2.

Needs Analysis and Commentary Class profile The learners are all Vietnamese, are all either 19 or 20 years old and are taking IELTS in order to get into the 3rd year of their business programme. Their levels hover around the B1/B2 crossover threshold i.e. IELTS Band 4.5/5/5.5. . They have been studying in EIU for between 1 and 2 years and most have them have spent two semesters in the Business Administration department where, in spite of not having language tuition, they were able to improve their reading and writing levels. As touched upon above, the learners motivation for the exam seems, as per Gardener and MacIntyres (1991) dichotomy, to be mostly instrumentally motivated. Needs Analysis Methodology There appears to be a consensus with regard to the fact that a course can only be written after a needs analysis has been conducted (Munby 1978). This will allow the course designer to build a syllabus which is both relevant and suitable to the learners needs. With this in mind, I developed a needs analysis whereby I attempted to ascertain the learners necessities under three principle aspects identified by Hutchinson and Walters (1987:55-58): a) Necessities: what the learner has to know in order to function effectively i.e. what needs to be known in order to pass the exam. b) Lacks: The systems knowledge which the learner has deficiencies in. c) Wants: What the learner believes they need in order to pass.

Following this, I developed a questionnaire using google drivehttps://docs.google.com/forms/d/1U9HHY2so5mIZuerGH61xvpCNhqHOSGoiVNUML2znS 70/viewform , which I made available to the students by posting a link on the class page of the educational social media site www.edmodo.com. A summary of the results can be seen here:https://docs.google.com/a/eiu.edu.vn/forms/d/1U9HHY2so5mIZuerGH61xvpCNhqHOS GoiVNUML2znS70/viewanalytics. I suggested students take time to complete the answers in as much detail as possible and I pointed out that this would allow me to create a syllabus which would be well adapted to their specific language needs. The questionnaire collected qualitative as well as quantitative information on, amongst other things, their knowledge of the IELTS exam, learner preferences and the students own perceived strengths and weaknesses. I followed up on the findings of the NA with a recorded interview. This was thought necessary in order to make up for any shortcomings in the design of the questionnaire and to allow the learner to elaborate on key information identified in the NA. It was recorded in order to let other teachers offer their opinions and consult at a later date if needs be. Results The spoken interviews complemented the questionnaires effectively. These together allowed me to confirm many of my suspicions about the group, i.e. that they are strongly extrinsically motivated. Moreover, I was able to narrow down many of the needs and wants to focus on when designing the course.

According to the results of the needs analysis: Learners suggest that they require the most help in the productive skills, especially speaking. All of the learners, except for one, want to achieve an overall band 6. The exception wants to get a 7. The majority of the learners are quite familiar with the format of the exam. However, they say they are lacking in confidence in certain parts of the exam e.g. the matching headings to paragraphs exercise in the reading test and the note completion exercise in the listening test. The learners dont appear to be familiar with the marking criteria for both the speaking and writing papers. While a majority of the students feel that they have a sufficient grasp of systems knowledge to be able to do the exam, some do not feel so comfortable with pronunciation e.g. not being able to use chunking and natural intonation. A number of learners believe that the application of their systems knowledge is wanting. They are least confident when speaking and writing about more academic topics such as consumerism and advertising. All of the students, save one, have access to the internet in their place of residence. The learners appear to be intrapersonal and verbal-linguistic (Puchta 2005).

Diagnostic Test and Priorities The NA provided me with a great deal of information on the learners subjective wants. It was important, however, to verify these data using more objective means in order to discover what the learners lack and to identify what further teaching is necessary (Hughes 1989:13). I took into account the learners perceived lacks as per the NA when selecting the material for the diagnostic test. I also picked a recently published practice test that I felt that the learners wouldnt have seen before as not only would this be a more accurate reflection of the test they would take in December but also would reduce the chances of any of the learners having skewed scores. I also felt that while the learners had given the two productive skills as their main weaknesses, I thought it would be prudent to give them a DA on all four skills to see whether the objective data agreed with these finding. Furthermore, I choose a test that included as many examples as possible of the various task types which can be asked. I used test 1 from Cambridge IELTS practice tests book 9 (UCLES 2013). I scored it using the public version of the IELTS marking criteria. Satisfyingly, the results of the DT concurred with the students own perceptions of their wants. Almost all of the students hit their target band in both the listening and reading paper, except for Duy Nguyen who wants to get a band 7 overall. In addition to the DA and NA, a grammar test was written which used as its primary corpus student errors from the writing and speaking papers of the diagnostic. This allowed me to identify key areas of difficulty in terms of lexis and grammar and assess all 12 of the students competence in them.

Through the needs analysis and diagnostic testing I have formalised the following problem areas and priorities:
Problems which lost students the most marks Writing Addressing all parts of the prompt (TR, T2) Proof-reading & error correcting effectively To be better able to respond to the prompt To use be better able to use checklists and the error correction code as a way to notice errors and upgrade their own writing. To be better able to use a variety of complex sentences To be better able to present an overview which highlights main trends/ key features. To be able to paraphrase the prompt more effectively in task 1 and 2 Objectives

Demonstrating grammatical range (GRA, T1)

Presenting an overview with information appropriately selected (TA, T1) Lifting too much language from the prompt (T1/T2) Speaking Giving short of minimal answers in Part 1 (i.e. struggling to maintain a flow of speech) Speaking at length without too many noticeable pauses (F&C) Dealing with breakdowns in communication and requesting clarification (F&C) Speaking for the required time in Part 2 (F&C) Demonstrating a wide enough vocabulary in Part 2 (LR)

To be better able to maintain a flow of speech and give more extensive answers in Part 1 To be better to use strategies for dealing with hesitation To be better able to use repair & clarification strategies To be able to plan more effectively for Part 2

To be able to use the one minute planning time before the long turn to brainstorm noncommon lexis & grammar and base their speech on these. To produce syllable-final consonants, word stress in multisyllabic words, stress-timed intonation and chunking more accurately. To produce regular past tenses more accurately

Accuracy of syllable final consonants, word stress in multisyllabic words, L1 interference in intonation and chunking (P) Inaccurate regular past tense pronunciation

(Word count: 989)