As indicated above, since ESP research has long been dominated by the EAP branches (Johns & Dudley-Evans, 1991; Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998), most needs analysis studies have also been conducted under academic settings. They can be generally divided into research for undergraduates and research for postgraduates/scholars. Compared with needs analysis for undergraduates (e.g., Horowitz, 1986; Yoshida, 1998; Freeman, 2003; Jacobson, 1986; Deutch 2003;
Cameron, 1998; Pritchard & Nasr, 2004; Zughoul & Hussein, 1985; Bosher &
Smalkoski, 2002; Chia, Johnson, Chia & Olive, 1998), needs analysis studies for postgraduates/scholars tended to focus more on research-oriented skills (e.g., Seferoğlu, 2001; Beatty & Chan, 1984; Tarantino, 1988; Orr & Yoshida, 2001; Orr, Smith & Watanabe, 2003) with a particular emphasis on the academic writing ability (e.g., Jenkins, Jordan & Weiland, 1993; Canseco & Byrd, 1989; Wang & Bakken, 2004; Allison, Cooley, Lewkowicz & Nunan, 1998; Richards, 1988).
Though NNS postgraduates/scholars who study in western institutes and those in local institutes both pursue their degrees via the English medium, learning contexts and language challenges they face could be rather different (Braine, 2002). Therefore, in the following sections, needs analysis studies in ESL and EFL environments are respectively summarized and discussed.
English Needs in ESL Contexts
Ostler (1980) surveyed both undergraduate and postgraduate students in University of Southern California, analyzing the academic skills students considered to be essential to successfully complete their studies. The results showed not only some major-specific needs but also the distinct differences in the academic skills required by undergraduate and postgraduate students. It was indicated that reading academic papers and journals was more important for students in Soft Science, Engineering and Public affairs than for those in other fields. Reading academic journals and papers, giving talks in class and participating in panel discussions, writing critiques, research proposals and research papers, discussing issues, and asking questions in class were reported as survival skills for graduate students.
Johns (1981) conducted a similar study on determining which skills were essential to nonnative speakers of English success in university classes. She surveyed classroom instructors of both graduate and undergraduate courses in San Diego State University. Though there were some field-specific preferences, it was generally agreed that reading is the most essential of the four skills, followed by listening, writing and speaking in sequence.
Beatty & Chan (1984) surveyed and compared self-perceived English needs of two groups of scholars: those who are beginning their preparation to go abroad (Group A) and those who have been in the U.S. for at least 6 months (Group B). They found that the most noticeable differences lay in the phenomenon that Group B rated almost all the English needs listed on the questionnaire slightly more important than Group A did. On the whole, research-oriented skills were regarded as the most important skills for both groups. They were followed by oral communication skills, such as, participation in class discussions, giving papers and presentations, and asking
and answering questions in class. In view of the different perceptions of the two groups, Beatty & Chan hence suggested that in curriculum planning, both uninitiated and experienced groups’ opinions should be consulted. Opinions of those who have experience in the target environment may be even more important.
Another case was Seferoğlu’s (2001) investigation on the needs and goals of Turkish government-sponsored students in learning English. With similar research design Beatty & Chan (1984) adopted, Seferoğlu compared the perspectives of two groups of learners—one group of students had already studied for master’s or doctoral degrees in the U.S., and the other group of students were attending a specific language program in Turkey before they studied abroad—to explore if the classroom instruction in the language program met students’ needs. Findings showed that both groups of students considered their academic needs in learning English to be more important than their everyday or TOEFL needs. However, students in the U.S. were more concerned about productive skills (speaking and writing) while students in Turkey paid more attention to receptive skills (reading and listening). Overall, both groups considered the following skills to be the most needed: (1) communicating fluently with native speakers, (2) expressing themselves precisely in English, (3) writing papers and reports, and (4) speaking fluently in an academic setting. Follow-up interviews further disclosed that although students in Turkey regarded improving academic literacy as the most important thing, to attain a score more than 500 on the TOEFL was presently their primary concern. This explained why current language programs did not give enough attention to oral academic skills, but rather focused on TOEFL skills, devoting much of the time to grammar and vocabulary.
English Writing Needs
Since it is important for scholars to publish internationally and to interact with
researchers all around the world, competence in English writing has become a desperate need (Kennedy, 2001; Wood, 2001). This kind of needs has hence entailed a great number of needs analysis studies on academic writing. For example, Jenkins, Jordan & Weiland (1993) surveyed faculty from six engineering schools in the U.S.
about current practices of English writing in engineering programs, and their opinions about graduate students’ writing needs. They found that students were expected to acquire writing ability by themselves or after graduation because writing experiences were not considered an integral part of the graduate program. Although the faculty did think that writing was important, and would not accept poor writing, few of them had devoted their time urging students to write regularly. When asked about the time and energy expended on students’ theses or dissertations, most of the faculty, as might be expected, indicated a much more investment on NNS students than on their native-speaking (NS) counterparts. Some faculty even admitted that in terms of overall writing ability, they expected less from NNS students and evaluated their writing with a lower standard.
Wang & Bakken (2004) interviewed ESL clinical investigators in the U.S. about their language needs of writing for scholarly publication. Results showed that influenced by their background and previous learning experiences, these scholars had varying abilities in academic writing. Most of them lacked the awareness of their writing deficiencies, which were suggested to come from a lack of familiarity with audience awareness, rhetorical patterns, coherence, tones, and the composition skills and strategies. Wang & Bakken further inferred that a lack of clear criteria for scholarly publication provided by mentors might be the key factor which contributed to the unawareness of their writing deficiencies.
By surveying both graduate students and their advisors, and analyzing student writing, Allison, Cooley, Lewkowicz & Nunan (1998) identified four main problem
Table 2.1
□ Consistency of argument
□ Balance
II. Substantiation (How well own assertions are substantiated and how supporting material is incorporated into the work)
□ Use of sources Comments:
□ Status of claims
□ Citations
III. Discourse Elements/Features (How information is distributed and relationships between concepts and entities are introduced, developed and tracked)
□ Signposting Comments:
□ Local grammatical forms Comments:
□ Spelling
□ Punctuation
□ Words forms
□ Bibliography
Note. Reprinted from “Dissertation Writing in Action: The Development of A Dissertation Writing Support Program for ESL Graduate Research Students,” by D. Allison, L. Cooley, J. Lewkowicz and D.
Nunan, 1998, English for Specific Purposes, 17, p. 204.
areas in students’ academic writing:
1. A failure to organize and structure the thesis in a way which made the objectives, purpose and outcomes of the research transparent to the reader, and a failure to create a “research space.”
2. A failure to substantiate arguments with evidence from the literature and a tendency to make claims for own research finding which were too strong or overgeneralized.
3. An inability to organize information at the level of the paragraph, to show relationships and to develop texts in functionally appropriate ways.
4. “Local” problems to do with editing, spelling, grammar and bibliographical referencing. (p. 212)
These four main problems of academic writing were further built into a framework termed the Diagnostic Assessment Profile (Table 2.1). They believed that it could be used as a mechanism for diagnosing the strengths and weaknesses of student writing.
English Needs in EFL Contexts
Compared with needs analysis studies in ESL contexts, the amount of those in EFL contexts is relatively small. Among them, Tarantino (1988) surveyed and interviewed Italian professors in the fields of Physics, Chemistry, and Computer Science about their language needs in study or work. According to these professors, English writing was essential for their professional development, so much more efforts were paid to it than to other skills. However, academic writing might also become a source of worry since report writing was found the primary activity scientists were required to do. In terms of the difficulty level, they generally considered listening and writing to be the hardest skills to cope with, while reading to be the easiest one. When attending seminars, lectures, and conferences, these scientists found that understanding idiomatic terminology and expressions, question posing, recognizing local connectives, understanding phrasal verbs, and discriminating vocabulary were the most difficult parts. When writing an English
report, the use of modals, phrasal verbs and correlation adjuncts, connectives, prepositions and articles, noun groups and fronting, verb sequence, paragraphing, time and thought connectives was reported the problematic area.
To better the ESP training program in Japan, Orr & Yoshida (2001) distributed an electronic questionnaire to graduate students, faculty, and company employees who studied or worked in the computer field. The survey revealed that although English played an important role in respondents’ academic or professional career, their self-assessment of English ability tended to be relatively low. Aware that weakness in English slowed their work and hindered their communication with others, few respondents were satisfied with their current English proficiency, especially for the graduate student group. For the graduate students, making presentations/speeches in English, and participating in English meetings/discussions, which required good listening and speaking skills, were their very weaknesses.
Orr, Smith & Watanabe (2003) extended Orr & Yoshida’s (2001) research, widely surveying graduate students, school faculty, administrators, and working professionals in the fields of computer science and engineering, information science, information technology, and electrical engineering. Survey results confirmed Orr &
Yoshida’s findings that nearly all informants considered English as an essential tool for their work or studies, and showed a strong commitment to improve their English competence. The most frequent tasks which required English in graduate school and in industry were categorized into the following two groups: (1) reading or writing:
papers, announcement, websites, correspondence, tech news, instructions, reports, language, and (2) listening or speaking: presentations, telephone talk, group talk, small talk. The most common requests for English language support were summarized as follows:
1. Provision of answers on demand to questions about English grammar,
vocabulary usage, document formatting and similar topics.
2. Assistance with application or submission procedures that require comprehension of English instructions or the preparation of English documents.
3. Corrective feedback on document drafts.
4. Short, intensive training on various topics of need and interest.
5. Short, intensive training on the unique features of English in science and technology, especially related to specific fields of relevance.
6. Introduction to the English documents commonly written in science and technology, especially related to specific fields of relevance.
7. Short, intensive training in spoken English discourse especially general/professional chat, discussion, negotiation and debate.
8. Provision of listening comprehension training for comprehending multiple varieties of English pronunciations.
9. Corrective feedback and individualized training in preparation for keynote speeches, conference presentations, or other type of oral presentations.
10. Provision of helpful advice on where to find specific types of information in English.
11. Provision of helpful advice on how to learn English more effectively and efficiently. (p. 360)
Kuo (1987) conducted a needs analysis of Chinese university undergraduates, postgraduates, and technical professionals in science fields. She found that gaining access to latest information or technology advancement was the shared motivation for English learning. Most of the undergraduates, postgraduates, and technical professionals regarded that their performance and development on learning, research, or work were greatly influenced by their English ability. Whereas the technical
professionals considered the importance of the four language skills to be sequently reading, listening, writing, and speaking, for the undergraduates and postgraduates, the sequence was reading, writing, listening, and speaking. When asked about their difficulties in learning English, the graduate students generally considered that writing theses and reports, comprehending technical articles, participating in conferences, slow reading speed, and limited vocabulary were their weaknesses.
In 2001, Kuo, targeting English writing needs of Chinese doctoral students, proceeded with a related needs analysis investigation. She surveyed both Ph.D.
students and university faculty about students’ writing experience, the role of English, English writing tasks, writing problems, (students’) self-perceived/(teachers’) perceived English writing ability, and the need for English courses. Similar to Orr &
Yoshida’s (2001) and Orr, Smith & Watanabe’s (2003) findings about Japanese students’ English needs, English was also regarded important for Chinese students’
current research and future career. However, both the Ph.D. students and faculty to a certain extent were unsatisfied with their (Ph.D. students’) current English proficiency.
It was found that in writing research papers, the top three most difficult language tasks for doctoral students were: appropriate expression of ideas, correct and proper use of grammar, and diction. This seemed to imply that language usages brought more problems than information organization. Responding to Kuo’s (1987) previous research, the doctoral students and faculty both regarded reading and writing skills to be more important than listening and speaking.
Synthesizing the above needs analysis studies, important English tasks selected by NNS graduate students/scholars are summarized in Table 2.2. Difficulties they encountered in using English are listed in Table 2.3. Though NNS researchers’
language needs may vary greatly with the different contexts they are in, or their particular background, target situation analysis and problem analysis results provided
Table 2.2
Important English Tasks Selected by NNS Graduate Students/Scholars
Context Source English tasks
Ostler, 1980 1. Reading academic journals and papers
2. Giving talks in class and participating in panel discussions
3. Writing critiques, research proposals and research papers
4. Discussing issues and asking questions in class Beatty &
Chan, 1984
1. Research-oriented skills (writing research papers and abstracts, reading texts and journals, etc.)
2. Oral communication skills (participation in class
discussions, giving papers and presentations, and asking and answering questions in class)
ESL
Seferoğlu, 2001
1. Carrying on face-to-face conversation fluently with a native speaker on everyday topics
2. Expressing oneself precisely in English
3. Writing papers and reports
4. Speaking fluently in an academic setting Orr &
Yoshida, 2001
1. English e-mail correspondence
2. Reading English reports and technical documents
3. Writing English reports and technical documents
4. Reading English business letters
5. Writing English business letters
6. Making presentations/speeches in English
7. Participating in English meetings/discussions
EFL
1. papers (journal, conference, industry, etc.)
2. announcements (product, organization, RFPs)
3. websites (corporate, government, professional)
4. correspondence (e-mail, business letter, cover letter)
5. tech news (newspaper, magazine, web, newsletter)
6. instructions (installation, use, application, submission)
7. reports (tech, feasibility, progress, final, finance, etc.)
8. language (names, equations, technical terminology, collocations, grammatical compounding/imbedding) Listening or speaking:
9. presentations (seminar, conference, project, client)
10. telephone talk (project, client; for info, reservations)
11. group talk (discussion, negotiation, disagreement)
12. small talk (with strangers, colleagues, clients)
Table 2.3
Difficulties of NNS Graduate Students/Scholars in Using English (EFL Contexts)
Source Difficulties Kuo, 1987 1. Writing reports and research articles
2. Comprehending technical articles
3. Slow reading speed
4. Limited vocabulary
5. Presenting or answering/asking questions in conferences or seminars Tarantino,
1988
In seminars, lectures and conferences:
1. understanding idiomatic terminology and expressions
2. recognizing rhetorical techniques used to communicate causality, comparison, contrast analogy, etc.
3. question posing
4. understanding phrasal verbs
5. discriminating vocabulary In writing:
6. use of modals
7. use of phrasal verbs
8. correlations, adjuncts and connectives, preposition and articles
9. noun groups and fronting
10. verb sequence
11. paragraphing
12. time and thought connectives Kuo, 2001 In writing:
1. appropriate expression of ideas
2. correct and proper use of grammar,
3. diction
by previous studies are still valuable for the present research. They serve as a useful reference and data base for the following research design and instrument development of the study.
CHAPTER 3 METHOD
The present study aims to explore the English needs of Ph.D. students in terms of the four language skills. To collect both objective needs and subjective needs (Brindley, 1989), not only doctoral students but also faculty members were included as informants. The method to carry out this study was using a survey, which included close-ended and open-ended questions to collect both quantitative and qualitative data.
Two self-designed questionnaires (a student version and a teacher version) were delivered respectively to doctoral students and faculty in a research-oriented university in Taiwan. Students’ and teachers’ responses to the survey were then compared and analyzed. It is hoped that the present study could depict a comprehensive picture of doctoral students’ English needs, and hence generalize useful directions and suggestions for future curriculum development and policy making. The following sections provide a more detailed explanation about the participants, instruments employed, research procedures, and data analysis.
PARTICIPATNS
The participants were 148 doctoral students and 56 faculty members in the university. Among the student participants, 90.2 % were male, whereas only 9.8 % were female. About three fourth (77.6 %) of them were below 30 years old, 16.1 % were between 30~40 years old, and 6.3 % were over 40 years old. The wide age span might be explained by some participants’ experiences in working. Over one third (41.1 %) of the participants had some working experiences, whereas 58.9 % of them had no working experiences. In regard to their field of study, 33.1 % of them were from the College of Computer Science, 31.7 % from the College of Electrical
Engineering, 22.3 % from the College of Engineering, 7.2 % from the College of Management, 4.3 % from the College of Biological Science and Technology, and 1.4
% from the College of Science.
Of the total 56 teacher participants, 83.6% were male, while only 16.4% were female. With respect to their academic rank, approximately 67.3% reported being full professors, 10.9% associate professors, and 21.8% assistant professors. Among them, 26.4% reported being from the College of Electrical Engineering, 22.6% from the College of Management, 18.9% from the College of Engineering, 15.1% from the College of Science, 11.3% from the College of Computer Science, and 5.7% from the College of Biological Science and Technology.
In the present study, teachers’ viewpoints were also considered due to their dual roles as both advisors and researchers. As the advisors, they should have extensive contact with doctoral students, and would hence understand their language problems.
As the researchers, they must know exactly what kind of English competence is required to function well in the academic community.
It should also be noted that current English courses for doctoral students are mainly provided by the language center in the university. The training of these courses exclusively focuses on academic English writing or technical writing. Among all the colleges, only the College of Computer Science has provided English courses for their own doctoral students since 2005. The courses they have provided include technical English writing skills, English listening and speaking skills, English reading and comprehension skills, and English oral presentation skills. In respond to graduate students’ English needs, since 2006 the office of academic affairs in the university will offer twelve academic English courses, including oral presentation (3 classes), basic writing (3 classes), thesis writing (3 classes), and technical writing (3 classes).
INSTRUMENT
In the present study, two self-designed questionnaires were adopted as the major equipment to elicit both students’ and teachers’ perception about the English needs in doctoral study. As mentioned in chapter one, “needs” in the present study refers to the product-oriented/target needs, which consist of necessities, lacks, and wants. Therefore, the following three issues were the primary concerns of the survey:
(1) the role of English in doctoral study and the contexts requiring English use
(1) the role of English in doctoral study and the contexts requiring English use