tripple tutor only

1. What reasons were given by the EFL students for their enrollment in EGP and ESP/EAP courses?

2. What particular needs (i.e., necessities, wants, and lacks) did the EFL students want the courses to fill?

3. How are the EGP and ESP/EAP courses contrasted, as shown in the student responses?

(Liu et al., 2001, p. 273)

3. Participants and sampling method:

972 non-English major EFL students from 6 universities in Taiwan. They were “recruited” from undergraduate English classes in multiple departments, excluding the English department (p. 273).

There are no details about how students were sampled other than recruitment and demographic information.

4. Independent Variable(s):

Needs: Necessities, Wants, and Lacks

5. Dependent Variable:

Language skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing

6. Measurement of variables:

5 point Likert scale in a 94 item survey

7. Research Design and Procedure:

Students were given a 94 question survey, divided into four parts: a) students’ needs in EGP courses (18 items), b) students’ needs in ESP/EAP courses (13 items), c) reasons for enrollment in EGP courses (32 items), and d) reasons for enrollment in ESP/EAP courses (32 items) (Liu et al, 2011, p. 274). Students rated their perceptions and abilities on a five point Likert scale.

8. Statistical Analysis:

The researchers calculated means for the reasons of student enrollment in EGP and ESP/EAP course to see which reasons were most common. They then used three one-way ANOVA tests to compare students’ perceived needs, i.e., necessities, wants, and lacks, in the four language skills, i.e., speaking (S), listening (L), reading (R), and writing (W). They then completed unnamed Post Hoc tests to compare the different skills under each needs analysis subcategory.

9. Results:

Top reason for enrollment in EGP classes by language skill: L – contains language skills of necessity, M = 3.82, SD = 0.89, S – Helpful for future careers, M = 3.81, SD = 0.98, R – Contain the language skills of necessity, M = 3.95, SD = 0.80, W – Helpful for passing the English proficiency tests, M = 3.81, SD = 0.90 (Liu et al, 2011, p. 275).

Top reasons for enrollment in ESP/EAP classes by language skill: L – helpful for future careers M = 4.00, SD = 0.84, S – helpful for future careers M = 4.01, SD = 0.84, R – helpful for future careers M = 4.02, SD = 0.83, W – helpful for future careers M = 3.95, SD = 0.85 (Liu et al., 2011, p. 274).

Students did not perceive their needs to be equal across language skills in EGP classes: necessities, F(3, 3884) = 45.86, p < 0.01; wants, F(3, 3884) = 14.70, p < 0.01; and lacks, F(3, 3884) = 11.17, p < 0.01 (Liu et al., 2011, p. 276).

Similarly, students did not perceive their needs to be equal across language skills in ESP/EAP classes: necessities, F(3, 3884) = 9.92, p < 0.01; wants, F(3, 3884) = 5.32, p < 0.01; and lacks, F(3, 3884) = 11.33, p < 0.01.

For all post hoc tests reported, p < 0.01.

10. Conclusion:

In EGP classes, students reported a higher deficiency in listening skills (M = 3.59) than reading skills (M = 3.42), but view reading instruction as more necessary (M = 4.03) than listening (M = 3.81). Similarly, in ESP/EAP classes, students reported a higher deficiency in speaking skills (M = 4.03) than reading skills (M = 3.88), but view reading instruction as more necessary (M = 3.91) than speaking (M = 3.77). This indicates a statistically significant mismatch (p < 0.01) in what student lack and what they think it necessary. What students need is not always what they lack.

Furthermore, the specific tasks that students need, through necessity, want, or lack, are different for EGP classes and ESP/EAP classes, as demonstrated through descriptive statistics. In EGP classes, students report needing skills related to daily life and for communicative purposes such as “converse with others in fluent English,” “introduce oneself in English,” and “speak English with foreigners socially” (Liu et al., 2001, p. 277). In ESP/EAP classes, the perceived needs are all related to school requirements, such as “listen to English questions in academic fields,” and “write English theses” (Liu et al., 2001, p. 277). Also, the types of tasks reported for needs, wants, and lacks in EGP courses varied greatly, whereas the tasks for each skill area were consistent across the different dimensions of needs in ESP/EAP classes. This would suggest more unified goals in ESP/EAP classes than in EGP classes.

11. Limitations

All participants were Chinese speaking, Taiwanese university students. It would be interesting to see how needs change in a multicultural classroom, or outside of the context of a postsecondary institution.

The survey relied solely on information from the questionnaire. The survey questions gave limited answers for students to choose from, with no opportunity to add additional answers. Especially in the section on “reasons for course enrollment” (Liu et al., 2011, p. 278), the answers provided were vague and nearly all with a focus on college or career readiness.

Some follow-up interviews with a focus group of students would be useful to learn if there are reasons for enrollment beyond the answers provided, and to expand upon the answers given.

Liu et al. did not name the post hoc tests they used in their research, making duplication of the experiment difficult. Also, their results for top reasons to enroll and top tasks/skills needed were chosen by simple descriptive statistics, without any tests of significance or inference to other populations.

12. Contribution to the Literature:

This study helps identify the needs of EFL students taking English courses at a postsecondary level. The research identifies differences in needs depending on the type of course, EGP or ESP/EAP, and the language skills covered. This research supports detailed on ongoing needs analysis in classrooms to learn the diverse needs of each class in order to create students’ metacognitive awareness of learning goals, and to meet them with the classroom curriculum.