Poster Presentation

Turning Teachers onto ESP:

Searching for ESP in What We AlreadyDo
Colin Skeates
Keio University
A needs analysis is one of the three absolute principles that determine whether or
not a course can be labelled ESP (Dudley-Evans and St. John, 1998). It essentiallydetermines the what and how of a course (Hyland, 2006). The simple argument
being made here is that teachers are already engaged in activities associated withneeds analysis, so with a little reflection, perhaps new (possible) directions canbe pursued for how courses are designed. Indeed, Hyland (2008, as cited in
Basturkmen, 2010; 19) notes that a “[n]eeds analysis is like any other classroom
practice in that it involves decisions based on teachers’ interest, values, and beliefs
about teaching, learning and language.”This paper will re-examine the needs analyses conducted with threeintensive law ESP courses (total in-class hours = 72 hours), known as Law andCommunication 1-3, over a three-year period. This examination has two mainparts: in the first, a brief summary of ESP theory is discussed concluding withthe role of the needs analysis. In the second part, different needs analyses are
explained through the results of common classroom practices: the learningjournal, the pre-course questionnaire, the end-of-course evaluation. The author
concludes that many teachers already engage in activities that involve some formof needs analysis. It is therefore suggested that re-examining the data may be ahelpful way for those new to ESP to start developing their own ESP courses.

181

Skeates

The Theory of ESP

In historical reviews, most researchers agree that ESP began as a distinct
approach to language learning in the late 1960s to early 1970s. For example,
Brunton (2009) begins by referring to a course documented by Ewer and Latorre(1969), who wrote of a course based solely on register analysis. Others, such as
Hutchinson and Waters (1987) point to the pivotal role of such researchers as
Strevens (1977), and Swales (1971), who refined the theory of ESP further. Suchrefinement included greater consideration of learners’ needs, course methodology,
and holistic features of a content area. Dudely-Evans and St. John’s (1998), firmly
based on Strevens’ work, are perhaps the most cited source today for determining
what ESP means. Dudley-Evans and St. John’s absolute principles with the Law
and Communication courses in mind would therefore be:
1. ESP meets specific needs of the Law & Communication course learners;
2. ESP makes use of the methodology and materials activities of law;
3. ESP is centered on the language (e.g. lexicogrammar, register), skills,
discourse and genres appropriate to activities associated with law.

Needs Analysis

Needs analysis has become far more complex since the early days of ESP. For
example, in a simple comparison of the literature Basturkmen (2010) contrasted
the needs analysis of Chamber’s (1980) to Dudley-Evans and St. John’s (1998).
In Chamber’s version there is only one category, the situational needs analysis.
In Dudley-Evans and St. John’s version there are seven categories, each of whichcontains one or more forms of needs analysis. With new literature written about
specific contexts, new forms of needs analysis, or refinement of old ones, are being
generated often.
Given this increasingly complicated picture of what a needs analysis canbe, it is useful for teachers to understand what the purpose of one is. According
to Basturkmen (2010), the needs analysis is essentially a course design tool. It
ensures what students learn is what they need for work-based or study-based
activity in a foreign language.
To demonstrate the different forms of needs analysis conducted before,
182

Turning Teachers onto ESP, OnCUE Journal, 9(2), pages 181-188

during, and after the Law and Communication courses (hereafter referred toas L&C 1-3), a simple three-part pattern will be used. First, the form (e.g., precourse questionnaire, course evaluation) in which the data were derived will
be discussed. Secondly, the type of needs analysis will be introduced with an
explanation of what the specific analysis does. Thirdly, how this analysis helped
shaped the direction of the course will be stated.
Table 1 provides an overview of the different ways in which the data wereattained for the needs analysis conducted for L&C 1, 2, and 3, between 2012 and2014. Student needs were derived from a pre-course questionnaire (2012 and2014)/ + interview (2013 and 2014), a paper-based end-of-course evaluation,
and a learning journal.

Pre-course Questionnaire

The questionnaire (Figure 1) was divided into three parts: questions regarding
law content knowledge (target situation analysis), skill tasks (skills analysis), anda series of “Can-do” questions regarding speaking in English (present situation
analysis/lacks). The pre-course interview tended to cover similar areas as thequestionnaire, but with an additional focus on seeking to better understand
students’ initial speaking abilities (present situation analysis).
The results of the pre-course questionnaire and interview significantly
Table 1
The Different Forms from Which Data for Each Needs Analysis were Derived
2012 curriculum2013 curriculum2014 curriculum

L&C 1

Pre-course
questionnaire, Week
one course evaluation

Pre-course interview,
Week one course
evaluation

Pre-course
questionnaire andinterview, Week one
course evaluation

L&C 2

Week two course
evaluation

Week two course
evaluation

Week two course
evaluation

L&C 3

Week three course
evaluation, post-course
interview

Week three course
evaluation, post-course
interview

Week three course
evaluation

183

SkeatesFigure 1.Examples of each of the sections from the pre-course questionnaire.

altered the pre-conceived ideas the teacher had regarding methodology andcourse content. Most students were not able to complete all of the content
questions. However, almost all students were surprised to learn that they could
answer the questions in Japanese or in English with the aid of a dictionary. Thistarget situation analysis (Basturkmen, 2010) indicated that vocabulary learning
was necessarily going to be a significant part of the course. It also indicated a
possible need for dictionary training.
The results from the skills section clearly demonstrated the diversity of theclass. Some students were able to identify the main parts of the reading passage.
However the way this was put down on the page was cumbersome; it was theirorganization of notes, not their comprehension of passage that required further
instruction. Other students, especially one student in the 2012 class, however
excelled at note-taking/mapping. This indicated opportunities for peer to peer
teaching. Interpreting the results of this section led to a greater understanding ofwhat individual students could do, a form of learner factor analysis (Basturkmen,
184

Turning Teachers onto ESP, OnCUE Journal, 9(2), pages 181-188

2010). It also led to a need for skills training to be added because students would
need a variety of academic skills when they were to do presentations. The initial
realization that skills training would be required and the identification of theskills needed are the results of a skills analysis (Basturkmen, 2010).
The last section of the pre-course questionnaire/interview demonstrated not
only the limitations of students’ speaking abilities, from an emic perspective, butalso how few opportunities students have had to engage in reflection of theirspeaking. This realization of the different levels of reflection added information
about who each of the learners were and their abilities, which is part of a learner
factor analysis (Basturkmen, 2010).

End-of-course Evaluation

The second area concerns the end-of-course evaluation. For each main activity/
task students were asked to rate whether they found it useful/not useful, easy/difficult, and interesting/boring (Table 2). The ideal is for tasks to receive ahigh interest score, above average difficulty score, and high usefulness score. To
help students remember the activity/task, the day(s) of the week were included.
In addition, to supplement the quantitative data, students were asked to write
comments when they wanted to explain their answer in more detail. Thisevaluation of the course enabled the teacher to rank tasks and strategy training,providing an objective analysis (West, 1997) for future course planning, or what
Basturkmen (2010) refers to simply as ongoing needs analysis.
Table 2A Sample Taken from the 2013 L&C 1 Course Evaluation
Activity

Evaluation

Shadowing
M, T, W, Th

Useful * * * Not UsefulEasy * * * Difficult
Interesting * * * Boring

Reflection
T, W, Th

Useful * * * Not UsefulEasy * * * Difficult
Interesting * * * Boring

Note: Adapted from Murphey (2010)

185

Comment

SkeatesThrough this simple format of ranking, it was possible to determine not
only which tasks were best for each student, but also for the class as a whole.
The addition of comments provided greater understanding of how students felt.
This was particularly useful later when meeting with students individually. For
example, the speaking fluency task 4-3-2 (Maurice, 1983) has been ranked as themost useful task in all three years. Comments from students suggest that 4-3-2
was the task where they felt the greatest improvement. More law-related tasks
tended to be rated as being very difficult, indicating a need to simplify or movethem to later in the course.

Learning Journal

The last common classroom practice that will be looked at is the learning journal.
At the start of each year, students were asked to write what were their goals.
They were also asked to write a new entry each day, by including the date, what
they learnt, and how they felt. From time to time, they would be asked specificquestions such as how certain tasks were related to what they would be doing in
the future.
A seminal paper by Allwright (1984) articulated clearly the assertion thatlearners have their own learning agendas. One way to understanding what
learners want to learn and what they learn is to ask them to keep a learning diary/
journal (Bailey, 1991). Though there are several ways to do so, most involve therecording of what was learned and how such learning can be applied in othersituations.
With regard to needs analysis, this has obvious implications for thosewanting to understand learners’ needs better. Asking students to reflect onclassroom tasks clearly shows how they are learning the course content, which
is a form of learner factor analysis (Basturkmen, 2010). In addition, students
setting and assessing their own goals, meant the teacher better understood which
strategies needed to be taught. This is a form of strategies analysis (Basturkmen,
2010). Recent ESP research on learner identity by Belcher and Lukkarila (2011)
suggests greater attention needs to be paid on how learners see themselves.
Utilizing the learning journal is one way teachers can do this.
186

Turning Teachers onto ESP, OnCUE Journal, 9(2), pages 181-188

Final Thoughts

This discussion has been limited to better understanding the needs of students in
one particular context using three common classroom activities: the pre-course
questionnaire, the end of course evaluation and the learning journal. There were,
however, other forms of needs analysis that were necessary to derive the course
methodology and materials. For example, the law faculty explicitly stated that thecourse was to focus on speaking. This area of focused attention was used to help
determine which of the four skills would be given priority, a form of objective
analysis (West, 1997). A greater understanding of the constraints of the physicalteaching environment, (e.g., the lack of technology) was part of the means analysis(West, 1997) conducted when deciding what materials would be used. A thirdsource of needs analysis not discussed above was uncovering what students would
be doing in L&C 4-5. Forecasting the activities of these courses meant students
would require experience conducting presentations about important historicalfigures in law in L&C 4 (2012), and engaging in global issues debates in L&C 5.
This process was part of the target situation analysis (Basturkmen, 2010).
The purpose of reflecting here on the various sources of information was todemonstrate how these common aspects of the classroom can be used to better
understand the needs of learners. This insight can in turn inform methodology.
For example, it can inform how material is taught, and what language featuresand skills should be included. In short, such exploration into the needs of learners
can lead teachers to explore the other two absolute principles of an ESP program(Dudley-Evans and St. John, 1998) and why all three principles are useful.

References

Allwright, D. (1984). Why don’t learners learn what teachers teach?-The
interaction hypothesis. In D. M. Singleton and D. G. Little (Eds.),
Language learning in formal and informal contexts. Dublin, Ireland:
IRAAL.
Bailey, K. C. (1991). Diary studies of classroom language learning: The
doubting game and the believing game. In E. Sadtono (Ed.), Language
acquisition and the second/foreign language classroom (Anthology Series 28).
187

Skeates

Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED367166.pdf
Basturkmen, H. (2010). Developing courses for specific purposes. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Belcher, D., & Lukkarila, L. (2011). Identity in the ESP context: Putting thelearner front and center in needs analysis. In D. Belcher, A.M. Johns and B.
Paltridge (Eds.), New directions in English for Specific Purposes research (pp.
73-93).Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Brunton, M. (2009). An account of ESP – with possible future directions.
English for Specific Purposes, 3(24), 1-15.
Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. (1998). Developments in ESP: A multidisciplinary approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2006). English for Specific Purposes: An advanced resource book. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Maurice, K. (1983). The fluency workshop. TESOL Newsletter, 17(4), 29.
Murphey, T. (2010) Creating Languaging Agencing. Plenary. 36th Annual
International Conference on Language Teaching and Learning &Educational Materials Expo, November 19-22, Aichi Industry and Labor
Center, Nagoya. Japan Association of Language Teaching.
West, R. (1997). Need analysis: State of the art. In R. Howard and G. Brown(Eds.), Teacher education for LSP (pp. 68-79). Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.

Author bio

Colin Skeates is currently the coordinator of the Intensive English Program for the
Faculty of Law, Keio University. Over a 20-year period, he has taught English in
Thailand, Canada, and Japan. This is his first article reflecting on EAP. skeates@keio.jp
Received: December 7, 2014
Accepted: November 13, 2015
188