從教師與學生的觀點探討博士生之英語需求

全文

(1)國立交通大學英語教學研究所碩士論文 A Master Thesis Presented to Institute of TESOL, National Chiao Tung University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts. 從教師與學生觀點探討博士生之英語需求 A Needs Analysis of English: Perceptions of Faulty and Doctoral Students. 研究生：楊秀榆 Graduate: Hsiu-Yu Yang 指導教授：孫于智 Advisor: Yu-Chih Sun. 中華民國九十五年八月 August, 2006.

(2) 論文名稱：從教師與學生觀點探討博士生之英語需求校所組別：交通大學英語教學研究所畢業時間：九十五學年度第一學期指導教授：孫于智教授研究生：楊秀榆. 中文摘要. 英語已經成為國際間各項交流的共通語言，學術研究領域自然也不例外。為了追求學術研究上的發展，非英語系國家的研究者也須具備足夠的英語能力。事實上，以台灣的現況來看，博士班學生的英語能力不足，一直是十分嚴重的問題，甚至可能因此而限制了學生在學術研究上的成就與表現。儘管如此，在英語學習上，目前教育單位所提供給博士生的幫助似乎非常有限。為了能有效增進博士生的英語能力，首先我們必需了解他們的英語需求為何，以進一步針對學生的需要，提供適當的協助。因此，這份研究旨在深入了解博士班學生英語上的需求，並以聽、說、讀、寫這四項語言技巧分別討論。須註明的是，本文中所謂的「需求（needs）」，研究者將它定義為：需要（necessities）、不足（lacks），以及個人期望（wants）。這三者也就是所謂的目標需求（target needs），或稱為結果導向需求（product-oriented needs）。在本研究中，研究者採用問卷調查的方式，蒐集量性與質性資料。研究對象為國內一所研究型大學的一百四十八位博士班學生與五十六位專任教師。問卷內容大要如下：（一）英語能力的重要性；（二）學生使用英語的情境；（三）博士生英語能力的評量；（四）對英語課程設計的期許；（五）其他英文方面的協助。研究者採用描述性統計、t 考驗、變異數分析，和卡方考驗來分析量性資料；質性資料則由研究者詳細檢視後，加以分類整理，以供進一步的分析與討論。研究結果顯示，讀、寫能力在博士生研究生涯中，較常被使用也較為重要；而聽、說能力則在學生未來的工作上，扮演較為重要的角色。此外， i.

(3) 由於學生一般在英語聽、說技巧上的能力較弱，這兩項語言能力是他們所急於增進的。學生們所建議的課程中，有大半都與聽、說能力有關。最後，設定英語畢業門檻與專業課程以英語授課這兩項議題，在文中也有相關的討論。總而言之，研究者期盼這份研究能對提升博士生的英語能力有所幫助。課程設計者或可根據研究中的發現，修訂目前的英文課程，或提供其他學生所需要的協助。. ii.

(4) ABSTRACT. As English has become the lingual franca for international communication, in order to pursue academic achievements, nonnative-speaking researchers are required to have adequate communication competence in English. In Taiwan, doctoral students’ deficiency in English has been widely considered as a serious problem, which might hinder their academic development. However, limited English courses or related resources have been provided for them. To bridge the gap, a well-conducted needs analysis should be necessary and helpful. Therefore, the present study aims to investigate doctoral students’ English needs in terms of listening, speaking, reading and writing skills. Needs here are defined as necessities, lacks, and wants, which have been conventionally referred as target needs or product-oriented needs. This study surveyed 148 doctoral students and 56 teachers in a research-oriented university in Taiwan, regarding: (1) importance of English, (2) contexts of English use, (3) evaluation of doctoral students’ English ability, (4) expectations of curriculum design, and (5) other help on English. The quantitative data of the questionnaires were analyzed through descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA, and Chi-square analysis, while the qualitative data was examined by the author, and categorized into proper groups for further analysis. Results show that reading and writing skills were more important and more often used in doctoral study, while listening and speaking ability were in greater demand in students’ future career. In addition, due to doctoral students’ relatively poor performance in listening and speaking, more training on these two skills were highly suggested by the students. The issues of graduation requirement in English and lecturing content courses in English were also discussed. To conclude, findings of this study should help academic institutes design new or modify the existing English curriculum and learning resources for doctoral students. iii.

(5) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. This thesis would have not been possible without the support and help from many people. Firstly, I would like to give special thanks to my thesis advisor, Dr. Yu-Chih Sun for her continuous advice and help during all stages of my research. I am also grateful to my committee members, Dr. Po-Sen Liao and Dr. Shu-Chen Huang, for their guidance and encouragement. I must also express my gratitude to Dr. Chih-Hua Kuo who constantly inspired me and expanded my horizon on the ESP research and practice. Secondly, I am really thankful to Eric Yang for his invaluable suggestions on the writing of my thesis. Further thanks are also due to Cathy, Ruth, Rebecca, Jenny, Livia, Clarence, Claire and Joanne for the happiness they have brought into my life in NCTU. Thirdly, I must thank all the participants in my study. Without their help, the completion of the research would be impossible. Their generous support has encouraged me a great deal during the writing of my thesis. Finally, last and most important, I must express my profound gratitude to my beloved parents and Minchu. Their love and financial support have contributed greatly to the completion of the thesis. It is their encouragement and devotion that support me to obtain a master’s degree.. iv.

(6) TABLE OF CONTENTS. 中文摘要.........................................................................................................................i ABSTRACT................................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........................................................................................iv CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................1 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................................6 English for Specific Purposes ................................................................................6 The Background of ESP.................................................................................7 From GE to ESP ............................................................................................8 Branches in ESP...........................................................................................10 The Characteristics of ESP .......................................................................... 11 Needs Analysis.....................................................................................................12 The Characteristics of Needs Analysis ........................................................13 The Controversy over Needs Definition ......................................................15 A Learner-Centered Approach .....................................................................17 English Needs of Postgraduates/Scholars............................................................19 English Needs in ESL Contexts ...................................................................20 English Writing Needs .........................................................................21 English Needs in EFL Contexts ...................................................................24 CHAPTER 3 METHOD ...........................................................................................30 Participatns...........................................................................................................30 Instrument ............................................................................................................32 Procedure .............................................................................................................34 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................35 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS ...........................................................................................36 Importance of English..........................................................................................36 Contexts of English Use.......................................................................................39 Evaluation of Doctoral Students’ English Ability................................................43 Expectations of Curriculum Design.....................................................................45 Other Help on English .........................................................................................47 Other Help Needed for Students’ English Learning ....................................47 The Graduation Requirement in English .....................................................50 v.

(7) Opinions Supporting the Policy ...........................................................51 Opinions against the Policy .................................................................52 Lecturing Content Courses in English .........................................................55 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS....................................................59 Summary of Findings...........................................................................................59 Implications..........................................................................................................65 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research ...............................................68 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................70 APPENDIXES .............................................................................................................77 Appendix A: Student Questionnaire ....................................................................77 Appendix B: Teacher Questionnaire ....................................................................80. vi.

(8) LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 English Courses Offered in Five National Universities in Taiwan .............3 Table 2.1 The Diagnostic Assessment Profile...........................................................23 Table 2.2. Important English Tasks Selected by NNS Graduate Students/Scholars ..28. Table 2.3 Difficulties of NNS Graduate Students/Scholars in Using English (EFL Contexts) ....................................................................................................29 Table 3.1 Corresponding Questions in Student and Teacher Questionnaire .............32 Table 4.1. Importance of English and Four Skills to Current Academic Endeavor and Future Career .............................................................................................36. Table 4.2 Significant Differences Tests of Four Language Skills in Current Study and Future Career.......................................................................................38 Table 4.3 Teachers’ and Students’ Perception of the Importance of English and Four Language Skills to Doctoral Study ............................................................38 Table 4.4 Frequency of English Use in Different Contexts ......................................40 Table 4.5 Teachers’ Expectation and Students’ Self-evaluation of Their Performance in Contexts .................................................................................................41 Table 4.6 Students’/Teachers’ Perception of Ph.D. Students’ English Competence.43 Table 4.7 Skills Doctoral Students Wanted Most to/Should Improve.......................44 Table 4.8 Satisfaction Degrees of Current English Courses .....................................45 Table 4.9 Suggested English Courses for Doctoral Students....................................46 Table 4.10 The Effect of Graduation Requirement on English Leaning ..................50 Table 4.11 The Effect of English Lecturing on English Learning ............................56. vii.

(9) CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION. English is now acknowledged as the most frequently used language of international communication (McArthur, 2003; Sano, 2002; Seidlhofer, 2005; Tardy, 2004; Zhu, 2003). This trend of globalization has also been reflected on academic research, especially in the fields of science and technology (Flowerdew, 1999; Kushner, 1997). Therefore, nonnative-speaking (NNS) researchers, in order to pursue academic achievements, are required to have adequate English communication ability (Flowerdew & Peacock, 2001; Kennedy, 2001; Wood, 2001). However, for NNS researchers, the language problem often brings them great challenges. Limited training in academic English has been indicated to restrain their performance in academic development (Kushner, 1997). Though both a field’s content knowledge and language training are deemed essential to researchers’ academic development, time devoted to language learning, in comparison to that to content knowledge, is far slimmer (Jenkins, Jordan & Weiland, 1993; Orr & Yoshida, 2001). Moreover, previous studies have revealed that although most NNS researchers recognize the importance of English, few of them are satisfied with their own English ability (Kuo, 2001; Orr & Yoshida, 2001; Tsui, 1991). Deficiency in English often forces their research to progress at a slow pace and demands much more efforts on communication. How to help these professionals, in addition to their expertise knowledge, become proficient in English has hence become a critical issue. English for Specific Purposes (ESP), to meet these particular English needs, has risen since 1960s as a new and developing branch in the English Language Teaching (ELT) circle (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Strevens, 1988). In contrast to learning General English (GE), ESP 1.

(10) learners have specific, utilitarian reasons for learning a language (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Robinson, 1984). Learners’ particular needs or interests have a great influence on deciding what to learn and even how to learn. Therefore, needs analysis plays a key role in ESP research. Based on the assumption that learners’ language needs can be specified, needs analysis directs all subsequent activities in ESP, such as course design, material selection, teaching and learning, and evaluation (Orr, 2001; Widdowson, 1981). There have been a number of needs analysis studies conducted in academic settings. Many of them focused on language needs of college students, mainly surveying language skills or tasks required in classes (e.g., Chia, Johnson, Chia & Olive, 1998; Freeman, 2003; Horowitz, 1986; Johns, 1981; Ostler, 1980; Pritchard & Nasr, 2004; Zughoul & Hussein, 1985). Some other studies targeted graduate students’ or scholars’ English needs or language problems (e.g., Beatty & Chan, 1984; Orr, Smith & Watanabe, 2003; Orr & Yoshida, 2001; Seferoglu, 2001; Tarantino, 1988). Among them, English writing ability has drawn much of the attention (e.g., Allison, Cooley, Lewkowicz & Nunan, 1998; Casanave & Hubbard, 1992; Cho, 2004; Dong 1998; Jenkins, Jordan & Weiland, 1993; Kuo, 2001; Wang & Bakken, 2004). However, so far as indicated by Kuo (2001), few studies have been conducted on language needs of Chinese graduate students and researchers. In Taiwan, doctoral students’ deficiency in English has been widely considered as a serious problem in their academic development (Kuo, 2001). Though there has been increasing attention paid to this issue, limited efforts have been made to improve doctoral student’s English ability. In an investigation of Taiwan’s five national universities, it was found that only a small number of institutes in these universities have provided English training for doctoral students (Table 1.1). The majority of these institutes are in the science-related fields. It seems that a discrepancy has existed 2.

(11) between students’ English needs and current efforts devoted to meet them.. Table 1.1 English Courses Offered in Five National Universities in Taiwan University National Taiwan University. Department/Institute. English course. Chemical Engineering. z. Thesis Writing in English. Civil Engineering. z. Advanced Writing for Engineering Majors. Geosciences. z. Scientific English. Applied Mechanics. z. Technical English. z. Technical English Writing. z. English for Science and Technology. z. Academic Writing for Graduates Students. z. English for Architecture Majors. z. Technical English Writing Skills. z. English Listening and Speaking Skills. z. English Reading and Comprehension Skills. z. English Oral Presentation Skills. z. Academic English. z. Technical English Writing. Microbiology & Immunology. z. Academic English Reading and Writing. Chinese Literature. z. English for Chinese Studies. History. z. English for Advanced Historical Studies. Language Center. z. English Scientific & Technical Writing. Mechanical Engineering. z. English Scientific & Technical Writing. National Tsing Hua. Language Center. University Architecture National Chiao Tung University. College of Electrical & Computer Engineering and College of Computer Science Taiwanese Literature. National Cheng Kung University. National. Materials Science & Engineering. Central University. Note. The data are from each school’s curriculum schedule for the first semester in 2005.. In Kuo’s (2001) survey of doctoral students and faculty in an academic institute in Taiwan, she found that reading and writing were generally regarded to be more important than listening and speaking in doctoral study. However, since Kuo’s study was mainly concerned about academic writing, the exact roles these four English skills play in doctoral students’ academic endeavor were not further discussed. It 3.

(12) should also be noticed here that ranking reading and writing more important does not necessarily deny the importance of listening and speaking in doctoral study. The present research, therefore, extending Kuo’s investigation, expands the needs analysis scope beyond the writing needs and problems of Ph.D. students to include all the four language skills. It is hoped to have a comprehensive understanding about doctoral students’ English needs in terms of reading, writing, listening, and speaking, and the different degree of importance of the four language skills to doctoral students. Specifically, needs in the present research are defined as necessities, lacks, and wants (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987), which have been conventionally referred to as target needs or product-oriented needs (Brindley, 1989). Both subjective needs (viewpoints of students) and objective needs (viewpoints of teachers) (Brindley, 1989) were gathered to ensure a thorough description of doctoral students’ language needs. Insights gained in the study should adequately answer the following research questions: 1.. How important is English to doctoral students? What is the relative importance of the four language skills for them?. 2.. 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 these contexts?. 3.. 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?. 4.. Are current courses offered by the school satisfactory to doctoral students? What courses are suggested to be offered to doctoral students?. 5.. What kind of help or resources other than English courses is expected to be 4.

(13) provided to doctoral students? Do graduation requirement in English and lecturing content courses in English help improve their English ability?. As proposed by Tudor (1996), needs analysis is fundamentally conducted to help bridge the gap between learner needs and the curricula/programs designed for them. Before any course design or material development activities, carrying out a well-designed, detailed needs analysis should be the prerequisite (Johns & Dudley-Evans, 1991; Orr, 2001). Therefore, it is hoped that the present needs analysis research could shed some light on the future English curriculum design for Chinese doctoral students, and offer useful information for English instructors or ESP practitioners.. 5.

(14) CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW. In this chapter, literature related to the present needs analysis study is presented. There are three main issues included: English for specific purposes (ESP), needs analysis, and English needs of postgraduates/scholars. Since the needs analysis concept was developed from ESP research, the author first introduces the rise of ESP and its features. Then, the importance and the focus of needs analysis, and the accompanying needs definition issue are described. Finally, previous studies on language needs of graduate students and academics are summarized. Findings from different studies are further compared and discussed.. ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES As western countries (specifically the UK and the USA) have dominated the world economy and politics, English has become the international communication medium for both economy and science (Kenny, 2001; McArthur, 2003; Sano, 2002; Seidlhofer, 2005; Tardy, 2004; Wood, 2001; Zhu, 2003). To gain access to the technology or resources of the English-speaking countries, many nonnative speakers of English have devoted a lot of time to the acquisition of English competence (Flowerdew & Peacock, 2001; Widdowson, 1997). However, traditional GE teaching has meanwhile been proven not very effective for people who have specific language needs (Orr, 2001). To bridge the gap, ESP research and practice which provide specialized training to meet special needs has begun since the 1960s. In the following sections, the ESP approach was examined closely through: the background of ESP, from GE to ESP, branches in ESP, and the characteristics of ESP.. 6.

(15) The Background of ESP To better understand ESP, Hutchinson & Waters (1987) described three major trends in relation to the rise of this approach: the demands of a brave new world, a revolution in linguistics, and focus on the learner. 1. The demands of a brave new world: After English has become the international language for economy and technology, a new generation of learners with utilitarian language needs has appeared. Under this context, language teaching, as claimed by Strevens (1988), has become “more instrumental” and “less cultural.” English serves more like a tool with which nonnative speakers of English can approach the modern world, nourished with abundant resources there. The phenomenon is also reflected on the international academic discourse. Because most international conferences or journals are held or published in English, NNS researchers, to share their innovations with their international counterparts or to gain recognition from them, have to write in English. That is, only if their works are published in English, will they be possibly read and cited by other researchers around the world (Kennedy, 2001; Wood, 2001). The shift from cultural perspectives to instrumental perspectives in language learning has also affected the basis of course design. It is language itself rather than literature that determines what and how to teach (Strevens, 1988). 2. A revolution in linguistics: In contrast to previous focuses on the description of language use, or the grammar, recent linguistic studies have become more concerned about how English is used in actual communication contexts. Based on the assumption that language should be used differently in different contexts, it is believed that features of English use in a particular situation can be identified. Findings about these specific language usages should offer valuable information for subsequent course design (Flowerdew & 7.

(16) Peacock, 2001b). As what Orr (2001) stressed, “… English is not a monolithic whole, but rather is consisted of countless components and combinations that have evolved over time to fulfill communication needs situated within a wide range of social, academic, and work-related contexts.” Different people may encounter different language contexts, and need to acquire particular language skills to perform the required communication tasks specific to that context. Therefore, to make language courses effectively and efficiently meet learners’ needs, analyzing language features of target situations/tasks should be the prerequisite for any course design activities. 3. Focus on the learner: The learner-centeredness concept in ESP is greatly affected by educational psychology’s development on learner issues. In this perspective, learners’ attitudes toward learning are believed to have an enormous impact on learning efficacy. It is asserted that ensuring provided courses to meet learners’ needs should positively increase learning motivation. This learner-centered assumption has further led to the development of needs analysis in ESP (Strevens, 1988). More issues in the learner-centered education are discussed in the needs analysis section.. From GE to ESP In contrast to GE learning, in which language itself, culture and literature are the focuses, ESP learners study English mainly for pragmatic, instrumental purposes. Language functions like a bridge leading them to the intended knowledge or skills (Robinson, 1984). Unlike GE learning, ESP courses do not follow the traditional “present, practice, perform” process (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998) in teaching, but adopt a “deep-end strategy” in which learners are put into “the deep end of a pool” (i.e. the language requirement of the target context) to see the gap between where they are and where they are required to reach (Orr, 2001). It is the awareness of the learner 8.

(17) needs (the gap) that characterizes ESP (Robinson, 1984). However, this does not imply that GE learners do not have needs for learning. It is merely the awareness of learning purposes that actually differentiates ESP learners from their GE counterparts (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). In defining ESP, Hutchinson & Waters (1987) emphasized that ESP should not be seen as “a product” but rather “an approach” to specific language learning. ESP does not formulate a brand new language or methodology, nor does it develop any special teaching materials. In this approach, it is the learner needs that determine all the course design and instructional activities. As contended by Robinson (1984), what is special or specific in ESP is not the language itself, but rather the reasons for learners to learn English. A more detailed, widely adopted description about ESP was provided by Strevens (1988). He maintained that to well define ESP, we have to distinguish between “four absolute and two variable characteristics” of this approach: 1. Absolute characteristics of ESP ESP consists of English language teaching which is: -- design to meet specified needs of the learner; -- related in context (i.e., in its themes and topics) to particular disciplines, occupations and activities; -- centered on the language appropriate to those activities, in syntax, lexis, discourse, semantics, etc.; -- in contrast with “General English” 2. Variable characteristics of ESP ESP may be, but is not necessarily: --restricted as to the language skills to be learned (e.g. reading only; speech recognition only, etc.) 9.

(18) -- taught according to any pre-ordained methodology (i.e., ESP is not restricted to any particular methodology—although communicative methodology is very often felt to be the most appropriate). (p. 1) Based on Hutchison & Waters’ and Strevens’ definition, ESP could be summed up as an approach to English learning which undergoes careful research and design to meet the needs of an “identifiable group” of people within a specific learning context (Johns & Dudley-Evans, 1991).. Branches in ESP Under ESP there are still a bundle of branches, for example, English for Academic Purposes (EAP), English for Occupational Purposes (EOP), or English for Science and Technology (EST). According to the functions of ESP, these branches can be generally divided into two major groups, that is, EAP and EOP. Each group is sub-divided by its content areas, for example, EST, English for Business and Economics (EBE), and English for Social Science (ESS) (Flowerdew & Peacock, 2001a; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Kuo, 1993; Robinson, 1984). However, if we browse the cumulated ESP research in the history, it is obvious that ESP research has been overwhelmingly dominated by the EAP branch, or more specifically, the EST sub-branch. The majority of ESP material development, course design and research were actually conducted in the academic setting (Johns & Dudley-Evans, 1991; Johns & Dudley-Evans, 1998). Nevertheless, we should also be aware that the differentiation between the two main branches, EAP and EOP, is not without confusion. Most of the time, learning efforts made in school is regarded in certain aspects as the preparation for learners’ future work (Flowerdew & Peacock, 2001a). Under this consideration, the author did not use the classification of EAP or EOP to define the present need analysis research, but rather took it as merely an indispensable 10.

(19) activity within general ESP research or practice.. The Characteristics of ESP Strevens (1988) provided a list of claims for ESP: -- ESP, being focused on the learner’s needs, wastes no time; -- ESP teaching is perceived as relevant by the learner; -- ESP is successful in imparting learning; -- ESP is more cost-effective than General English. (p. 2) Although Strevens added that teacher preparation should also be taken into consideration, according to these claims, ESP, targeting learners’ needs, should be efficient, effective, and pragmatic. Since ESP under the time pressure deals exclusively with learner needs, ESP courses should always be conducted with a clear purpose—for example, helping learners successfully play certain roles in a learning or working context (Robinson, 1984). Moreover, the existence of a purpose in ESP learning and teaching also implies that the purpose can be perceived, stated, and examined. Robinson further expanded the point that the ability for learners to indicate their learning purposes should entail the following three elements in defining ESP: 1. The time factor: What accompanies a language course with specific purposes is often the time pressure. Therefore, this kind of courses tends to be rather intensive. 2. The age of the learner: Learners of ESP are usually adults or near adults. These so-called “post-beginners” might have undergone several years of general language education in school, and would like to further a certain part of knowledge of the language, which is beneficial for their present work or study. 3. The awareness of the need: Since ESP learners are able to express their learning purposes, they must have a clear picture or the awareness of their language needs. 11.

(20) This fact implies not only that learners’ reasons for learning should always guide instructional activities but also that ESP courses are by nature learner-centered.. NEEDS ANALYSIS With the development of Munby’s (1987) Communication Needs Processor, needs analysis has drawn researchers and teachers’ attention in language learning since the 1970s (Braine, 2001; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). Through Munby’s model, learners’ language needs are portrayed in detail according to communication purposes, communicative settings, the means of communication, language skills, functions, structures, etc. It was purported that needs of any group of people could be adequately defined by using this model. Though many researchers criticized Munby for his emphasizing only the target situation analysis (Flowerdew & Peacock, 2001a; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987), this model indeed plays an important role in accelerating the prosperity of ESP, especially the development in needs analysis (Braine, 2001). Given that ESP courses should be designed based on learners’ particular language needs, needs analysis has been regarded as an essential activity in ESP. Results of a needs analysis study have a great impact on the following ESP activities, such as course design, materials selection, teaching and learning, and evaluation (Orr, 2001; Strevens, 1988). Generally, the aim of an ESP course is to equip learners with sufficient language skills which are required in performing particular roles in a specific context. Therefore, as claimed by Hutchinson & Waters (1987), the first step of ESP course design should be “identifying the target situation,” and then further analyzing the language features used in that context. Kuo (2001), supplementing Hutchinson & Waters’ point of view, noted that to teach learners with specific purposes in learning English, researchers/teachers should not only deal with the target 12.

(21) situation analysis (needs analysis) but also identify the areas which students have the most difficulty with (problem analysis). That is, needs analysis and problems analysis are both essential to ESP course design (Johns & Dudley-Evans, 1991; Brindley, 2001). However, these statements about needs analysis also reflect a widely perceived confusion that though researchers generally consider identifying learner needs (i.e. needs analysis) to be obligatory in ESP course design, there is still a huge controversy over the definition of leaner needs (Stufflebeam, McCormick, Brinkerhoff & Nelson, 1985; West, 1994; Cameron, 1998; Richterich, 1983). In the following sections, we will take a closer look at the characteristics of needs analysis, the definition issue of needs and the learner-centered perspective.. The Characteristics of Needs Analysis According to Witkin & Altschuld (1995), conducting needs analysis is meaningful under the assumption that learners’ specific needs have not been properly concerned and addressed. Needs analysis here is defined as an organized, ongoing process through which learners’ present proficiency, required proficiency, and the gap between these two levels are described. Results of needs analysis are used for “setting priorities” and “making decisions” in program design or evaluation. According to this definition, several characteristics of needs analysis are revealed. First, needs analysis involves a systematic data collection procedure. All kinds of related information, objective or subjective, should be taken into consideration to ensure a complete and precise description (Brown, 1995; Berwick, 1989). Second, since time will never be enough for learners to acquire all language skills, the priority of what to teach first should be made (Brindley, 1989). Third, as bases or references for decision making, needs analysis is mainly concerned about future-oriented questions. Therefore, the focus is mainly on what to attain rather than how to reach it, although needs analysis 13.

(22) may sometimes help to decide the method (Stufflebeam, McCormick, Brinkerhoff & Nelson, 1985; Witkin & Altschuld, 1995). Finally, implicit in the definition of needs analysis is still the problematic issue about what needs really are. Though Witkin & Altschuld, along with many other researchers (e.g., Kaufman, Rojas, & Mayer, 1993; Berwick, 1989), conventionally defined needs as the gap or discrepancy between “the present state” and “the desired state”, the controversy over needs definition has continued, leading to extensive discussion (Brindley, 1989). A more detailed description of the needs definition issue is presented in the next section. Viewing needs analysis with a larger scope, Tarone & Yule (1989) suggested that needs analysis studies can be categorized into the following four levels: 1. The global level: At this level, researchers have to carefully identify learners’ purposes for language learning. It should come with a detailed description about the target situation, in which learners are required to use the language, and the related activities carried out in that context. 2. The rhetorical level: This level deals with “the organization of information in the discourse which occurs within any given situation.” Efforts are made to identify the organization of the information learners have to manage in a specific context, or to analyze the organization of an interaction according to linguistic functions. 3. The grammatical-rhetorical level: Under the assumption that different discourses may organize differently, studies at this level aim to verify the corresponding linguistic forms used to fulfill a discourse organization. Usually the rhetorical and grammatical-rhetorical level analyses are conducted together. Researchers will first identify the organization of a particular discourse, and then try to find out which and how linguistic forms contribute to that. 4. The grammatical level: At this level, the analysis is mainly numerical. Researchers are interested in the frequency a certain grammatical form is used in a particular 14.

(23) communication context. According to Tarone & Yule’s categorization of needs analysis studies, what most researchers meant by needs analysis seems to fall within the global level research. The other levels otherwise correspond to discourse analysis (Brown & Yule, 1983), genre analysis (Swales, 1990), etc. in the ESP expertise. To avoid confusion, in the following discussion, the author likewise adopted the narrow definition of needs analysis, that is, the global level, to define the present needs analysis research.. The Controversy over Needs Definition Implicit in the perennial controversy over the needs definition is the concern that needs definition has a great impact on needs analysis. To be more specific, the needs analysis content and process are completely determined by how we define learner needs. Therefore, in the very beginning of a needs analysis study, it is very important to first determine what needs definition is adopted to guide the whole process (Stufflebeam, McCormick, Brinkerhoff & Nelson, 1985). A change of definition may affect not only the method used in the study but also the whole data collection procedure. Brindley (1989) indicated that the ongoing dispute over needs definition has developed. into. two. orientations. to. needs. analysis:. product-oriented. and. process-oriented interpretation of needs. Concepts expressed through these two terminologies seem similar to what Hutchinson & Waters (1987) termed as the “target needs” and the “learning needs” (also see Widdowson, 1981). 1. Narrow/Product-oriented interpretation of need: Learners’ needs are determined according to the target language behavior they are required to perform in a specific situation. Therefore, the analysis of the target situation and related language activities conducted in it is regarded to be necessary for 15.

(24) course/program design. 2. Broad/process-oriented interpretation of need: Learners’ needs are defined as the assistance they need in the learning process to facilitate target skill acquiring. From this perspective, various affective and cognitive factors (e.g. learning attitudes, personality, motivation, etc.) are regarded to be important and influential in learning. What draws researchers’ attention is the method learners adopt to achieve the target language proficiency. As suggested in Brindley’s (1989) article, since these two different views of needs may bring sheer different results of needs analysis, how to reach a balance between these two approaches is an issue worthy of consideration (Richterich, 1983). Hutchinson & Waters (1987) further defined target needs (or product-oriented needs) by necessities, lacks, and wants: 1. Necessities: Necessities are derived from the language requirement of target situations. Language competence or skills a learner should possess and use in the target context is regarded as his/her language needs. 2. Lacks: It is generally assumed that before ESP training, learners’ current proficiency should be lower than the required proficiency in target situations. The gap between the current and target language proficiency is what Hutchinson & Waters meant by learners’ lacks. 3. Wants: Wants refer to learners’ self-perception about their needs. Since perception may differ from person to person, sometimes language needs perceived by learners may not match those of ESP practitioners. However, because learning motivation might greatly influence learning efficacy, learners’ opinions should deserve equal attention. The concept of “wants” has further entailed the dichotomy between objective needs (viewpoints from experts/teachers) and subjective needs (viewpoints from 16.

(25) learners) (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Brindley, 1989). Similarly, Berwick (1989) used the term, “felt needs,” for needs perceived by learners while “perceived needs” for experts’ or teachers’ interpretation of learner needs. In contrast to perceived needs’ being widely accepted by the public as objective viewpoints, felt needs are usually deemed as subjective, unsophisticated expressions. As indicated by Hutchinson & Waters (1987), objective and subjective views of needs do not always correspond to each other, which may hence cause negative impact on learning motivation. However, there is no sweeping solution to this problem. What ESP practitioners can do is constantly bear these differences in mind, and make the best decisions according to the different learning contexts and target learners.. A Learner-Centered Approach As ESP expertise, as well as its core activity, needs analysis, rose in the 60s, language teaching and course planning have tended to more reflect learner needs, and have hence become more learner-centered (Tudor, 1996). Due to its focus on making course/program design more respond to learners’ particular needs, need analysis has been widely recognized as the very occasion which led extensive interest and discussion on the learner-centered issues (Flowerdew & Peacock, 2001a). Based on the learner-centered concept, student participation in the course/program design process has been largely encouraged. It is believed to positively increase learning motivation. Nunan (1989) also emphasized that the attention to learner expectations and related affective factors should contribute as much as what official course specifications can do to promote learning achievements. The common collision between students’ and teachers’ expectations is expected to originate from the exclusion of students’ opinions in the course planning process. In an extreme learner-centered case, learners may be not only allowed to join 17.

(26) the course/program design process, but also empowered to practically execute the needs analysis research to investigate their own language learning needs (Tarone & Yule, 1989). As claimed by Tarone & Yule, though needs analysis results provided by students may be immature, their research observations should still provide valuable information about the authentic language use in their work or study, which ELT teachers might have never considered before. Approaching this issue from a theoretical perspective, Johnson (1989), according to participant roles, identified three models in curriculum processing, and discussed their relative strengths and weaknesses: 1. The specialist approach: In this approach, teachers have absolute power in deciding what and how to teach. Since instructional decisions are made by experts in related professional fields, responsibility of course planning process and accompanying success or failure of a program is clearly specified. However, because decisions are made without consultation and communication with other participants in the program, these decisions may not meet learners’ needs. 2. The learner-centered approach: In a learner-centered curriculum, learners are allowed to determine learning content according to their needs. Communication and interaction between participants are maximized in that everyone’s viewpoints are considered in the decision making process. Consequently, learners’ motivation for language learning should meanwhile be increased. However, since there is no one specifically responsible for these decisions, the following course/program evaluation or assessment would be hardly conducted. 3. The integrated approach: Similar to the learner-centered approach, in this approach, all participants are allowed to participate in all stages of course planning. However, the whole decision making process should be led by the qualified people, the experts, to ensure that the curriculum planning mechanism is operated properly. 18.

(27) To sum up, Johnson noted that neither of the extreme approaches described above would be practicable in actual learning contexts. The most effective curriculum process should be the one which integrates the strengths of the both approaches. The compromise between the specialist and learner-centered approach here seems just to respond to what Brindley (1989) stated, the necessity of finding an adequate balance between the objective and subjective needs analysis.. ENGLISH NEEDS OF POSTGRADUATES/SCHOLARS 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. 19.

(28) 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 20.

(29) 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 21.

(30) 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 22.

(31) Table 2.1 The Diagnostic Assessment Profile I. Overall Communicative Success □ Purpose □ Audience (explicitness) □ Organization □ Consistency of argument □ Balance. Comments:. 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: □ Topic development □ Clause structure □ Cohesion □ Grammatical choices □ Lexis IV. Editing □ Local grammatical forms □ Spelling □ Punctuation □ Words forms □ Bibliography. Comments:. 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.” 23.

(32) 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 24.

(33) 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, 25.

(34) 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 26.

(35) 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 27.

(36) Table 2.2 Important English Tasks Selected by NNS Graduate Students/Scholars Context. Source Ostler, 1980. English tasks 1. 2. 3. 4.. ESL. Beatty & Chan, 1984. 1.. Seferoğlu, 2001. 1.. Carrying on face-to-face conversation fluently with a native speaker on everyday topics. 2.. Expressing oneself precisely in English Writing papers and reports Speaking fluently in an academic setting. 2.. 3. 4.. Orr & Yoshida, 2001. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.. EFL. 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. Orr, Smith & Watanabe, 2003. Research-oriented skills (writing research papers and abstracts, reading texts and journals, etc.) Oral communication skills (participation in class discussions, giving papers and presentations, and asking and answering questions in class). English e-mail correspondence Reading English reports and technical documents Writing English reports and technical documents Reading English business letters Writing English business letters Making presentations/speeches in English Participating in English meetings/discussions. Reading or Writing: 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) 28.

(37) Table 2.3 Difficulties of NNS Graduate Students/Scholars in Using English (EFL Contexts) Source Kuo, 1987. Difficulties 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.. Tarantino, 1988. Writing reports and research articles Comprehending technical articles Slow reading speed Limited vocabulary Presenting or answering/asking questions in conferences or seminars. 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. 5.. understanding phrasal verbs 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.. 29.

(38) 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 30.

(39) 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).. 31.

(40) 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 (necessities); (2) the evaluation of doctoral students’ English proficiency (lacks); (3) the expectation of curriculum design and other help on English (wants).. Table 3.1 Corresponding Questions in Student and Teacher Questionnaire Section. Students version. Teacher version. 1.. Demographic information. Question 14-17. Question 11-13. 2.. Importance of English. Question 2-5. Question 2-3. 3.. Contexts of English use. Question 1. Question 1. 4.. Evaluation of doctoral students’ English ability. Question 6-8. Question 4-6. 5.. Expectations of curriculum design. Question 9-10. Question 7. 6.. Other help on English. Question11-13. Question 8-10. Specifically, the two questionnaires consisted of the following six sections: (1) demographic information, (2) importance of English, (3) contexts of English use, (4) evaluation of doctoral students’ English ability, (5) expectation of curriculum design, and (6) other help on English. The reliability of the students and teacher questionnaire was high, α = .94 and .92 respectively. The content and structure of the two questionnaires were approximately parallel with each other, only that the same issues 32.

(41) were approached from different people’s perspective, the teachers’ versus the students’. Table 3.1 presents a detailed list for the corresponding questions in these two versions of questionnaires. More detailed introduction of each section is as follows. First, the demographic information section aimed to sketch participants’ personal background, such as, gender, field of study, working experiences, and so forth. Second, in the importance of English section, the participants were asked to estimate the importance of English to doctoral students and to verity the relative importance of the four language skills. Third, the contexts of English use section was used to elicit the frequency of students’ English use in different contexts. Students’ performance in these contexts and teachers’ evaluation of the importance of these contexts were also concerned. Fourth, the evaluation of doctoral students’ English ability section was intended to uncover students’ self-evaluation and teachers’ evaluation of doctoral students’ English proficiency. The participants were also asked about the language skills which doctoral students want most to/should improve. Fifth, in the expectation of curriculum design section, the author examined students’ satisfaction of current English courses, and gathered both students’ and teachers’ opinions about future curriculum design. Finally, in the other help on English section, the participants were asked about the help or resources needed for doctoral students’ English learning. In addition, since the graduation requirement in English and lecturing content courses in English have been currently promoted to enhance students’ English ability, the participants were also required to comment on these two issues. It should be noted that the twenty-two items listed in the contexts of English use section were a combination of previous studies’ findings about important English tasks (Ostler, 1980; Beatty & Chan, 1984; Seferoğlu, 2001; Orr & Yoshida, 2001; Orr, Smith & Watanabe, 2003) and the author’s personal experience and perception about 33.

(42) possible English use in doctoral study. The two versions of questionnaires contained both close-ended and open-ended questions in each section, so the participants were free to write down their opinions which were not listed in the questionnaire as items to choose from. In addition, since all the participants were nonnative speakers of English, to avoid possible misunderstanding or anxiety from reading English sentences, the two questionnaires were composed in Chinese, participants’ first language. For a complete copy of the questionnaires, please see appendix A for the student version, and appendix B for the teacher version.. PROCEDURE Before the survey was conducted, the student questionnaire had been administered to 20 doctoral students for a pilot test. The content and wording of the questionnaire were revised according to the results of the pilot study and students’ responses or suggestions. Since the teacher questionnaire approximately paralleled the student version in both the content and structure, its revision was also based on the same pilot test. The revised student questionnaire was then delivered to doctoral students in five academic English classes in the university. A total of 148 doctoral students participated in the study. Meanwhile, the teacher questionnaire was e-mailed to about 300 full-time teachers of Ph.D. programs in the university, except for those in English related departments or institutes and those who are not native speakers of Chinese. Returned surveys were collected during an 8-week period. Thirty-one of these e-mails were returned by the mail system as undeliverable, and 206 people did not respond. Among the 63 people who responded to the e-mail, 7 reported that they did not have doctoral students and hence were unable to answer the survey questions. That is, only 34.