classes. Instead, we should ask how teachers can mitigate
effects on motivation while providing content students can actually use. The text
may have a nifty chapter on directions, but most people nowadays have GPS andmapping applications on their smartphones, so the lesson may not be deemedworthwhile. A teacher may like obscure blues songs, but unlike their younger
counterparts who are used to being taught at or older counterparts who may havebetter external social-management and coping skills, young adults might literally
tune out such unrelatable material. Taboo topics, such as religion, gender issues,
lovers, or discrimination, may be tempting to talk about in higher level, deeper
discussion or current event classes, but need to be considered for cultural andage appropriateness. In a position of power, teachers may inadvertently impose
their values and culture. Silva and Wiz (2013), however, argue there are no taboo
topics, just inappropriate ways of approaching them (as illustrated in their Two
Teachers Talking podcast Episode 42: Missionary?! Me?, “I’m here to teach you251

Kitzman

how to express your opinions – not give you mine.”). Ultimately, it is the teacher
who regulates topics, but if students are not engaged, they will not achieve thatsynergistic satisfaction level which allows them to create the internal motivationnecessary to strive autonomously. Teachers should periodically toss oldfashioned or low interest topics and adjust others to make them more relatable
and applicable to the students’ future.
The methods, expressions, cultural differences, and critical thinking
skills useful for communicating in English can be taught without the teacher
prescribing every topic. Furthermore, students become involved in their own
learning and gain an understanding and appreciation of where their language
fits into the bigger picture. Guiding them through the process of choosing
appropriate topics gives them the metacognitive skills necessary to clearly andefficiently comprehend, state, and satisfy their needs. It allows then to become
independent thinkers more able to solve problems, set realistic personal goals,
and give them power and control over their own learning. One may consider
choice of topic to be too simple to matter, but it is precisely that simplicity thatmakes it an easy solution for increasing motivation.
Topics can be made flexible even within a rigid structure. Program
coordinators and material writers first need to create topics that can bepersonalized, but there are many possible in-class adaptations (Table 6). If atext’s content is not reliant on the order of the chapters, a first-day survey canilluminate which chapters are of interest, then they can be done in order of
popularity. If possible, skip exercises, pages, or chapters not pivotal to assessment.
Allow students to choose their own graded readers, presentation topics, or roles
Table 6
Method of Personalizing Topics
Too Narrow Topic

Personalized Topic

Helpful Subtopics

The USAinteresting places

my dream trip, places I’ve been, places I’d
not goWork

my part-time job

describing my work, my coworkers, teamleaders252

Working to Meet Students’ Needs, OnCUE Journal, 9(3), pages 239-260

to play within a provided framework. Input may be fixed, but personalize output.
Occasionally, set aside time to do an activity outside the text.
While students’ individual subjective needs are important to address for
motivation, a needs analysis can be adjusted to assess more than interest. One
student lament is being pressured to “do their best” when they are already at theirmaximum cognitive level. Gardner (1983) posited that there are nine types ofintelligences of which verbal-linguistic is only one (Table 7). Similarly, learners
have been shown to have a dominant learning style that may not be well suited
to the predetermined method of instruction (Table 8). With such diversity
among students, the task of personalizing learning is daunting yet essential to
the learning process. Cultural barriers and expectations, fears and other personalaffective barriers, or differing communication styles between languages might
retard a teacher’s understanding of any issues. Long (1997) argued that if noneeds analyses exist from which individual learning styles and preferences canbe diagnosed, then the resulting content covers either too many unnecessary
or not enough of the specific skills, language, or topics needed, which leads toinefficient class time and students becoming demotivated. In this way, needs
analyses do more than create learner-centered courses and ease the selectionof course content; they can also fine-tune methodology and raise teacher andprogram evaluations by meeting students’ needs more fully.
Finally, in my almost 20-year teaching tenure in Japan, there seems to
be a lack of will to give up the power that contributes to learner autonomy.
Proficiency testing, as opposed to diagnostic testing, has contributed to a onesize-fits-all, teacher-centered, teach-to-the test education system in Japan.
Coordinated programs, generally teach to assumed norms using uniform
materials and or methods regardless of learning styles, proficiencies, orneeds. Material and syllabus writers become caught in this conundrum. Busy,
inexperienced, or lazy teachers may fall into a habit of completing every exercise
in the text without variation, allowing them to successfully finish the material,
but potentially causing mechanical repetition by bored students who haveno meaningful connection to or understanding of how the materials relate tothem. It is important that writers, administrators, and teachers, at all levels of253

Kitzman
Table 7
Gardner’s Traits of Multiple Intelligences
Type

Introspective

Gardener Intelligence Type
Visual-Spatial

good with pictures, diagrams, and study charts
learn by seeing the information visually andvisualizing it again later in their mind

Intrapersonal

good with self-reflection
learn best by using their own intuition.

Existential

good at understanding philosophicalrelationships
learn best through self-reflection

Bodily-Kinesthetic

good at physical activities
learn by hands-on experiences and by moving
their body

Verbal-Linguistic

good with words
learn by traditional methods of reading andwriting as well as listening and speaking

Interpersonal

good at social experiences
learn by interacting and discussing information
with others

Logical-Mathematicalgood with numbers and abstract reasoning
learn by problem-solving (IQ tests mostmeasure this)Naturalgood with the natural worldlearn when they can learn outdoors in the "realworld"Musical-Rhythmic

good with rhythms and tones
learn through singing or other auditory formats

Interpersonal

Analytical

Traitsthe education system, regularly reassess their expectations and role, too. Teachersof children may take on a mother-knows-best role, but at university students
are best served by a facilitator who develops self-esteem, personal growth, and asense of belonging.
University students are still developing psychologically and are for themost part egocentric, immature, unaware of their needs, and focused more on
254

Working to Meet Students’ Needs, OnCUE Journal, 9(3), pages 239-260
Table 8
Common Learning Preferences
Learning Style Preferences

Manner of Learning

Visualseeing words, note-taking, alone with a book

Auditory

hearing words, reading aloud, teaching others, discussion

Kinesthetic

experiencing a task, being physical, role-play, combined input

Tactiledoing a task with materials, hands-on, experiments, writing notes

Modality

medium of learning (e.g., e-book versus paper book)Groupinteracting with others, group discussion

Individual

working alone, using own materials and notes

immediate wants than on long-term goals. They can be easily dissatisfied andgive up on learning. Their motivation is not mechanical. Acknowledging young
adults in their learning and encouraging their personal ideas lead to a greater
chance for life-long autonomous learning. In summary, teach to balance bothneeds and wants by using broad personalized topics, choose materials andmethods that allow for flexibility, get student involvement in course design, andthink young. Optimally chosen topics can be fulfilling to the diverse populationof learners in tertiary education.

References

Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York:
Grune & Stratton.
Brindley, G. P. (1984). Needs analysis and objective setting in the adult migranteducation program. Sydney: Adult Migrant Education Service.
Drayton, C., & Gibbon, M. (1997). Let’s talk about it. Hong Kong: Pearson
Longman.
Freud, S. (1990). The ego and the id. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence - Why it can matter more than IQ.
New York: Bantam Books.
255

Kitzman

Kitzman, A. (2008). The influence of need: Analyzing the needs of Japanese
university students. Gogaku Kyoikubu Kiyo, 8(2), 127-151.
Landy, F. (2005). Some historical and scientific issues related to research on
emotional intelligence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 411-424.
Long, M. H. (1997). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. Retrieved
from http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/foreignlang/conf/option1.htm
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Max-Neef, M., Elizalde, A., & Hopenhayn, M. (1991). Development andhuman needs. In M. Max-Neef (Ed.). Human-scale development - conception,
application and further reflection (pp. 13-54). London: Apex Press.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Heinle& Heinle Publishers.
Roberts, R., Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2001). Does emotional intelligence
meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data andconclusions. Emotion by the American Psychological Association, Inc., 1(3),196-231.
Silva, T., & Wiz, C. (2013, December 21). Missionary?! Me? [Episode 42]. Twoteachers talking. Podcast retrieved from http://www.twoteacherstalking.
com

Author bio

Alison Kitzman received her MA TESOL from the University of Illinois UrbanaChampaign and created a private conversational EFL program in Russia before
coming to Japan. Since 1997 she has worked at Kindai University teaching Business
English, creating curricula, and writing materials. Her research interests include
learning inhibitions, needs theory, and pronunciation. abkitz@bus.kindai.ac.jp
Received: April 3, 2016
Accepted: April 26, 2016

256

Working to Meet Students’ Needs, OnCUE Journal, 9(3), pages 239-260

Appendix

Topics1-10

1. Food

2. Japan

3. Shopping

4. Music

5. Transport

6. Work

7. Family

8. Travel

9. Europe

10. Famous People

Complete Results Chart Topics 1-10

n 988

979

975

973

975

967

969

973

978

969

970

Count

5178

8913

5644

4710

13656 13767

8403

6402

10506 10375

Average

5.28

9.09

5.75

4.86

13.92

14.03

8.57

6.53

10.71

10.58

Rank

2

8

3

1

17

19

6

4

12

11

Median

4

9

4

3

15

15

8

6

11

10

Place
ranking(number of times each topic was at this rank)

1

127

40

126

213

8

10

87

86

19

14

2

155

37

143

147

14

19

49

92

36

28

3

136

46

106

148

9

13

52

116

44

32

4

121

54

125

94

11

15

63

86

42

32

5

79

71

93

66

10

20

74

89

44

48

6

79

62

52

66

30

20

64

98

36

48

7

60

67

53

42

32

32

63

79

43

65

8

46

77

42

41

34

34

54

64

58

65

9

25

75

51

27

26

31

66

52

68

82

10

30

72

37

21

35

41

52

42

62

81

257

Topics
1-10

1. Food

2. Japan

3. Shopping

4. Music

5. Transport

6. Work

7. Family

8. Travel

9. Europe

10. Famous People

Kitzman

11

32

77

25

20

35

33

60

28

59

64

12

17

65

22

8

49

56

51

28

64

67

13

16

50

18

14

62

50

51

30

63

52

14

17

45

9

11

90

51

22

24

65

51

15

9

37

21

7

89

57

37

16

55

52

16

8

22

15

11

66

74

36

12

57

47

17

5

27

9

13

78

85

25

11

52

48

18

7

20

8

6

97

70

26

15

43

33

19

9

15

10

4

103

88

18

5

39

30

20

1

16

8

15

89

170

23

5

20

31

Max

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

Min

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

STD

4.05

4.74

4.52

4.41

4.95

5.35

5.29

4.40

5.19

4.94

Gender

-0.20

0.01

-0.25

-0.03

0.19

0.26

-0.20

-0.14

-0.09

-0.05

School

-0.05

0.04

-0.12

0.33

-0.14

0.26

-0.02

-0.04

0.18

0.03

Dept

0.11

-0.07

-0.08

0.16

0.01

-0.14

-0.07

-0.05

-0.05

-0.07

Year

0.08

0.05

0.26

-0.05

-0.08

-0.17

-0.07

-0.18

-0.23

-0.06

258

Working to Meet Students’ Needs, OnCUE Journal, 9(3), pages 239-260

Topics
11-20

11. Sports

12. House

13. Health

14. Entertainment

15. Animals

16. Weather

17. The USA

18. Superstitions

19. Education

20. Nationalities

Complete Results Chart Topics 11-20

n 988

977

968

969

974

968

969

966

965

968

968

Count

8113

11346 10152

8894

9846

13446 11969 14036 13651 13665

Average

8.27

11.57

10.35

9.07

10.04

13.71

12.20

14.31

13.92

13.93

Rank

5

13

10

7

9

15

14

20

16

18

Median

8

12

10

8

10

4

9

4

3

15

Place
ranking(number of times each topic was at this rank)

1

109

8

28

45

28

4

3

11

8

9

2

72

19

24

69

31

4

12

8

11

20

3

55

27

36

43

51

5

13

18

16

11

4

60

34

33

68

43

16

32

9

18

16

5

74

31

44

62

58

14

39

20

31

19

6

58

48

69

67

61

22

35

23

23

20

7

58

54

57

57

51

35

44

27

33

24

8

68

55

74

78

64

31

36

22

21

20

9

57

60

66

47

82

43

42

21

21

32

10

46

64

64

60

61

42

52

37

41

54

11

43

50

54

56

58

55

73

47

47

47

12

40

68

59

51

51

75

62

40

51

40

259

Topics
11-20

11. Sports

12. House

13. Health

14. Entertainment

15. Animals

16. Weather

17. The USA

18. Superstitions

19. Education

20. Nationalities

Kitzman

13

34

56

70

58

57

62

77

40

59

46

14

31

78

55

45

41

79

85

56

41

69

15

34

64

57

22

42

68

97

73

63

75

16

29

41

52

31

45

91

65

83

94

77

17

30

72

39

26

36

85

59

90

88

80

18

24

56

42

37

53

87

57

83

90

102

19

31

52

31

34

23

71

46

131

103

106

20

24

31

15

18

32

80

37

126

108

101

Max

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

Min

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

STD

5.55

5.07

5.01

5.28

5.26

4.62

4.82

5.19

5.39

5.14

Gender

0.25

0.09

0.00

0.08

-0.06

0.10

-0.03

0.05

0.06

0.08

School

0.06

-0.01

0.21

-0.08

-0.03

0.13

-0.01

0.15

0.07

0.31

Dept

-0.03

-0.19

-0.10

-0.04

-0.04

0.22

0.05

0.15

0.13

0.24

Year

-0.06

-0.05

-0.03

-0.10

0.01

-0.09

0.01

0.15

0.00

0.18

260