In this study, the author conducted a needs analysis to determine the English needs of doctoral students in a research-oriented university. Both students’ and teachers’ opinions were collected to better describe doctoral students’ language needs.
In this chapter, the findings of the present research were summarized. Pedagogical implications entailed from the research findings were also addressed. Finally, the limitations of the present study and the suggestions for future research were discussed.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
In this section, the research findings presented in Chapter 4 were summarized and further discussed according to the research questions of the present study.
How important is English to doctoral students? What is the relative importance of the four language skills for them?
Generally speaking, English was very important for doctoral students’ current study and future career. As for the four language skills, both the students and teachers regarded reading and writing to be more important than listening and speaking in doctoral study. The results are in accord with those of Kuo (2001). Furthermore, the survey also shows that the students deemed listening to be more important than speaking in their current study. That is, among the four language skills, reading and writing were the most important skills, whereas speaking was the least important one for doctoral students. The phenomenon might be explained by the frequency of the use of the four language skills in doctoral study. Among them, reading and writing skills were more often used, and speaking was the least used one.
Moreover, the four language skills were also of different importance to
students’ current study and future career. According to the students, reading and writing ability were more important to their current academic endeavor than to their future career. In contrast, listening and speaking ability were more necessary in the working context than in the academic context. The results seemed to imply that the doctoral study has a higher demand on English reading and writing, while students’
future work may require much more aural and oral communication skills. The phenomenon can be further illustrated by the survey results that reading English research papers, textbooks, websites, and operational manuals as well as writing English research papers were the English-use contexts more often encountered by doctoral students. Meanwhile, Tsui’s (1991) research also revealed that professionals in high-tech industries were in great demand for English listening and speaking ability.
For these professionals, adequate oral communication ability was indispensable in their work.
However, the comparison between students’ current needs and future needs is not without problems. As mention earlier, among all the student participants, only about 40% of them had working experiences before their doctoral study. More than half of the students might not have a clear picture about their future work yet. In addition, students’ future work may vary from person to person, due to their different career plans. One who decides to further his/her current academic endeavor might have very different English needs from those of the one who prefers to enter the high-technology industry after graduation. It should be emphasized that this is one of the limitations of the present study, since students’ future plan was not specified.
What are the contexts in which doctoral students use English? What are students’ self-evaluation of their performance in these contexts and teachers’
evaluation of the importance of the contexts?
In doctoral study, the top five contexts of English use were reading English
research papers, reading English textbooks, reading English websites, reading English operation manuals, and writing English research papers. Overall, reading was the most often used skill, which was followed by writing, listening, and speaking in sequence. The results could be expected, given that the students are currently pursuing the doctoral degree in an EFL learning context. In this kind of environment, doctoral students are required to read many English research papers, textbooks and to publish their own research findings in English. In contrast, the use of listening and speaking are restricted to the occasional conference presentations or professional communications.
According to the teachers, the following fifteen English-use contexts were of great importance to doctoral students: (1) listening to English research presentation, (2) listening to English lecture, (3) English presentation, (4) answering questions in a conference, (5) asking questions in a conference, (6) professional English conversation, (7) reading English research papers, (8) reading English textbooks, (9) reading English websites, (10) reading English operation manuals, (11) reading English professional letters, (12) writing English research papers, (13) writing professional English letters, (14) writing English research proposals, and (15) writing personal English letters. However, among them, only the skills required in the five reading related contexts were rated by the students as somewhat mastered by themselves. The students had rather low confidence about their performance in other listening, speaking, and writing related contexts. It seemed that the students’ current English proficiency was far from satisfactory, and they may not be able to use proper English in most of these contexts, especially for those requiring listening, speaking, and writing skills.
How do teachers evaluate doctoral students’ current English proficiency and how do students self-evaluate their own English proficiency? What are the skills
students want to improve most and what are the skills teachers expect students to improve?
Both the teachers and students gave rather low marks to the overall English proficiency of doctoral students. Though both groups of participants agreed that reading was the best mastered skill, they had different opinions about doctoral students’ performance in the rest of the three language skills. For the students, their writing ability was slightly better than their listening and speaking. However, the teachers regarded students’ writing ability to be as poor as the listening and speaking ability. In addition, while the teachers rated students’ listening ability to be better than their speaking ability, for the students, their listening ability was as weak as their speaking ability. That is, in comparison to teachers’ perception, the students seemed to have relatively more confidence in writing but less confidence in listening, though these two skills were both reported as unsatisfactory.
As far as the skills to improve, the teachers’ and students’ opinions also varied.
In contrast to teachers’ exclusive emphasis on writing, listening and speaking were selected by the majority of the students as the most wanted skills to improve, while writing was also selected by more than half of them. Here the teachers’ selection seemed reasonable, in view of the fact that reading and writing were considered to be more important and more often used in doctoral study, and that the students were relatively proficient in reading. However, the students tended to view this question with a different perspective. Although they agreed with their teachers that writing is vital to their academic development, they must be more concerned about their weakness in listening and speaking, and the way the two skills might affect their current academic endeavor or future career. Though less used, listening and speaking skills should still be important to students. For example, to make English presentation, or to conduct professional English conversation were regarded as required language
skills in doctoral study.
Are current courses offered by the school satisfactory to doctoral students?
What courses are suggested to be offered to doctoral students?
The students on the whole perceived that the quantity of the provided courses was rather insufficient. And the shortage problem was more serious in listening and speaking courses than in reading and writing. The results may be explained by current English courses and doctoral students’ reading ability. On the one hand, nearly all the English training offered to doctoral students is on academic writing. Therefore, in comparison to other three skills, writing has drawn much more attention, and hence become “less insufficient.” On the other hand, because of students’ better proficiency in reading, even though the skill was frequently used in doctoral study, it seems not very necessary for students to take reading courses.
As for the suggested courses, both the students and teachers regarded writing for academic purposes to be the most important course. In contrast to students’
demand for various courses, the teachers exclusively focused on the following two English courses: writing for academic purposes, and public speaking/presentation. It seemed that the teachers held a relatively practical view of courses, since academic writing and public presentation are the basic requirement for academic development.
More specifically, while the students expected the university to increase the quantity and variety of English courses, the teachers might have been aware of the limited time their students have, and hence focused on the two vital skills in doctoral study.
It is also worth noting that among the top ten courses selected by the students, seven of them belong to listening or speaking. The results respond to the findings that the skills the students wanted most to improve were listening and speaking, and that listening and speaking courses were perceived as more insufficient than reading and writing. Most important of all, the findings demonstrate that listening and speaking
were of a certain degree of importance to doctoral students, if not the most important.
What kind of help or resources other than English courses is expected to be provided to doctoral students? Do graduation requirement in English and lecturing content courses in English help improve their English ability?
First of all, the help or resources suggested by the participants were summarized and listed as follows:
z Writing consultation and proofreading service for research reports
z An effective learning environment to increase English use
z More English courses and more grant support for the courses
z More opportunities to interact with international or native English-speaking students
z Free online resources or self-learning materials
Second, when asked about if the graduation requirement is helpful, more than half of the teachers and students held a positive attitude. The participants in favor of the policy regarded it as a necessary pressure which could help motivate doctoral students to work harder on English. In addition, it should help ensure that students have sufficient basic English ability. However, for the opponents, passing the language requirement did not represent that students have sufficient English ability. It is also problematic if the same standard is suitable for everyone, especially when students are from different disciplines and with different language needs. Moreover, the teachers were particularly worried about its influence on graduation and if students have time to work on the added requirement. It should also be noted that although the present study did not intend to verify which criterion should be adopted as the graduation requirement, both the students and teachers seemed to put relatively higher value on the standard test than on the English courses. One possible explanation might be that in comparison to taking courses, tests should bring students
stronger pressure, which could effectively and efficiently push them to work hard on English.
Finally, in respect to the English lecturing policy, there were also relatively more participants believing that it should be helpful. Nevertheless, in comparison to the students, the teachers seemed to hold a more conservative attitude toward the policy. For those supporting the policy, lecturing content courses in English could help students improve their listening ability. In addition, teaching English in contexts transforms teachers into language models, from whom students can learn useful vocabulary or expressions. However, the opponents were concerned that teachers’ oral proficiency and students’ poor listening ability would affect content knowledge learning. Given that the content knowledge is already difficult to comprehend, teachers’ flawed English could make the situation even worse. Even if teachers have sufficient oral ability, it is still questionable whether students are well-prepared for English lecturing.
IMPLICATIONS
In line with previous studies on English needs of postgraduates (Orr & Yoshida 2001; Orr, Smith & Watanabe, 2003; Kuo, 2001), in the present study, English was generally considered as a very important tool for doctoral students. However, the four language skills seemed to play different roles in students’ present study and future career. In contrast to the high demand of reading and writing in doctoral study (also see Kuo, 2001), listening and speaking ability are more important in the working context. The discrepancy might entail the problem that the English training students received in school may not meet the language needs of their future work. To be more specific, the academic reading or writing training in school does not prepare students to handle the oral communication requirement from their work. As indicated by Tsui
(1991), professionals in high-tech industries were in great demand for oral communication skills, but the training on them was usually found to fall short. In order to bridge the gap between current needs and future needs, it is suggested that in course planning, both kinds of needs should be taken into consideration. Furthermore, since learners may not know very well about their future language needs, as indicated by Beatty & Chan (1984), opinions from alumni (those who have been in the target working context) should be of even greater importance.
As mentioned earlier, among the four language skills, writing has often drawn the most attention of the postgraduates or academics (Kennedy, 2001; Wood, 2001). It is supposed to be the result of the needs to publish internationally, and to interact with other researchers around the world. However, in the present study, it was the listening and speaking ability that became the primary focus of the doctoral students. Being students’ relatively weaker skills, listening and speaking were the language skills the students wanted most to improve. In addition, among the top ten wanted courses, seven were about listening and speaking. It seemed that current training on these two language skills was far from satisfactory. However, it should be noticed that the emphasis on listening and speaking does not necessarily decrease the importance of the writing ability. The help and training on academic writing was also in great demand. As a matter of fact, not only listening and speaking courses but also writing and reading courses were considered as rather insufficient. In respond to students’
needs, it is suggested that the university should increase the overall quantity and variety of English courses, especially for the training on writing for both general and academic purposes, listening for both general and academic purposes, presentation and Q & A skills, general conversation skills, meeting discussion skills, negotiations skills, and reading for academic purposes.
It is important to emphasize, however, that students’ perceptions of needs may
not always be in accord with those of their teachers. According to Hutchinson &
Waters (1987), a discrepancy between objective (teachers’ viewpoint) and subjective needs (students’ viewpoint) might lead to a decrease in learning motivation, given that courses are usually planned according to the objective needs. In the present case, the students and teachers likewise held different opinions about what to emphasize in English learning. Though the students and teachers both recognized the poor English ability of doctoral students, students’ strong motivation to improve the listening and speaking ability seemed obviously contrary to their teachers’ exclusive emphasis on writing. The discrepancy between the teachers’ and students’ perception was also seen in the evaluation of doctoral students’ proficiency in the four language skills. As suggested by Hutchinson and Waters (1987), there might be no straightforward way to find the best solution to balance the objective needs and the subjective needs.
However, at least the course designers could collect related information and different viewpoints as many as possible, and try their best to make a proper decision.
As with the controversy over the graduation requirement, the positive and negative opinions actually did not conflict with each other. As commented by the participants, the graduation requirement in English could more or less help enhance doctoral students’ basic English proficiency as well as motivate them to work harder on English. Though the progress on general English ability does not necessarily advance the academic English skills, it serves as the foundation for students’ further English learning. As remarked by Orr (2001), it is quite necessary for learners to first acquire the general English ability before they receive the training on specific English skills. In other words, the basic English proficiency could help students to acquire more complicated, specific English usages. However, since the graduation requirement in English determines if students could graduate, what the language requirement should be deserves much more consideration and discussion.
Finally, from participants’ worry about lecturing content courses in English, we can see how greatly teachers’ oral proficiency and students’ listening ability would influence the efficacy of the lecture. As noted by several participants, the primary function of content courses should be the delivering of content knowledge. Language learning should be processed under the prerequisite that it does not interfere with content learning. As a matter of fact, effective language learning occurs only when the input is comprehensible and correct. For example, a teacher with poor oral ability may not only fail to impart knowledge, but also bring little help to students’ English proficiency if incorrect expressions are used. Therefore, although more exposure to English could benefit students’ English ability, English lecturing may not be suitable for all the teachers or students. It depends on how well an instructor could conduct a content course in English, and if students are well prepared for it. It is recommended that the university could call for a screening test to determine if the teachers or students are ready for this English lecturing policy.