Accents Asia

Citation

Russell, S. (2009). A survey of learner expectations and levels of satisfaction

with a university intensive English language program. Accents Asia [Online],
3 (1), 1-35. Available: http://www.accentsasia.org/3-1/russell.pdf

A Survey of Learner Expectations and Levels of Satisfaction with a

University Intensive English Language Program

Stephen Russell

When learners and teachers meet for the first time, they may bring with

them different expectations concerning not only the learning process in

general, but also concerning what will be learned in a particular course

and how it will be learned. (Brindley, 1984, p. 95)

Introduction

Differences between learner and teacher beliefs can often lead to a mismatch

about what are considered useful classroom language learning activities. This

exploratory classroom study stemmed from my desire to find out from the

students themselves their preferred learning styles, reasons for joining the

intensive English language program and, most importantly, to what extent the

students felt their English had improved as a result of the course. The focus of my

research begins with a needs analysis of students’ classroom learning preferences

and their expectations of the teaching methods for the course.

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 1

 Accents Asia

In this research project, I support the view that in any language program the

learners are the key participants (Nunan, 1988, 1999, pp. 10-14; Richards, 2001,

p. 101). Since learners have their own “agendas” in the classroom (Richards,

2001, p. 101), the “effectiveness of a language program will be dictated as much

by the attitudes and expectations of the learners as by the specifications of the

official curriculum” (Nunan, 1989, p. 176). For conducting an investigation into

students' attitudes, beliefs, goals, and learning preferences, techniques of survey

research seem ideally suited. According to Brown (2001), language surveys

“gather data on the characteristics and views of informants about the nature of

language or language learning through the use of oral interviews or written

questionnaires” (p. 2).

My motivation for this study came after several years’ experience of

teaching and preparing materials for an Intensive English Program (IEP) at a

university where I work. I often wondered how effective the classroom activities

and materials were for this English program, and as a native English teacher, I

was curious to find out about students’ classroom learning preferences and

expectations. Moving beyond this, I viewed the course as a whole, not as a

syllabus designer, but as a teacher looking at the results obtained from this

“fact-finding” investigation (Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2001, pp. 191-200) may

assist in shaping the content of future programs, tailoring them to the reported

linguistic needs and stated goals of the students.

For several years, I have taken a communicative approach to my teaching

with a preference for authentic language practice. The IEP referred to in this

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 2

 Accents Asia

study provides a communicative language teaching classroom environment

taught by native speaker teachers using authentic video-based materials. Video

has been recognized as a valuable resource for intensive language study because

it can present a total communicative situation. A recent trend has been to use

video materials to stimulate oral and written communication among students.

Stempleski (1992) suggests that authentic video provides access to the target

culture and is highly motivational as a living medium of communication (pp.

7-10).

The overall aim of this research project is to investigate the nature of

language learning in this university IEP in relation to my own teaching practices,

particularly to increase my understanding of learners’ language needs in studying

English. In this survey-based study, I first explore students’ general feelings

towards English and their preferred classroom language learning activities; then I

present and report on their stated language needs and expectations of the IEP.

Finally, I seek to statistically and qualitatively measure perceived levels of

improvement and to what extent the course satisfied different learning

expectations.

Review of Literature

Needs analysis is summarized by Richards (2001) as a process of collecting

information that can be used to develop a profile of the language needs of a group

of learners in order to make decisions about the goals and content of a language

course (p. 52). Similarly, needs analysis as defined as defined by Brown (2001) is

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 3

 Accents Asia

“the systematic collection and analysis of all relevant professional information

necessary to satisfy the language learning needs of the students within the context

of the particular institutions involved in the learning/teaching situation”(p. 14).

Needs analysis is an important component in program evaluation, which is

usually conducted in the early stages of curriculum development and often

depends on questionnaires, interviews, and linguistic analyses, as well as

“conjecture, and a good deal of professional judgment” (Brown, 2001, p. 15).

An early form of needs analysis dates back to Tyler’s (1949) work on

curriculum development that outlined fundamental questions to be addressed in

education. One key question in developing any curriculum was “How can we

determine whether these [educational] purposes have been attained?” (p. 1). This

question dealt with assessment and evaluation which could be measured by

conducting learner needs analysis. The case for a learner-centered program is not

a new one, as Tyler asserted, “If the school situations deal with matters of interest

to the learner, [they] will actively participate in them and thus learn to deal

effectively with the situation” (Tyler, 1949, p. 11). Tyler argued that educational

objectives should describe learner behavior (not teachers), and should identify

what changes come about in learners as a result of teaching.

Needs analysis procedures in language teaching grew out of the English for

Specific Purposes (ESP) movement of the 1960s and 1970s (Munby, 1978;

Robinson, 1991; Wilkins, 1976). In developing ESP programs, Richterich (1972)

and Richterich and Chancerel (1978) argued that learners, teachers and employers

need to be involved in assessing learner needs, which is used as the initial process

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 4

 Accents Asia

for specifying behavioral objectives. They suggested that needs analysis should

be ongoing throughout a program. Information should be collected about the

different kinds of activities, functions and situations in which learners are

engaged in. Richterich and Chancerel’s (1980) suggested procedures for

conducting needs analysis should include questionnaires, surveys and interviews.

Extensive work on needs analysis was conducted in the mid-1980s.

Brindley (1984, 1990) developed the distinction drawn by Richterich and

Chancerel (1972, 1978) between “objective” and “subjective” needs. From his

research he found that:

The “objective needs” are those which can be diagnosed by teachers on

the basis of the analysis of personal data about learners along with

information about their language proficiency and patterns of language

use. Whereas the “subjective” needs (which are often “wants,” “desires,”

“expectations” or other psychological manifestations) cannot be

diagnosed as easily, or in many cases, even stated by learners themselves.

(Brindley, 1984, p. 31)

Objective needs analyses result in content derived from an analysis of the

target communicative situations in which learners engage, as well as an analysis

of the kinds of spoken and written discourse they need to comprehend and

produce. Such analyses were crucial tools in developing ESP syllabuses, but

objective needs, being derived from an analysis of the target language situation,

can be carried out in the absence of the learner. Subjective needs, however, take

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 5

 Accents Asia

into account the communicative needs, desires and “objectives” of the learner

(Berwick, 1989). Collaboration between learners and teachers to establish what

are considered needs is a matter for “agreement and judgement not discovery”

(Lawson, cited in Brindley, 1989, p. 65).

There has been a tendency in needs analysis research to equate objective

needs with curriculum/course content, and subjective needs with methods

(Richards, 1984, 2001; Richards & Rodgers, 1986, pp. 64-70), but the two can be

viewed as sometimes overlapping parts along a continuum. Nunan (1988) argues

that:

While objective needs analysis and content are commonly linked, as are

subjective needs and methodology,…it is, in fact, also possible to have a

content/subjective needs dimension (learners deciding what they want to

learn) and a methodology/objective needs dimension (teacher deciding

how content might best be learned). (p. 44)

Learners' objective needs have received a great deal of attention since the

communicative era of the 1970s (Brumfit & Johnson, 1979; Munby, 1978),

whereas subjective needs have been neglected, considered to be “unpredictable,

therefore indefinable” (Brindley, 1984, pp. 31-32).

Brindley (1989) posits three different approaches to needs analysis: a

language proficiency orientation, a psychological/humanistic orientation and a

specific purpose orientation (pp. 67-68). The three approaches are differentiated

according to their educational rationale, the type of information collected, the

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 6

 Accents Asia

method of data collection and the purposes for which data are collected. In the

psychological/humanistic orientation, the rationale is that students learn more

effectively if involved in the learning process, and the methods of data collection

involve observation, interviews and surveys, with the purpose to help learners

become involved in decision-making about their learning. Brindley (1984) lists

objective needs as patterns of language use, personal resources (including time)

in order for learners to be grouped according to needs and interests. Subjective

needs include activity preferences, affective needs, pace of learning, and attitude

towards correction, so that teachers may adapt activities to learner preferences

and individual needs. In his work on adult English as a Second Language (ESL)

learning styles, Willing (1988) groups learners according to: (1) language

proficiency profile, (2) learning strategy profile, and (3) learning purpose. His

strategy profile of classroom learning preferences includes four types of learners:

concrete; analytical; communicative; and authority.

Nunan (1999, pp. 149-155) extends Brindley’s (1984) distinction between

objective and subjective needs to include content and process needs. Content

needs include the selection and sequencing of topics, grammar, function and

notions–traditionally syllabus design–while process needs refers to the selection

and sequencing of learning tasks and experiences–traditionally methodology.

Nunan (1999, pp. 147-151) further distinguishes between initial and ongoing

needs analysis. Initial needs analysis is carried out before a course begins by

curriculum designers (often beyond the control of the teacher)–while ongoing

needs analysis can be conducted quite informally by teachers during the course of

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 7

 Accents Asia

a program. Brown (2001) recommends that for program evaluation projects,

needs assessment should be an ongoing process of data gathering and analysis (p.

15). In terms of course content, ongoing data collection about learners can assist

teachers in selecting materials and activities which accord with the needs and

interests of the learners.

Brindley and Bagshaw (1984) conducted a major needs analysis with the

purpose of investigating the “awareness of learners and the extent to which they

are able to articulate their language learning needs.” The main findings of the

study were that learners were able to express long-term goals as well as

instrumental reasons for taking language classes. Many had clear ideas about how

to learn language and what were legitimate classroom activities. The study

concluded that teachers and learners hold “differing views of needs,” and also

that learners vary widely in their ability to express course objectives.

Robinson (1991) provides a list of needs analysis techniques to obtain

information from learners, and focus on the learners’ target situations of language

use. She argues that questionnaires and interviews are best conducted sequentially,

the questionnaire providing basic information that can then be discussed in more

depth in a one-to-one interview with the teacher. Another data elicitation

technique Robinson refers to is “participatory needs analysis”(pp. 14-15), where

learners engage in open-ended discussion of the needs and goals of their course

of study, either one-to-one with the teacher or as part of a group discussion.

In New Zealand, a needs analysis of problems felt by ESL students

attending university lectures found that students reported most difficulties with

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 8

 Accents Asia

speaking and listening skills (Gravett, Richards, & Lewis, 1997, pp. 64-65). The

most common difficulties in English language use ranked in the following order:

(1) large group discussion, (2) class discussion, and (3) interaction with native

speakers. However, this ranking does not offer much information about the

problems learners experienced with each activity. After conducting a needs

analysis, Johns and Johns (1977) provided a list of problems students had with

discussion. The most frequently reported difficulties involved (1) comprehension

of spoken language, (2) the need to contribute quickly, and (3) shyness about

making mistakes.

A criticism often made of needs-based courses is that they are often

somewhat irrelevant in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) settings where

learners have little immediate need to communicate orally. In the EFL setting of

Japan, subjective needs relating to classroom learning preferences and language

study goals would seem to be more relevant than objective needs. Widdowson

(1978, 1984, pp. 10-11) has been the leading critic of needs-based courses which

specify ends above learning processes. He argues that a narrow ESP approach

tends to result in formulaic “phrase book” English because learners merely fulfill

a language training function and do not develop communicative competence.

Widdowson advocates general-purpose syllabuses which are process oriented and

lead to greater general competence.

A needs-based philosophy clearly underpins the TESOL Commission on

Accreditation (TCA) Standards for Intensive English Programs (Angelis et al.,

1998). The TESOL report was commissioned to give clear guidance on

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 9

 Accents Asia

developing and evaluating IEPs in an ESL setting in the United States, with “the

goal of the standards to help IEPs provide a quality educational experience for

their students” (p. 7). A recurring theme throughout the TCA Standards is to

provide a “quality educational experience,” and to “meet the assessed needs of

the students through a continuity of learning experiences” (p. 16). The TCA

report advises that an IEP curriculum should use materials and methodologies

“appropriate for teaching language skills to students of different backgrounds,

abilities, ages, learning styles, goals, communicative needs and levels of

achievement or proficiency” (p. 17).

The TCA Standards recommends periodic review (p. 39) to evaluate the

effectiveness of an IEP making use of qualitative and quantitative measures from

a variety of data sources such as observing classroom activities and levels of

student participation, samples of students’ assignments, classroom records and

teachers' field notes. The TCA report is a framework for IEP designers and

teachers on how to raise standards and provide a "quality educational experience"

for learners. Although meeting learner needs is at the heart of the report, no

advice is offered on how to conduct a learner needs analysis. Although in the ESL

context of the United States, needs-based intensive English programs are quite

common, they are still a rarity in EFL at Japanese universities.

Research into objective needs has focused on general parameters of

language programs– obtaining background data on who the learners are and their

general level of proficiency. Subjective needs analysis acknowledges that learner

goals and expectations vary (Richterich, 1972; Brindley, 1984), and these

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 10

 Accents Asia

differences need to be taken into account in determining course content, methods,

and materials. Perhaps one reason why researchers have neglected subjective

needs is that information relating to methods, classroom learning style

preferences and materials can generally be collected only once a learning

arrangement or program has already started (Nunan, 1988, p. 43).

Moving away from objective needs, my study concerns learner needs as

they relate to classroom teaching methods and materials. This project is the first

subjective needs analysis of learner expectations and attempt to evaluate the

program (through reported levels of learner satisfaction) in English at the

university where I teach. Through collecting and analyzing learner data, I

examine students’ self-perceptions of prior language learning experiences and

preferred learning styles. In this study, I asked students to self-monitor and assess

their own perceived levels of improvement during and as a result of an intensive

English language program. The methods and results of this needs analysis have

been carefully recorded and presented so that they may be replicated and

reviewed by future researchers interested in conducting learner needs analysis in

an EFL setting.

Methods

Setting and the Participants

The setting for my study was a short Intensive English Program (IEP) at a major

private university where I teach in Tokyo. This course ran for two weeks during

the summer vacation in September and was primarily designed to promote

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 11

 Accents Asia

communicative English skills. Non-English major students at Japanese

universities have, on average, one 90-minute communicative English class per

week over an academic year of typically 28 weeks, which totals a mere 42 hours

of class time. In this IEP, students received 60 hours of class time from native

speakers (NS) of English. There were 109 participating students (49 men, 60

women) and all were non-English majors who ranged from freshmen to graduate

students. On successful completion of the course, students received 2 graduation

credits. Initial level placement was determined by students’ scores on the Test of

English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) institutional test (grammar and listening

sections), the average score being 440; the highest was 448, and the lowest 368.

Students were divided into 8 classes ranging from Intermediate A, B, C, D to

Elementary A, B, C, D. Teaching was done by 8 native speakers. I taught the

Intermediate B and Intermediate C classes and the focus of my more qualitative

research (classroom observation, learner diaries, interviews) was on these

students.

The rationale for the course and the official expectations were that

students would practice their speaking and listening skills and by the end of the

course would have developed more willingness and greater confidence to

communicate in English. In view of these broad official goals, final assessment

was largely attendance and effort-based rather than dependant on passing

achievement tests.

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 12

 Accents Asia

Survey Instruments

In conducting the learner needs analysis, I administered survey research

instruments to elicit and gather data from the students. All 109 students who

joined the IEP formed the target population for the initial and final questionnaires

in the survey. In addition to the questionnaires, data for this study included copies

of students’ diaries and e-mail assignments; audiotape-recorded interviews; and

video recordings of some of my morning and afternoon classes. The students’

presentations/performances in the final class sessions were also videotaped. In

addition, I kept a detailed set of my classroom field notes; attendance records;

and audiotape-recorded all my classes. This “triangulation” of data sources

(Allwright & Bailey, 1991, p. 73) was an important part in collecting an

accurately rounded and detailed picture of my two classes. Survey research

techniques in the form of questionnaires and interviews were used at the very

start, middle and end of the program as I wanted to “tap into the knowledge,

opinions, ideas and experiences of [the] learners” (Wallace, 1998, p. 124).

Data Collection and Analysis

In this project, I support the view expressed in Merriam (1988) and Marshall and

Rossman (1989) who contend that data collection and analysis should be a

simultaneous process in qualitative research (Creswell, 1994, pp. 166-167). From

the framing of the research questions, data collection and analysis is an ongoing

process of classifying, coding, and categorizing raw data in order to look for

tendencies and patterns.

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 13

 Accents Asia

In this study I used a combination of quantitative and qualitative data

gathering and measurement techniques. Surveys and statistics go hand in hand,

but given the individual, personal nature of this exploratory study, I needed to

employ interpretative measures which are central to qualitative approaches to

data analysis. Hubbard and Power (1993) describe careful data analysis as a way

of “seeing and then seeing again. It is the process of bringing order, structure and

meaning to the data, to discover what is underneath the surface of the classroom”

(p. 65).

Initial Questionnaire

I gave out the initial questionnaire to all of the students just before the first class.

I asked them to become participants in this research in order to make the current

and future programs better in terms of being more responsive to students’ needs

and preferences, and improving the overall quality of the intensive course being

provided by the university. I asked each teacher to briefly explain to the students

how to complete the questionnaire in English. The students were given 40

minutes to complete and return it. The semantic level of the questionnaire

(Behling & Law, 2000, p. 8) was fairly basic and clear so that all of the

participants could understand the questions, and all 109 of the respondents

completed the sections in English.

I chose to make the survey questionnaires identifiable by having students

provide personal bio-data at the top. I felt that the students would answer more

truthfully this way and by having identifiable questionnaires would allow for

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 14

 Accents Asia

selected follow-up interviews and analysis of learner diaries. As well as focusing

students’ attention on their learning processes and goals, the initial questionnaire

also served to provide the IEP teachers with learner profiles of the students. I

coded each student from #1 to #109 in order to facilitate accurate data analysis.

The closed-response questions were organized into three categories using a

five-point Likert scale to elicit: 1) students’ general attitudes towards studying

English; 2) students’ preferred classroom learning activities; and 3) students’

expectations of the teachers, based on their previous language learning

experiences. Responses ranged from (1) not much to (5) very much with the

option of (3) neutral. To facilitate descriptive statistical analysis, I coded the

closed responses to the questions and used the EXCEL spreadsheet to organize

the results.

The nine closed-response questions were followed by open-ended

questions to elicit statements about course goals, language learning needs and

expectations of the course, as well as preferences for classroom activities.

Open-ended responses are “not particularly amenable to statistical analysis”

(Brown, 2001, p. 11) so I kept written records of the responses. To “clean up”

(Rea & Parker, 1997, pp. 13-14) and manage the raw questionnaire data, I first

summarized students’ responses, then listed clear categories and tallied the

answers to measure frequency. I made notes and kept tallies by hand, then ranked

the most commonly occurring answers such as students’ reported need to

“improve listening skills” and “conversation skills,” in order to look for patterns

in the range of open-ended responses.

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 15

 Accents Asia

Learner Diaries/E-mail

In the first class period, students were provided with a notebook and asked to

keep a personal diary of their language learning experiences for each day of the

course. The first task for students was to write their individual learning goals and

expectations for the course in the diaries. The rationale was twofold: to have

learners think about their immediate language goals, and to get the learners to

reflect on their learning–to think metacognitively about their own learning styles

(Oxford, cited in Reid, 1995, p. 219). Bailey (1990) argues that a language

learning diary should be a personal account which can be analyzed “for recurring

patterns or salient events” (p. 215). I obtained diary data from Intermediate C and

my Intermediate B class. In the diaries from these two classes, most students

stated that they expected to improve their overall English skills, while several

expressed the desire to speak more English in class.

Reflecting the major theme of the selected movie You’ve Got Mail, I

encouraged students to do short e-mail assignments in English involving

self-introductions and movie scene summaries, which they e-mailed to their

classmates and me so I could monitor their work and provide feedback. These

language e-mail activities were a novelty for most of the students who seemed

excited at trying this mode of communication in English. This successful

first-time experience using e-mail in English greatly developed the learners’

levels of confidence during the course. Some Intermediate C students sent diary

entries by e-mail to me, and I replied to each one individually, while I received

post-course e-mail as learners’ feedback from some of my Intermediate B

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 16

 Accents Asia

students:

I experienced a very good time in this summer course. Because I thought

and spoke many things in English. (Student #22)

Speaking English and discussing in English were very difficult for me.

Sometimes I was very confused. But I think they are precious experiences.

(Student #27)

Interviews

After collecting and reading all the initial questionnaires at the end of the first day,

I arranged an interview schedule with a sample of students. Since I was teaching

the Intermediate B and C groups, these students formed a “convenience sample”

(Weiss, 1994) for interviews and allowed me to move from quantitative to

qualitative personal data collection and analysis. Given that I intended to conduct

interviews in English, I gave the students the four structured interview questions

two days prior to their scheduled interview. This allowed them time to think

about their progress and consider how to articulate their responses in English in

the interview situation. The interviews gave students an opportunity to talk about

their learning as well as providing oral data to supplement the initial written

questionnaire. The responses to the open-ended and follow-up interview

questions yielded varied data about students’ feelings and reactions to the course

content and activities. I audiotaped each five-minute interview so that I could

transcribe the responses (Seidman, 1998). In survey research interviews are often

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 17

 Accents Asia

conducted sequentially after administering a questionnaire and can act as a

“validity check” on the responses to questionnaire items (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992,

p. 64). My purpose, however, was to use interviews as a follow-up instrument to

give students an opportunity to freely answer specific questions about their own

perceived progress and levels of satisfaction with the course. During these

one-to-one structured interviews, I observed body language and facial

expressions in reaction to some of the questions that accompanied their verbal

responses. An essential characteristic of a good interview is “not good

conversation but good data” (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992, p. 81), which is why I

stuck very closely to the following questions:

1. Is the movie You’ve Got Mail helping you learn English? In what

ways?

2. What parts of this course are you enjoying the most?

3. What parts of this course don’t you like?

4. Would you like to change anything about the course? If so, which

parts?

In contrast to the questionnaires, the range of interview responses was not

easily amenable to clear categorization. I listened to the audiotaped recordings,

transcribed the variety of answers, and then organized them into a qualitative

matrix to highlight the range of individual answers elicited in a structured

interview situation.

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 18

 Accents Asia

Final Questionnaire

At the end of the course, I gave out the final questionnaire and students were

given 40 minutes to complete and return it. The fact that 101 students completed

the final survey meant that eight students had dropped out of the program. The

closed-responses to Q1 on both questionnaires were collected, and then presented

(see Figure 1). Likert scale questions Q2 to Q8 invited students to evaluate their

levels of satisfaction with the course content and class activities. I categorized the

responses to the ten open-ended questions to show the most commonly occurring

answers. This questionnaire formed the final part of the data collection

procedures and there were five open-ended questions which were designed to be

paired with the initial questionnaire to qualitatively measure how much each

student felt they had improved, and how effective the IEP was from the students’

various language learning perspectives.

Results and Discussion

By conducting this survey, I found that students had differing learning styles,

different learning expectations and different language goals in the IEP. At the

start of the course, most students had high expectations of learning

communicative English through movie-based materials. By the end of the course,

however, this number had fallen. Half of the IEP students stated that they wanted

to improve speaking skills and felt they had been successful by the end of the

course. In the final questionnaire, 80% of the students expressed a high level of

satisfaction with the program. Reasons for this high satisfaction rating were that

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 19

 Accents Asia

(1) 89 students (out of 101) said they liked learning by listening to the NS

teachers talk; (2) the number of students who felt their listening skills had

improved rose dramatically from 22 to 43; and (3) group discussions (75

students) and class discussions (67 students) were both rated highly by the end of

the course. Speaking, discussions, role-plays, and listening were all highly valued

activities which support the communicative nature of the program. The course

movie You’ve Got Mail introduced students to the e-mail medium in English, and

the results of the final survey show a dramatic increase from 21 to 79 students

expressing an interest in using e-mail in English.

Students’ responses on a scale from (1) not much to (5) very much to the

general questions of how much they enjoy/enjoyed studying English before and

after the course are presented in Figure 1. There is a dramatic rise on the positive

end of the scale (5), with almost 80% of the students surveyed expressing strong

positive feelings towards learning English at the end of the course. In the final

questionnaire and interviews, many students said they “enjoyed” movie related

activities in class. Other valued activities were role-plays, group and class

discussions, and “conversation with classmates,” thus supporting the view that

communicative teaching methods for the IEP were successful.

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 20

 Accents Asia

Figure1: Feelings towards English

4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0

Number
S t u d e n t s
of 2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5

0 2 3 4 5
1
Not much Very much
Initial Survey Final Survey

Table 1 focuses on the students’ learning preferences based on previous

language learning experiences. This video-based course was at first pedagogically

appropriate as 43 students said they liked learning by watching video movies in

class. An early surprise for me as a teacher-researcher was that 83 out of 109

students answered that they liked to study by listening to the teachers talk. This

response arguably reveals students’ preference for a passive style of learning by

listening to spoken models of English provided by their teachers in high school

and university classes.

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 21

 Accents Asia

Table 1: Classroom Learning Preferences before IEP

Do you like to study English in class by…?

1 2 3 4 5 mean sd
Watching video movies 3 7 20 35 43 4 1.05
Group and class discussions 4 16 34 38 17 3.4 1.04
Role-play activities 4 17 36 35 17 3.4 1.04
Listening to teachers talk 1 3 22 48 35 4 0.85
Notes: n = 109
1)Not much 3)Neutral 5)Very much

Table 2 was designed to be paired with Table 1 for analysis. As revealed in

some of the interviews (Appendix E), some students grew tired of the same

movie each day, and perhaps movie related activities were repetitious which

explains why the mean score for watching video movies in class fell slightly to

3.7 for You’ve Got Mail. Some of the students interviewed simply did not like the

plot of You’ve Got Mail. Group and class discussions about the movie were

clearly enjoyed by students. Pair work activities such as Q&A, information

exchanges, quizzes had a high mean score of 4, which means these were

considered enjoyable language practice exercises. My analysis reveals an

interesting contradiction: even though group and class discussions were rated

highly in the responses to the final questionnaire, 89 students still answered that

they liked listening to the teachers talk, indicating a preference for a passive

classroom learning style.

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 22

 Accents Asia

Table 2: Classroom Learning Preferences after IEP

Did you like studying English in class by…?

1 2 3 4 5 mean sd

Watching You've Got Mail 2 12 25 36 26 3.7 1.04

Group discussions 0 0 1 24 37 38 4.1 0.8

Class discussions 0 0 2 30 36 31 4 0.83

Worksheets about movie 8 17 39 25 12 3.2 1.09

Pair work activities 0 5 25 32 39 4 0.91

Role-play activities 2 3 30 30 35 3.9 0.97

Listening to teachers talk 0 2 10 36 53 4.4 0.74

Notes: n = 101

In Table 3, 45 students gave a neutral response to the need for the teachers

to explain grammar. In this language program, students expected to be taught by

native speakers following a communicative approach rather than a traditional

grammar-based method. A high number of students (87) said they wanted their

teachers to correct [their] pronunciation, which indicates that students felt they

really needed to improve their speaking skills.

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 23

 Accents Asia

Table 3: Learner Needs and Expectations

I would like my teachers to…

1 2 3 4 5 mean Sd

Correct my pronunciation 0 4 18 44 43 4.2 0.83

Explain grammar 3 13 45 26 22 3.5 1.03

Game-style activities 2 7 28 37 38 3.9 0.99

Talk freely to students 4 7 35 32 31 3.7 1.06

Notes: n = 109

1)Not much 3)Neutral 5)Very much

Table 4 shows different skills students felt they had improved as a result of

the IEP. Most of the students stated that they joined the program to improve their

speaking and listening skills, which matches the university’s official expectations.

Also, 53 out of 101 students felt satisfied that their speaking ability had improved

by the end of the course. At the beginning of the course, 22 students reported they

wanted to improve their listening, and 43 students said they felt they had, which

was a significant increase. This perceived improvement in listening can be

attributed to the intensive nature of the course, which exposed students to

communicative English methods by native speaker teachers (speaking only

English) using authentic video materials. Feelings of improvement in grammar

usage and understanding did not feature prominently in the responses to the final

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 24

 Accents Asia

survey.

Table 4:

What English skills do you think you improved the

What English skills do you need to improve the most? most?

Speaking 55 Speaking 53

Listening 22 Listening 43

Pronunciation 13 Pronunciation 5

Vocabulary 10 Vocabulary 2

Grammar 6

Understanding 5

Overall skills 5 Overall skills 3

The survey results presented in Table 5 show that students’ main

expectation was to practice speaking in class. To improve listening was the

expectation of 15 students, 12 students expected to enjoy English, while 11

expected to develop their English in general. However, by the end of the course,

there was a clearer understanding among learners of language areas that they felt

they had improved. Therefore, 30 students felt they had adequately learned

speaking skills. A high number of 33 students said they enjoyed English during

the program, which was a significant increase from 12 students at the start. In the

final questionnaire, 14 students felt they had developed more confidence in using

English. English all day was valued by 7 students, who felt they had benefited

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 25

 Accents Asia

from intensive English practice for 6 hours a day. Only 30 students (out of 101)

in the final survey felt they had adequately practiced speaking during the course.

A number of explanations for this were revealed to me in the interviews: “Project

work. We speak Japanese most of the time” (Student #30), and “Change project

work. I don’t like the group work” (Student #36). Some students said they wanted

smaller classes, and others expressed a desire for more situational and

conversational style activities.

Table 5: General Expectations and Overall Satisfaction

What did you learn from this summer

What do you expect to learn from this summer course? course?

Speaking 62 Speaking 30

Listening 15 Listening 19

Enjoy English 12 Enjoy English 33

English in general 11 English in general 10

Communication 5 Communication 2

Grammar 4 Confidence 14

Pronunciation 3 English all day 7

Making friends 3 Making friends 5

Table 6 shows students’ use of e-mail. In the initial questionnaire, students

were asked “How often do you use English for e-mail?” Only 21 students said

they were regularly using e-mail in English, and 85 students said they were not

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 26

 Accents Asia

using e-mail in English at the start of the course. The final questionnaire asked

students, “As a result of this course, are you interested in using e-mail in

English?” There was a high positive response as 79 out of 101 students said they

were interested, compared with 22 students who said they were not. The decision

to use the authentic video material You’ve Got Mail and related e-mail activities

clearly changed learners’ attitudes and sparked an interest in using this medium in

English.

Table 6: Use of E-mail in English

E-mail 1 E-mail 2

Initial Final

Using 21 Interested 79

Not Not

using 85 interested 22

Conclusion and Implications for Further Research

In this research project, I sought to examine the students’ attitudes, previous

learning experiences, and expectations of their university’s Intensive English

Program (IEP). Nunan (1990) argues that the effectiveness of a program depends

on the expectations of the learners, and if their language needs and perceptions of

the learning process are not taken into account, there can be a “mismatch” of

ideas between teachers and learners. By conducting this survey, I was able to

monitor and then report on students’ attitudes towards learning English, their

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 27

 Accents Asia

expectations, goals and linguistic performance. This study has shown that it is

possible to conduct a meaningful survey in the target language without relying on

translation, at variance with Nunan's (1989, p. 62; 1996, pp. 23-25) long-held

view that questionnaires in surveys should be in the participants' native language.

Administering survey instruments in English from the very start of the

course gave the learners the opportunity to think about their learning and to focus

themselves in English, thereby raising learners’ metacognitive awareness. Finding

out students’ needs and expectations, then conducting interviews and the final

questionnaire provided me as a teacher-researcher with rich data to measure,

through summative evaluation techniques, how effectively this particular IEP

satisfied learner expectations. One of the main goals of this study was to measure

and interpret levels of student satisfaction by combining statistical and qualitative

approaches. An understanding of learners’ beliefs about their learning is needed

not just by teachers but by learners themselves. As Wenden (1986) puts it: “It is

important that the students themselves be given opportunities to think about their

learning process, so that they can become aware of their own beliefs and how

these beliefs can influence what they do to learn” (pp. 3-19). By first conducting

an ongoing subjective learner needs analysis and then a final questionnaire to

elicit “effectiveness data” (Richards & Rodgers, 1986, pp. 163-164), this survey

gave all the IEP students ample opportunities to self-evaluate their own learning

process, and then to finally evaluate and measure the success of the language

program.

Brindley (1984) suggests that if programs are to be truly learner-centered,

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 28

 Accents Asia

teachers “need to canvass learners’ expectations [even if they conflict with the

wishes of the teacher] and be able to interpret their statements of need” (p. 95).

An important outcome of involving learners in ongoing course development is

that it increases the likelihood that the course will be perceived as relevant, and

learners will gain a heightened awareness of their own linguistic preferences,

strengths, and weaknesses. They will become more aware of what it is to be a

learner and develop skills in "learning how to learn" (Nunan, 1988, p. 53).

With implications for future course design, the initial and final

questionnaires present convenient means of focusing students' attention on their

learning process as part of their overall language learning experience from the

beginning to the end of the course. An initial needs analysis provides teachers

with learner profiles, giving them information about learners’ preferences which

teachers can try to accommodate when selecting materials and classroom

activities. Questionnaires and interviews also give program teachers feedback on

students' progress and whether changes in classroom activities and course content

need to be made. Therefore, the intensive English program’s process and product

should be viewed along a continuum as integrated parts of an educational whole.

This study has shown that in the absence of final achievement tests,

measuring the effectiveness of a language program from the clients’ perspectives

can lie in summative evaluation, comparing students' comments in the initial and

final questionnaires as to how they participated in it, their perceptions of it, and

what they felt they learned most from the program (Weir and Roberts, 1994, p. 5

cited in Richards, 2001, p. 287). Clearly a variety of objective and subjective

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 29

 Accents Asia

factors overlap in designing and teaching an educational program. The results of

this exploratory survey offer evidence to support the belief that “learning is

enhanced when students are actively involved in selecting content, learning tasks,

and evaluation” (Heath, 1992, pp. 40-55).

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 30

 Accents Asia

References
Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bailey, K. (1990) The use of diary studies in teacher education programs. In J. Richards &
D. Nunan (Eds.), Second Language Teacher Education (p. 215). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Barnes, D. (1992). From communication to curriculum. New Hampshire: Boynton/Cook
Heinemann. Behling, O., & Law, K. S. (2000). Translating questionnaires and
other research instruments (pp. 2-20). California: Sage Publications.
Brindley, G. P. (1984). Needs analysis and objective setting in the adult migrant education
program. InD. Nunan (Ed.), The learner centered curriculum (p. 44). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brindley, G. P. (1984). Needs analysis and objective setting in the adult migrant education
program. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Second language teaching & learning (pp. 149-150).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brindley, G. P. (1984). Needs analysis and objective setting in the adult migrant education
program. In I. Tudor (Ed.), Learner centredness as language education (p. 97).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brindley, G. P. (1984). Needs analysis and objective setting in the adult migrant education
program. In J.C. Richards & C. Lockhart (Eds.), Reflective teaching in second
language classrooms (p. 34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brindley, G. P. & Bagshaw, (1984). Needs analysis and objective setting in the adult
migrant education program. In D. Nunan (Ed.), The learner- centred curriculum
(pp. 151-153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brindley, G. P. (1989). Assessing achievement in a learner-centred curriculum. In C. Lamb
& D. Nunan (Eds.), The self-directed teacher (p. 25). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Brindley, G. P. (1990). The role of needs analysis in adult ESL programme design. In M.
Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (p. 58).
Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum design: A systematic approach
to program development. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 31

 Accents Asia

Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Brumfit, C.J., & Johnson, K. (1979). The communicative approach to language teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burton, J. (1987). Implementing the learner-centred curriculum. Sydney: Macquarie
University.
Celce-Murcia, M.& Olshtain, E. (2001) Discourse and context in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
California: Sage Publications.
Fowler, F. J. (2002). Survey research methods. California: Sage Publications.
Glesne, C. & Peshkin, A. (1992) Becoming qualitative researchers. New York: Longman.
Gravett, B., Richards, J., & Lewis, M. (1997). Language needs in tertiary studies. In J.
Richards (Ed.),Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Heath, S. B. (1992). Literacy skills or literate skills? Consideration for ESL/EFL learners.
In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative language learning and teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hubbard, R. S., & Power, B. M. (1993). The art of classroom inquiry. London:
Heinemann.
Jeffrey, D., & Hadley, G. (2002). Balancing intuition with insight: Reflective teaching
through diary studies. The Language Teacher, 26(5), 3-6.
Johns, A. M., & Johns, T. F. (1977). Seminar discussion strategies. In J. Richards (Ed.).
Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Johnson, R. K. (Ed.) (1989). The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lawson, K.H. (1979). Philosophical concepts and values in adult education. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. In J. Creswell

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 32

 Accents Asia

(Ed.), Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. California: Sage

Publications.
McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research methods for English language
teachers. London: Arnold.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new
methods. California: Sage Publications.
Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Nunan, D. (1985). Language teaching course design . In D. Nunan. (Ed.), The
learner-centred curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1989). Understanding language classrooms. London: Prentice Hall
International.
Nunan, D. (1990). Hidden agendas: The role of the learner in programme implementation.
In R. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Publishers.
Nunan, D., & Lamb, C. (1996). The self-directed teacher. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (1997). Designing and conducting survey research. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Reid, J. M. (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Publishers.
Richards, J.C. (1984). Language curriculum development. RELC Journal, 15( 1), 1-29.

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 33

 Accents Asia

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1996). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richterich, R. (1972). A model for the definition of language needs. In D. Nunan (Ed.),
The learner-centred curriculum (pp. 43-44). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Richterich, R. & Chancerel, J.L. (1978). Identifying the needs of adults learning a foreign
language. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Second language teaching and learning (p. 149).
Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Robinson, P. (1991). ESP today: A practitioner’s guide. London: Prentice Hall.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing. California: Sage
Publications.
Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research . New York: Teachers College
Press.
Stempleski, S. & Arcario, P. (Eds.), (1992). Video in second language teaching. New York:
TESOL Publications.
The TESOL Commission on Accreditation. (1998). The TCA standards for intensive
English programs. Virginia: The TESOL Commission on Accreditation.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Tudor, I. (1996). Learner-centredness as language education. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Usuki, M. (2001). The usefulness of learning diaries in learner training. The Language
Teacher, 25(2), 34-36.
Wadden, P. (1993). A handbook for teaching English at Japanese colleges and universities.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wallace, M. J. (1998). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wenden, A. (1986). Helping language learners think about learning. ELT Journal 40: 3-19.

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 34

 Accents Asia

Weir, C. & Roberts, J (1994) Evaluation in ELT. Oxford: Blackwell.

Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers. New York: The Free Press.
Widdowson, H.G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. In D. Nunan (Ed.),
Second language teaching and learning (pp. 154-155). Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Publishers.
Widdowson, H. G. (1984). Learning purpose and language use. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Second
language teaching and learning (pp. 154-155). Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Publishers.
Wilkins, D. A. (1972). Linguistics in language teaching. London: Edward Arnold.
Wilkins, D. A.. (1976). Notional syllabuses. London: Oxford University Press.
Willing, K. (1988). Learning styles in adult migrant education. In D. Nunan & C.Lamb
(Eds.), The self-directed teacher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wolcott, H. F. (1990). Writing up qualitative research. California: Sage Publications.

Volume 3 Number 1 April 2009 35