Feature Article
Needs Analyses in the Japanese EFLClassroom: A Study of Teacher Content
Control
Alison Kitzman
Kinki University

Needs analyses seek to determine objective needs, subjective wants,
obstacles to learning, and other information that is crucial to learnercentered approaches. In Japan, however, they are underutilized. The author
THPU[HPUZ [OL ILULÄ[Z VM \[PSPaPUN ULLKZ HUHS`ZLZ ^V\SK PUJS\KL NYLH[LY
interaction between institutions, teachers, and learners; increased program
reliability; more effectual teaching; and greater success in learning. The
author discusses the what, why, and how behind needs analyses thenintroduces a survey of 85 university EFL teachers in Japan regarding theirself-reported use of needs analyses and perception of whether they canalter course content at the classroom level. The data indicate that only 9%of teachers consistently used a formal pre-course needs assessment toolfor “every” class while only another 25% used them for “most” classes.
However, many made informal mid-course observations feeling relatively
free to adjust course content. Teachers reported “knowing” the needs oftheir students, which might have accounted for mid-course adjustments
to course content without the empirical data of a formal needs analysis.

ࢽ࣮ࢬࡢศᯒࡣᏛ⏕㐩ࡀᮏᙜࡣఱࢆᏛࡪ࡭ࡁ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊఱࡀᏛࡧࡓ࠸
ࡢ࠿ࠊࡲࡓᏛ⏕ࢆᏛࡧ࠿ࡽ㐲ࡊࡅࡿせᅉ࡜ࡣఱ࠿ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠕᏛ⩦⪅୰ᚰࠖࡢᩍ⫱࡟ᚲせ࡞᝟ሗ࡜ࡣఱ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜
ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ᪥ᮏ࡛ࡣࡇࡢసᴗࡀ༑ศ࡟⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸3

Kitzman࡞࠸ࠋⴭ⪅ࡣࡉࡽ࡞ࡿࢽ࣮ࢬࡢศᯒ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ⤌⧊࡜ᩍᖌࠊᏛ⩦⪅㛫ࡢࡼࡾࡼ࠸ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡸࠊᏛ⩦ィ⏬ࡢಙ㢗ᛶࠊࡼࡾຠᯝ
ⓗ࡞ᩍᤵἲࠊࡲࡓᏛ⩦ୖ࡛ࡢ኱ࡁ࡞㐍Ṍࢆᚓࡽࢀࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ࠊⴭ⪅ࡣࢽ࣮ࢬࡢศᯒࡢ㔜せᛶ࡟ゝཬࡍࡿୖ࡛ࠊ᪥ᮏࡢ
ⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟ᦠࢃࡿᩍᖌ㸶㸳ே࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡓㄪᰝࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢㄪᰝࡣᙼࡽᩍᖌࡀ࡝ࢀ࡯࡝ࢽ࣮ࢬࡢศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠊࡲࡓᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ฿㐩ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ㅮ⩏ࡢෆᐜࢆኚ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ
ྍ⬟ࡔ࡜ᛮ࠺࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆᑜࡡࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࠊࠕ඲
࡚ࠖࡢᤵᴗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᤵᴗ๓࡟ṇᘧ࡞ࢽ࣮ࢬศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡢࡣ㸣ࡢࡳࠊࠕ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࠖࡢᤵᴗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࢽ࣮ࢬศᯒ⾜ࡗࡓࡢࡣ㸣ࡢࡳ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊከࡃࡢᩍᖌࡣㅮ⩏ࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃ୰࡛ࠊᚲせ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚㠀බᘧ࡟ᤵᴗィ⏬ࡢᨵኚࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡟᢬ᢠࢆឤࡌ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡶㄪᰝ࡟ཧຍࡋࡓᩍᖌ㐩ࡣࠊ⮬ศࡓࡕࡣ⏕ᚐࡢࢽ࣮ࢬࢆࠕᢕᥱࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢࡔ࡜ሗ࿌ࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣᩍᖌ
ࡀṇᘧ࡞ࢹ࣮ࢱ࡞ࡋ࡟Ꮫ⩦ィ⏬ࡸෆᐜࢆಟṇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿド࡛࠶ࡿࠋCurriculum design process, according to Richards (1984), has
Ä]LIHZPJZ[LWZ:[HY[PUN^P[OHULLKZHUHS`ZPZMYVT^OPJONVHSZHYL
set, a syllabus is designed, teaching is conducted, and learning isevaluated. Stenhouse (1975) argued that teachers are the principle
agents in this process and that effective curricula and effective teachingare interrelated. Vella (1994), however, complained of a separationof teachers from the materials-development stages of this process.
In Japan this separation is aggravated, as Hadley (1999) suggested,by an overreliance on part-time teachers at the university level that
Venema (2008) argued leaves little opportunity for dialogue between
the administrators who set the curricula and teachers who know thelearners better.
While university English classes in Japan have a fairly homogenousWYVÄSL YLNHYKPUN HNL HUK WYL]PV\Z ,UNSPZOLK\JH[PVUHS L_WLYPLUJL
each learner brings with him or her a unique mix of learning styles,
PUOPIP[PVUZ H[[P[\KLZ WYVÄJPLUJPLZ HUK KLÄJPLUJPLZ ,_JLW[ MVYa small number of students admitted through a recommendation
process, it can be assumed that most others have had the government-

4

Needs Analyses OnCUE Journal, 5(1), 3-23

mandated six years of English education and have mastered a
JLY[HPU SL]LS VM WYVÄJPLUJ` PU VYKLY [V OH]L WHZZLK [OLPY \UP]LYZP[`
entrance examination. Placement testing may further group students
PU[V YLSH[P]LS` ZPTPSHY WYVÄJPLUJ` SL]LSZ :\JO H ZLLTPUNS` \UPMVYT
student body may lull curriculum designers into a false understandingof learner needs. Indeed, Brindley (1984) reported a widespread
TPZTH[JOVM[LHJOLYZ[\KLU[SLHYUPUNL_WLJ[H[PVUZZWLJPÄJHSS`]PL^Z
on what language is, how it is best learned, and what learners needversus what they may prefer. Utilizing needs analyses would relieve
this disparity. Richards (1985) and Nunan (1985) recommend needs
analysis as an essential element of curriculum design, yet Burden(2005) stated that in Japanese universities “learners are rarely asked
in any overt systematic way about their learning experiences” (p. 3).
5LLKZ HUHS`ZLZ JHU ZLY]L H U\TILY VM M\UJ[PVUZ HUK PUÅ\LUJLall design components at all stages of curriculum development.
;OL LTWPYPJHS KH[H NH[OLYLK LUHISLZ NVHSZ [V IL PKLU[PÄLK YH[OLY[OHU HZZ\TLK 0U [\YU JV\YZL JVU[LU[ ZLSLJ[PVU JHU IL ZPTWSPÄLKteaching methodology can be improved, and data on which to baseevaluations can be provided. Institutions can become more accurate
in their perceptions about the population they serve and thereby moreaccountable. Teachers can become more attuned to students’ needs
and therefore become potentially more effective in the classroom.
Finally, students can become active participants in their own learning,
thereby WVZZPIS`PUJYLHZPUNTV[P]H[PVU>P[OHSSP[ZWV[LU[PHSILULÄ[Z
English program curriculum designers in Japanese universities may
want to reconsider their use of needs analyses and employ them to agreater degree.

5

Kitzman'HÀQLWLRQRI1HHGV$QDO\VLV
Needs analysis (NA), also termed needs assessment, is the processof determining and prioritizing the needs for an individual or a setof learners. NAs come in a variety of forms including interviews,
questionnaires, can-do checklists, or journalistic entries. Practically,
TVYL [PTL HUK LMMVY[ HYL YLX\PYLK [V ILJVTL WYVÄJPLU[ PU H MVYLPNU
language than can be afforded in any individual college class. This isexacerbated in Japan by the limited number of class hours allowed forEnglish study (Hato, 2005). NAs aim to answer the question, formed
I`=LSSH   HZ ¸^OV ULLKZ ^OH[ KLÄULK I` ^OVT¹ W;OL
resulting data can then be used by teachers and coordinators to design
a syllabus or curriculum and to establish criteria to test the effectivenessof a course later in the curriculum development process.
4HZSV^ HWPVULLYVMULLKZ[OLVY`PUP[PHSS`WYVWVZLKHÄ]L[PLYLKULLKZOPLYHYJO`[VZOV^[OH[[OLM\SÄSSTLU[VMO\THUWV[LU[PHS
is not mechanical, but instead that it is based on interdependent
motivators such as safety, belonging, and esteem. Modern needs theoryWYLZLU[ZHUV[OLYHZWLJ[[V[OLLX\H[PVU[OH[VMZH[PZÄLYZHUKSVVRZ[VOV^ULLKZHYLZH[PZÄLK[OLKLNYLLVMZH[PZMHJ[PVUWLYJLP]LKPUYLSH[PVU
[V[OLM\SÄSSTLU[HUK[OLYLWLYJ\ZZPVUZVMULLKZUV[NL[[PUNTL[4H_
5LLM "+V\NSHZ.HZWLY5L` ;OVTWZVU ;OLZH[PZÄLYZare the ways of doing, being, having, or interacting that actualize thesatisfaction of the need(s). In this framework, motivation is created by
the potential for satisfying an individual’s needs. Oxford and Shearin(1994) contend learning is directly connected to motivation, and only
by understanding the attitudes, goals, and beliefs of students can
educators understand what motivates learners. The competency-based
linguistic assessments commonly used in Japan, written in-house or bya testing service like the ETS TOEIC© or Cambridge English KET or PET
tests, may be useful for student placement, but learners have additional
non-linguistic needs that necessitate scrutiny in order to optimize theirlearning.
6

Needs Analyses OnCUE Journal, 5(1), 3-23

Researchers have advanced several types of NAs which give insight
into how to approach or understand various student needs. Hutchinson
and Waters (1987) distinguished between target needs, which compriselearner’s necessities, wants, and KLÄJPLUJPLZ, and learning needs,^OPJOJVUZPZ[VMOV^SLHYULYZM\SÄSS[OVZLULLKZIn describing objective
and subjective NAs, Richterich (1972) claimed that objective needs
JHUILPKLU[PÄLKI`L_HTPUPUN[OL[HYNL[SHUN\HNLHUK[OLZP[\H[PVUHS
uses the learner may encounter, whereas subjective needs can be
PKLU[PÄLKW\YLS`I`[OLSLHYULYHUKTH`PUJS\KLWYPVYP[PLZZLLTPUNS`
unrelated to study such as social, cultural, or domestic obligations.
Sysoyev (2000) promoted a learner-centered instrument, known as thestudent analysis, intended to gather psychosocial information about
the learner such as preferred learning style or motivation. Teachers andinstitutions cannot effectively teach without addressing this surfeit ofneed from which the motivation to learn can be understood.
5LLKZHUHS`ZPZYLZLHYJOPZMV\UKTHPUS`PU[OLÄLSKZVM,UNSPZOMVY
Special Purposes (ESP) and English for Academic Purposes (EAP) withlittle consideration given to General English (GE). Hamp-Lyons (2001)
explains this limitation is because ESP and EAP are generally assumed
to begin with a learner’s particular situation, whereas GE begins withthe language as a whole. However, Hutchinson and Waters (1987)
question the difference between ESP and GE in regards to NA. They
take issue with the common argument that GE learner needs are too
broad to specify. They further argue that the distinction between ESP
and GE “is not the existence of a need but rather an awareness of theneed” (p. 53). Therefore, even in a GE class, a study of learners' beliefs
is vital to inform curriculum policy, heighten teaching effectiveness,motivate learning, and aid in program evaluation in order to improve
future courses.

7

Kitzman

The Purpose of Needs Analyses at Program, Teacher, andStudent Levels
Richards (1984) pointed out curriculum design methodology inlanguage teaching did not have a reputation for being systematic. One
VM[OLÄYZ[KVJ\TLU[LKH\[OVYZ[VMVJ\ZVU[OLSLHYULY^HZ:[LUOV\ZL
(1975), who created a process-oriented curriculum in the belief thata product-oriented curriculum is based on the assumption that all
SLHYULYZ OH]L [OL ZHTL NVHSZ(U` HWWYVHJO ^P[O Ä_LK VIQLJ[P]LZ PZ
arguably unsound, as some skills (often receptive skills like vocabularydevelopment or reading) may be easier or faster to operationalize, whileother more creative skills (usually productive skills like pronunciation
or face-to-face communication) may not be. An additional concern
in the Japanese university EFL context is that syllabi, especially thosewritten by and for native English teachers, may be founded on curricula
frameworks or textbooks written by westerners for westerners. These
TPNO[ UV[ JVYYLZWVUK [V 1HWHUZWLJPÄJ J\S[\YHS VY ZVJPHS PUÅ\LUJLZ
3VUN   SHTLU[LK Z\JO VULZPaLÄ[ZHSS Z`SSHIP JHSSPUN [OLT“synthetic” (para. 1). He cites six problems,[OLÄYZ[VM^OPJOPZHSHJR
of NAs. Competency-based pre-course assessment may be useful inplacing students at an appropriate level, or on a course pathway, or intoa fundamental skills course; however, a learner-centered curriculum
can never be static. A method in the design that accounts for learner
ULLKZHUKZH[PZÄLYZ[OYV\NOV\[[OLSLHYUPUNWYVJLZZPZPU[LNYHS[VZ\JOa curriculum.
For peak effectiveness, NAs should be multipurpose as well as
utilized at every stage of teaching. Pre-course NAs serve not only toplace students and determine content but also to involve coordinators,
who may serve more of an administrative function than an academic
one, in a stage of the process usually reserved for the teachers who
have more direct contact with learners. If used in conjunction withother linguistic assessments, NAs can mold future achievement testing8

Needs Analyses OnCUE Journal, 5(1), 3-23

within a program as well as provide a check against curricular goals.
Recurrent mid-course observation and renegotiation of goals is also
necessary to adjust for student progress, shifting needs, continuing
inhibitors to learning, and the awareness that comes from a foreignlanguage learning experience. Though university courses are generally
short and thorough NAs may be time consuming, an end-of-course
JOLJRM\Y[OLYZLY]LZ[VYLÄULNVHSZJVU[LU[HUKTL[OVKVSVN`VU[OL
program level.
All levels of the educational system should be included. While
program coordinators commonly are responsible for choosing content
and structuring curricular goals, they may not be well-informed about
individual learner needs. The immediacy of content in the classroom,
which requires constant renegotiation between teachers and learners,
makes teachers pivotal in the wider role of curriculum development.
That teachers are well-positioned to dialogue with learners is, according[V 7YPJOHYK  VUL VM [OL THPU ILULÄ[Z VM [LHJOLY H\[VUVT`
Incorporating regular assessment of needs and empowering teachers
in the assessment process can be useful in diagnosing linguisticKLÄJPLUJPLZHUKPKLU[PM`PUNSLHYUPUNVIZ[HJSLZH[[OLZ[\KLU[SL]LS
It is not just institutions and teachers that can improve learning
through awareness of need, I\[ HSZV Z[\KLU[Z *YP[PJHS ZLSMYLÅLJ[PVU
is cited as useful throughout research regarding learning, need, andeducation (Kolb, 1984; Mezirow, 1990; Harrison, Head, Haugh &Sanderson, 2005). Head felt that Japanese students have abdicatedevaluation of their learning to external sources (as cited in Harrison etHS:OLHYN\LK[OH[ZLSML]HS\H[PVUPZILULÄJPHSPUL_WHUKPUN
learning outside the classroom (p. 43). By recording and referring
back to NAs’ results, both teachers and students can monitor progress.
Nunan (1988) contended learners appreciate the learning experience
if they are taught to set their own goals. Blanche (1998) argued learnerautonomy stems from an accurate self-appraisal that is not based on
external opinions, and which can further make teachers aware of9

Kitzmanlearners needs.
However, one concern with this type of survey instrument is thatlearners may not be able to accurately identify their own needs. Hoge
and McCarthy (1983) found large discrepancies between self-reported
need and real need that had been tested separately, while Cameron(1988) maintained NAs could mistake interest for need. Once trained(Nunan, 1988), learners can use the process of NA to clarify andmonitor their own goals for life-long learning.
Teaching is most effective when learner needs are regularly
TVUP[VYLK HUK JV\YZL JVU[LU[ YLÅLJ[PUN ULLKZ PZ YLKLÄULK;OV\NO
teachers are rarely part of the formal decision-making process in Japan
with regard to curriculum design, they are the direct extension of thecurriculum by their application of it in the classroom. They are close
to students and in a strong position to develop, maintain, and utilize
NAs. But do teachers in Japan have an understanding of their students’needs, and if so, do they feel as if they can control content?

Research Questions
Do teachers in Japanese university EFL classes use a needs analysis
at the beginning of a course?
Do these teachers make mid-course adjustments based on aperceived changing of students’ needs?
If these teachers are not using a needs analysis tool, are they basing
any adjustment in course on a perception of “knowing” their students
or on keeping up with current research?
Do these teachers feel they have a chance to affect course content
in the classroom, presuming a need were to arise?
Method and Participants
A voluntary six-question survey about how class content isdetermined was sent to 115 English as a Foreign Language (EFL)10

Needs Analyses OnCUE Journal, 5(1), 3-23

teachers in the Kansai region of Japan. Responses were received
from 85 (73.9%) people teaching at more than 20 universities. All
but two had master’s degrees or higher, and among the respondents
there was an average of 20.4 years of teaching experience. The survey
was administered in English only, as all respondents were expected
to be WYVÄJPLU[ PU ,UNSPZO based on the number of years teaching,higher education degrees and extensive training. Of the respondents,
68 (80%) were male and 17 (20%) were female. Part-time teachers
accounted for 53 (62%) of the total 85 respondents. Of the remaining
32 full-time teachers, 17 (20%) had duties as program coordinatorsand curriculum developers, whereas 15 (18%) did not. A total of
88% of the respondents were native-English speakers with nearly halfbeing American (Table 1). The number of female respondents waslow, though fairly representative of the low numbers of female native
English teachers at the university level. Only nine Japanese responded
to the survey after two attempts to administer it.
Table 1
Participant by Nationality
Nationality
AmericanAustralian
BritishCanadianJapanese
New Zealander
Scottish
Irish
Swedish

(N=85)
38
12
10
9
9
3
2
1
1

%
45
14
12
11
11
4
2
1
1

Results and Discussion
After demographic information was ascertained, four questions^LYL HZRLK JVUJLYUPUN Z[\KLU[ ULLKZ;OL ÄYZ[ HZRLK! ¸6U H]LYHNL
for all types of classes, how often do you directly ask your students
11Kitzmanwhat they want to learn or give a formal NA at the beginning of yourcourses?” Only 9% of respondents administered a NA in “every” class(Table 2). The majority (53%) answered that they do an analysis in“most” or at least “many” of their classes (25% and 28%, respectively),
however; the portion with answers from “rarely” to “never” totaled asubstantial 38%.
Table 2Beginning of Course Needs Analysis (NA) Administered
NA Administered at Beginning of Course?
1 Every class, regardless2 Most, but not always
3 Many, maybe about half my classes
4 Rarely, though ask occasionally
5 Only once or twice before
6 Never ask(N=85)
8
21
24
25
4
3
SD
Mean

%
9
25
28
29
5
4
1.20
3.1

( ZLJVUK ULLKZYLSH[LK X\LZ[PVU HZRLK [LHJOLYZ! ¸/V^ VM[LU KV
you make mid-course adjustments based on changing students’ wants/needs?” Presuming that most formal NAs are given at the beginning ofa course, this question was worded to allow for casual TVKPÄJH[PVUZ
to original content at any time throughout the term, as exact numbersof changes ^V\SKILKPMÄJ\S[[VX\HU[PM`^P[OV\[HSVUNP[\KPUHSZ[\K`
Twenty-two percent, more than twice the number of those who gave a
NA at the beginning of “every” class, reported that they always mademid-course adjustments (Table 3). The percentage of “once or twice”
and “never” respondents was recorded at a low 4% each. By using a
Pearson pYVK\J[TVTLU[JVLMÄJPLU[(WWLUKP_HZ[YVUNJVYYLSH[PVU
of .56 was found between pre- and mid-course assessment, whichshowed that the same teachers who made initial inquiries about theirstudents’ needs were also more prone to adjust for any shifts in thoseneeds throughout the course.

12Needs Analyses OnCUE Journal, 5(1), 3-23

Table 3Mid-course Content Adjustments
Mid-course Adjustments Made?
1 Every class, regardless
2 Usually, but not always
3 Often, maybe about half the time
4 Occasionally adjust
5 Once or twice before
6 Never adjust mid-course(N=85)
19
24
19
17
3
3
SD
Mean

%
22
28
22
20
4
4
1.32
2.6

0[ PZ WVZZPISL [OH[ ZVTL [LHJOLYZ MLS[ [OL` OHK Z\MÄJPLU[ LTWH[O`
or experience to understand what students required as well or better[OHU[OLZ[\KLU[Z[OLTZLS]LZ"ZV[OLX\LZ[PVU^HZWVZLK!¸+V`V\MLLS
that you ‘know’ your students’ needs?” A modest 7% of respondents
believed they knew their students’ needs “absolutely” (Table 4). Witha standard deviation of .53, most respondents, 69% reported they
“mostly” knew their students.
Table 4Presumed Understanding of Student Needs
Degree of “Knowing” Needs
1 Absolutely
2 Mostly
3 Somewhat
4 Not really
5 Not at all(N=85)
6
59
20
0
0
SD
Mean

%
7
69
24
0
0
0.53
2.2

This survey did not address whether teachers based their course
designs on a perceived understanding of their students’ needs. However,no negative correlation was found between knowing one’s students
and giving a formal pre-course NA that might indicate teachers having
a tendency to do so. The data showed almost no correlation (.10) for
those who “know” their students to make mid-course adjustments. A
13

Kitzmanstrong correlation might indicate that the more teachers feel they know
[OLPYZ[\KLU[Z[OLTVYLÅL_PISL[OL`TPNO[IL[V^HYKZH[PZM`PUN[OLPY
needs in a student-centered approach.
Whether or not teachers can presume to know what students need
may be based in part on their own knowledge and experience in theirprofession. While not requisite to being a good teacher, an awarenessof new trends, approaches, or methodologies may help a teacher tounderstand and develop ways of addressing the needs of his or her
students better. Though all those surveyed had advanced degrees and/
VYL_[LUZP]L[LHJOPUNIHJRNYV\UKZP[^HZHZRLK!¸+V`V\RLLW\WVU
current educational research by reading journals, going to conferences,or doing your own research?” Almost half of the respondents statedthey “regularly” do research (Table 5). One-fourth reported doing
research “constantly” and another quarter “rarely”, while few reported“once or twice,” or “never.” Some full-time teachers commented that
their institution required them to do research for promotion or earning
concerns; however, no correlation was found to indicate they stayed
TVYLJ\YYLU[PU[OLPYÄLSKZ[OHUWHY[[PTL[LHJOLYZ;OLHUZ^LYJOVPJLZ[V[OPZP[LT^LYL]HN\L"Z[H[PUNTVYLZWLJPÄJ[PTLZVYWLYPVKZ^V\SK
KV\I[M\SS`OH]LPUÅ\LUJLK[OL]LY`^LHRJVYYLSH[PVUZMV\UK6US`H
slight tendency was seen in the data indicating that teachers who did
research also made mid-course adjustments.
Table 5
Educational Research Frequency
Frequency of Research
1 Constantly
2 Regularly
3 Rarely
4 Only once or twice before
5 Never(N=85)
20
41
21
1
2
SD
Mean

14

%
24
48
25
1
2
0.86
2.1

Needs Analyses OnCUE Journal, 5(1), 3-23

Regardless of whether or not student needs are assessed, it may
make no difference in a course if teachers feel they cannot personally\ZL [OL HZZLZZTLU[ YLZ\S[Z [V PUÅ\LUJL JV\YZL JVU[LU[ ZV [OL PZZ\Lof perceived control was surveyed. Respondents were asked thefollowing!
“Indicate the percentage of classes you teach that fall into eachcategory, totaling 100%.
a. The school decides ALL texts, materials, syllabus, methods, etc.
b. The school decides the text, but I can supplement.
c. I choose my text from an approved list, but I can supplement.
d. I choose my text freely, and I can supplement.
e. I decide everything, often writing my own materials.”
Summed data in each category for all 85 respondents are shownin Table 6. A hypothetical respondent might report that out of all theirclasses taught, forty percent fall into category “a” (meaning zero control
for some classes), while sixty percent might fall into category “b”(indicating a slight control in other classes). Answering in more than
one category would indicate that the respondent works in different
programs or different schools, or both. Not every respondent reported
for every category. A more complex and longitudinal instrument would
have been necessary to establish exact percentages or course content,
but that was beyond the scope of this attitudinal survey.
An average of 2.4% of all classes was perceived as being solely
under the school’s control (category “a”). At the opposite end of thespectrum of control, category “e” respondents reported more than ten
times that level of curriculum control (25.4% of courses) to be that
only of the teacher. The remaining three categories “b”, “c”, and “d”YLÅLJ[LK]HYPV\ZSL]LSZVMJVU[YVSIL[^LLU[LHJOLYHUKZJOVVS"LHJO
category of answers comprised more respondents and most of the timea higher average percentage of perceived control by teachers thancategories “a” and “e”. Overall, categories c-e showed fairly equalvalues for percent control (25.4%-30.3%), suggesting that teachers
15

Kitzmanperceived they generally have some ability to adjust course content
mid-course in most of their classes, thus ZVTLÅL_PIPSP[`PU[OLTHQVYP[`of classes [VTLL[Z[\KLU[ULLKZZOV\SK[OL`ZLLÄ[[VKVZVTable 6
Degree of Control Perceived by Category
AnswerCategoryabcdPerceived Control by Teacher
Zero chance to deviate fromcurriculum
Limited chance to deviate fromcurriculum
Freedom to choose materials from aprescribed list
Freedom to choose any materials
related to prescribed curriculum

Total control of course content andmethods*
N=85 respondents for each category.
e

Average Percent* of
Courses Controlled
2.4%
14.9%
27.1%
30.3%
25.4%

The low percentage of complete control by schools is explainedby the number of responses in category “a” and the low percentages
that were reported. From category “a” responses, where teachers felt
the school had total control over curriculum, fewer teachers (23)responded than in any other category (45-54), and the vast majorityof respondents in category “a” reported values <50% (range=5-80%),
whereas the data was spread more evenly for the other four categories(range=1-100% for category “b”, and range=5-100% for the othercategories; data not shown).
One might expect that full-time teachers or Japanese teachers havemore power to control course content (Miyazato, 2009). However,
only two full-time respondents (both native speakers) claimed total
control in all their classes, and all other responses in category “e” were
well below 80%, so the data did not support the supposition that fulltime teachers have more control. Neither did it support the impression
16

Needs Analyses OnCUE Journal, 5(1), 3-23

that Japanese teachers have more control than native English teachers,
although only 9 out of the 85 respondents were Japanese, so the data
OHZ[VVZTHSSHWVW\SH[PVU[VILZ[H[PZ[PJHSS`ZPNUPÄJHU[.
To assess individual teachers’ overall feeling of curriculum control,a special ranking formula was created. Categories “a” through “e”
were assigned a numerical value (C) of 1 to 5, respectively. That value
was then multiplied by the percentages (P) each respondent reported
for category of curriculum control. The product (C x P) for eachYLZWVUKLU[ ^HZ Z\TTLK PU HSS Ä]L JH[LNVYPLZ HUK [OLU KP]PKLK I`
100 to obtain what will be called an Individual Control Factor (IF) for
each respondent!
[(C1 x P1) + (C2 x P2) + (C3 x P3) + (C4 x P4) + (C5 x P5)] /100 = IFIn effect, the IF represents a Likert-scale-like value of curriculum
control that each respondent felt overall for all courses in all of theirteaching situations. An IF of 1 indicates that the teacher felt the school
had all the control, whereas a higher value such as 5 means the teacher
felt in complete control.
Using this IF determination, native teachers, on average, perceived
their level of control at a median IF of 3.2, while Japanese teachers
perceived a lesser degree of control (2.5), keeping in mind the limited
number of Japanese respondents. Average IF values for full-timeteachers (3.17, n=15), program coordinators (3.45, n=15), and parttime teachers (3.05, n=65) were nearly identical, as were the medianvalues (3.0, 3.4, and 3.1, respectively). A statistical analysis was not
WLYMVYTLK[VKL[LYTPULHU`ZPNUPÄJHU[KPMMLYLUJLZI\[P[PZ\USPRLS`that any would be found.
Obviously, there is a problem when trying to quantify any individual’s
perceptions, as the reader will see in the following examples. The
lowest average IF (1.5) was reported by a part-time teacher who wasteaching in a highly coordinated program; however, the full-time
native English coordinator of the same program also perceived his own
level of control at a low 2.1. Even the Japanese full-time coordinator
17

Kitzmanof that program perceived her level of control only slightly higher at
2.4. The next lowest value, 1.6, came from a full-time Japanese teacher
in a different program, but another full-time Japanese colleague withsimilar classes and level of responsibility yielded an IF of 3.5.
Besides general personality factors, emotional response to thesurvey, or a lack of care when answering a complex question such this,many factors can account for a wide range of positive and negative
responses. Teacher motivation, burnout, stress in the workplace,disparity between perceived competence and actual position, and forany non-Japanese, the trials of being in a foreign country all take theirtoll (Falout, 2010).
A last question was asked only of the full-time teachers and program
coordinators, perceived to have a greater degree of determining how
individual student needs might be assessed at the program level. The
question was, “How often is diagnostic placement utilized to determine
program content?” Three respondents answered “constantly” (Table7), and four responded “regularly”. The remaining 24 (67%) reported
having “rarely,” “once or twice,” or “never” having done diagnostic[LZ[PUN0U[OLÄUHSVWLULUKLKJVTTLU[IV_ZVTLVM[OLZLM\SS[PTL
teachers remarked that classes were too large and there was not enoughclass time to accommodate individual feedback or content.
Table 7Frequency of Diagnostic-style Testing for Placement
Frequency of Diagnostic Placement Testing
1 Constantly
2 Regularly
3 Rarely
4 Only once or twice before
5 Never(n=31)
3
4
4
10
10
SD
Mean

%
10
13
13
32
32
1.33
4

*SLHYS`MVYH[LZ[[VILKPHNUVZ[PJPUKP]PK\HSKLÄJPLUJPLZT\Z[IL18

Needs Analyses OnCUE Journal, 5(1), 3-23

PKLU[PÄLKHUKYLWVY[LK^P[O[OLPU[LU[VMPUÅ\LUJPUNJV\YZLJVU[LU[Some respondents noted that they use a placement exam for streaming
SLHYULYZ PU[V JSHZZLZ I\[ NH]L UV PUKPJH[PVU VM OV^ [OL ZWLJPÄJcontents of the instrument might be used to individualize courses. It
was assumed that these teachers would distinguish between placementand diagnostic testing; however, there seemed to be some confusion as
to what “diagnostic” meant. Placement exams cannot be considereddiagnostic if they do not affect curriculum or if results of the exam are
not released to teachers.

Conclusion
NAs are a primary component of a learner-centered approach at
L]LY` Z[HNL VM J\YYPJ\S\T KL]LSVWTLU[ 0U 1HWHU ^OLYL WYVÄJPLUJ`
criteria often guide course design, teachers regularly administer precourse NAs less than a third of the time, and institutions tend not tomandate formal NAs that would allow for the discovery of the more
subjective needs, hopes, and interests of learners. Optimally, NAs
should continue throughout and beyond a course to maximize a studentcentered approach. Formal NAs involving program administrators,
teachers, and students may be helpful especially if administered on awide scale, but time constraints HUKPUÅL_PISLJ\YYPJ\SHYYLX\PYLTLU[Z
make less formal means of adjusting course content acceptable for manyteachers throughout a course. It is the teacher, directly negotiating withthe learner, who is in the best position to both adjust course content
and guide students to take control of their own learning.
Indeed, it was found that the university teachers from this study
reported they have a fair possibility of adjusting course content.
However, data indicated that perception might be based on their own
perceived knowledge of students more than empirically ascertained
information. In a best-case scenario, a formal transparent NAwith results disseminated to both teachers and students should be
19

Kitzman

incorporated in pre-course assessment at the program level, and if not,teachers and program designers must be open to course material that
WYV]PKLZ JVUZPZ[LU[ J\YYPJ\SHY JVU[LU[ HUK `L[ PZ ÅL_PISL LUV\NO [V
HSSV^MVYPUKP]PK\HSZ[\KLU[WYVÄJPLUJPLZHUKKLÄJPLUJPLZ-VSSV^PUN
through with training students to question their own broader needs andstrategies to satisfactorily deal with them, completes the full curricular
design process designed around a learner-centered approach.

References)SHUJOL7 :LSMHZZLZZTLU[VMMVYLPNUSHUN\HNLZRPSSZ!
Implications for teachers and researchers. RELC Journal, 19(1), 7593.
Brindley, G. (1984). The role of needs analysis in adult ESL
programme design. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language
curriculum (pp. 63-79).*HTIYPKNL!*HTIYPKNL<UP]LYZP[`7YLZZ)\YKLU7;OLJHZ[VYVPSLMMLJ[!3LHYULYILSPLMZHIV\[[OL
enjoyment and usefulness of classroom activities and the effects
on student motivation. The Language Teacher, 29(10), 3-9.
*HTLYVU* 0KLU[PM`PUNSLHYUPUNULLKZ!:P_TL[OVKZHK\S[educators can use. Lifelong Learning, 11, 25-28.
Douglas, M., Gasper, D., Ney, S., & Thompson, M. (1998). Humanneeds and wants. In S. Rayner & E. Malone (Eds.), Human choiceand climate change =VS!The societal framework) pp. 195-263.
>HZOPUN[VU+*!)H[[LSSL7YLZZEkins, P. & M. Max-Neef (Eds.). (1992). Real-life economics:
Understanding wealth creation3VUKVUHUK5L^@VYR!
Routledge.
Falout, J. (2010). Strategies for teacher motivation. The Language
Teacher, 34(6), 27-31.
/HKSL`.
0UUV]H[P]LJ\YYPJ\SHPU[LY[PHY`,3;!(1HWHULZL20

Needs Analyses OnCUE Journal, 5(1), 3-23

case study. ELT Journal, 53, 92-99.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2001). English for academic purposes. In R. Carter &D. Nunan (Eds.), Teaching English to speakers of other languages
WW*HTIYPKNL!*HTIYPKNL<UP]LYZP[`7YLZZHarrison, M., Head, E., Haugh, D., & Sanderson, R. (2005). Selfevaluation as motivation for active participation. In P. McCasland& M. Robertson (Eds.), Learner development: Context, curricula,content. Proceedings of the Kobe Conference 2003 (pp. 37-59).
;VR`V!1(3;*<,:0.
Hato, Y. (2005). Problems in top-down goal setting in second
SHUN\HNLLK\JH[PVU!(JHZLZ[\K`VM[OL¸HJ[PVUWSHU[VJ\S[P]H[L‘Japanese with English abilities.’” JALT Journal, 27(1), 33-51.
Hoge, D. R., & McCarthy, J. D. (1983). Issues of validity andreliability in the use of real-ideal discrepancy scores to measureself-regard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44,1048-1055.
Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1987). ,UNSPZOMVY:WLJPÄJ7\YWVZLZ!(learning-centered approach*HTIYPKNL!*HTIYPKNL<UP]LYZP[`
Press.
Johnson, R. K. (Ed.). (1984). The Second Language Curriculum (pp.
63-79).*HTIYPKNL!*HTIYPKNL<UP]LYZP[`7YLZZKolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source oflearning and development5L^1LYZL`!7YLU[PJL/HSS
Long, M. H. (1997). Focus on form in task-based language teaching.
Fourth Annual McGraw-Hill Satellite Teleconference. Retrieved
from O[[W!^^^TOOLJVTZVJZJPLUJLMVYLPNUSHUNJVUMVW[PVU
htm
Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological
Review, 50(4), 370-396.
Max-Neef, M. (1992). Development and human needs. In P. Ekins &M. Max-Neef (Eds.), Real-life economics: Understanding wealthcreationWW 3VUKVUHUK5L^@VYR!9V\[SLKNL
21

Kitzman

Mezirow, J. (1990). -VZ[LYPUNJYP[PJHSYLÅLJ[PVUPUHK\S[OVVK. San-YHUJPZJV!1VZZL`)HZZ0UJ
4P`HaH[V2 7V^LYZOHYPUNIL[^LLU5:HUK55:[LHJOLYZ!
Linguistically powerful AETs vs. culturally powerful JTEs. JALT
Journal, 31(1), 35-62.
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centered curriculum*HTIYPKNL!
Cambridge University Press.
6_MVYK93 :OLHYPU1 3HUN\HNLSLHYUPUNTV[P]H[PVU!
Expanding the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal,
78, 12-28.
Prichard, C. (2006). Determining the balance between teacher
autonomy and curriculum coordination. The Language Teacher,30(6), 9-14.
Richards, J. C. (1984). Language curriculum development. RELC
Journal, 15(1), 1-29.
Richards, J. C. (1985). Language curriculum development. Universityof Hawaii Working Papers in English as a Second Language, 4(1).
Richterich, R. (1972). (TVKLSMVY[OLKLÄUP[PVUVMSHUN\HNLULLKZ
of adults learning a modern language. :[YHZIV\YN!*V\UJPSVM
Europe.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research anddevelopment. 3VUKVU!/LPULTHUU:`ZV`L]7+L]LSVWPUNHU,UNSPZOMVYZWLJPÄJW\YWVZLZJV\YZL\ZPUNHSLHYULYJLU[LYLKHWWYVHJO!(9\ZZPHUL_WLYPLUJLThe Internet TESL Journal, 49L[YPL]LKMYVTO[[W!P[LZSQVYN
Techniques/Sysoyev-ESP.html
Vella, J. (1994). Learning to listen, learning to teach: The power of
dialogue in educating adults:HU-YHUJPZJV!1VZZL`)HZZ0UJ
Venema, J. (2008). Negotiating objectives in a language program. The
Language Teacher, 32(8), 21-26.

22

Needs Analyses OnCUE Journal, 5(1), 3-23*                    *                    *Alison Kitzman received her MA TESOL at the University of Illinois
Urbana-Champaign, USA and created an EFL program in Russia before
coming to Japan in 1997. Since then she has worked at Kinki University
teaching business English, creating curricula, and writing studentJLU[LYLKTH[LYPHSZ/LYYLZLHYJOPU[LYLZ[ZHSZVPUJS\KL1HWHUZWLJPÄJ
learning inhibitions, extensive reading, and pronunciation. abkindai@
yahoo.co.jp

Appendix
Pearson Product-moment Correlation of Demographic, Survey andIndividual Control Factors
Survey Question (N=85)

A

B

C

D

1

1

Pre-course needs analysis

-.15

-.13

-.05

-.12

–

2

Midterm adjustments

-.22

-.14

-.02

-.19

.56

–

3

‘Knowledge’ of students

.07

.02

.03

.03

.15

.10

–

4

Current research

-.13

-.17

-.23

-.17

.18

.24

.25

–

5

Individual control factor

-.17

-.22

.01

.12

.02

-.09

.04

.15

–

6

Diagnostic placement (n=31)

-.37

.04

.01

-.10

.23

.20

.13

.09

.27

A! Gender

B! Nationality

C! Position

D! Years of Teaching

23

2

3

4

5

6

–