From needs analysis to task design: Insights from an English for specific purposes context

Abstract

Needs analysis (NA) has long been argued to be the prerequisite for the design of language curricula or syllabi and the selection of tasks. According to Long (2005), a one-size-fits-all approach should be substituted by a careful examination of learners’ needs in a particular domain or learner community. Despite the increasing practice of carrying out a NA as a first step in curriculum design, it is still unclear how exactly the insights obtained from NA can be used in meaningful ways to take informed decisions about task and syllabus design. This study attempts to fill this gap by applying the findings obtained in a NA in the domain of a hotel receptionist’s job to the design of pedagogic tasks. The goals of this study were to obtain insights into what tasks are done in this domain (task selection), what kind of language use is associated with these tasks (task discourse analysis), how the information about perceived difficulty of tasks can be translated into instructionally manipulable variables (task difficulty), and in what order the resulting tasks should be presented to learners (task sequencing). The study design employed in-depth qualitative data collection, including 10 semi-structured interviews and three observations, and the sources were domain experts and domain novices. By linking the information obtained in the NA with a theoretical task complexity model, the study provides a detailed account of how real-life tasks can be translated into an articulated set of genuine and instructionally relevant pedagogic tasks.

Keywords

needs analysis task-based language teaching task complexity task design task difficulty

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cameron

(1998). A language focused needs analysis for ESL-speaking nursing students. Foreign Language Annals, 31, 203–218.

Chaudron

Doughty

C. J.

Kim

. (2005). A task-based needs analysis of a tertiary Korean as a foreign language program. In Long

(Ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 225–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chew

(2005). An investigation of the English language skills used by new entrants in banks in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 423–435.

Cowling

J. D.

(2007). Needs analysis: Planning a syllabus for a series of intensive workplace courses at a leading Japanese company. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 426–442.

Evans

(2013). Designing tasks for the business English classroom. ELT Journal, 67, 281–293.

Gilabert

(2005). Evaluating the use of multiple sources and methods in needs analysis: A case study of journalists in the Autonomous Community of Catalonia (Spain). In Long

(Ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 182–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gilabert

(2007c). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 215–240.

Gilabert

Barón

Llanes

M.A.

(2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during task performance. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47, 367–395.

Jasso-Aguilar

(1999). Sources, methods and triangulation in needs analysis: A critical perspective in a case study of Waikiki hotel maids. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 27–46.

10.

Jasso-Aguilar

(2005). Sources, methods, and triangulation in needs analysis: A critical perspective in a case study of Waikiki hotel maids. In Long

M.H.

(Ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 127–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11.

Kormos

Trebits

(2012). The role of task complexity, modality, and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62, 439–472.

12.

Lambert

(2010). A task-based needs analysis: Putting principles into practice. Language Teaching Research, 14, 99–112.

13.

Li So-mui

Mead

(2000). An analysis of English in the workplace: The communication needs of textile and clothing merchandisers. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 351–368.

14.

Long

M.H.

(2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Long

(2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Chichester: John Wiley.

16.

Long

M.H.

Robinson

(1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In Daughty

C.J.

Williams

(Eds.), Focus on form in second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Michel

M.C.

(2011). Effects of task complexity and interaction on L2 performance. In Robinson

(Ed.), Second language task complexity. Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 141–174). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

18.

Michel

M.C.

(2013). The use of conjunctions in cognitively simple versus complex oral L2 tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 178–195.

19.

Munby

(1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

20.

Nuevo

(2006). Task complexity and interaction. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.

21.

Pollock

Chandler

Sweller

(2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12, 61–86.

22.

Ramani

Chacko

Singh

S.J.

Glendinning

E.H.

(1988). An ethnographic approach to syllabus design: A case study of the Indian Institute of science, Bangalore. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 81–90.

23.

Robinson

(2001). Task complexity, task difficulty and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.

24.

Robinson

(2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In Doughty

Long

M.H.

(Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 631–78). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

25.

Robinson

(2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1–32.

26.

Robinson

(2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 193–213.

27.

Robinson

Gilabert

(2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 161–176.

28.

Sasayama

(2016). Is a ‘complex’ task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 231–254.

29.

Serafini

E.J.

Lake

J.B.

Long

M.H.

(2015). Needs analysis for specialized learner populations: Essential methodological improvements. English for Specific Purposes, 40, 11–26.

30.

Serafini

E.J.

Torres

(2015). The utility of needs analysis for nondomain expert instructors in designing task-based Spanish for the professional curricula. Foreign Language Annals, 48, 447–472.

31.

Sullivan

Girginer

(2002). The use of discourse to enhance ESP teacher knowledge: An example using aviation English. English for Specific Purposes 21, 397–404.

32.

Swales

(1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

33.

Wilkins

(1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.41 MB