The first step is to find out as much as possible about the needs

of the learners. The course planner should establish details about

the learning context as well as personal information about the
learners. Methods of acquiring needs analysis information
include questionnaires, class discussions, learner diaries, one-to-
one tutorials, tests and classroom observation (Hutchinson &
Waters, 1987). It is recommended that more than one means be
used so that there is a balance between objective and subjective
information. There is the possibility that the perceived needs of
the learner may contradict the teacher’s observation. Learners in
a group may also have widely differing needs.Any questionnaire
has to be designed so that it gives objective information and
avoids unnecessary jargon.Although needs analysis was
originally more closely associated with ESP than General
English, Seedhouse (1995) demonstrates that course and
materials design can be based directly on needs analysis in the
General English classroom by discovering motivation, and
psychological and social needs, rather than communicative or
linguistic needs.
A theoretical overview

In many cases syllabus design is a greatly overlooked area of

course planning with many EFL schools and institutions relying
on a textbook as the sole syllabus. Such an outlook eliminates
the need of a time consuming and often-expensive syllabus
design process and is often adequate for many general English
courses where a suitable textbook exists. However, such an
approach ignores the specific learning needs of the target
students, something that could be examined through a needs
analysis (NA) process. Research has shown (Gardener &
Winslow, 1983; Long, 2005; Richterich, 1983; West, 1994) that
there is often a lack of awareness of the existence of NA as a
tool in EFL course design, where the specific needs of students
are difficult to determine. In fact, there are documented cases of
teachers and course planners paying little or no regard to any
concept of need (described by Abbott (1981) as TENOR –
teaching English
for no obvious reason). One area that has a higher regard for NA
is ESP (English for specific purposes) (Jasso-Aguilar, 2005;
West, 1994) as students’ needs are often clearer and of such a
nature that a published textbook would not adequately fulfill
their needs. The formal concept of NA was largely established
during the 1970s by the Council of Europe in the field of ESP
(Richterich, 1973/1980) although the term ‘analysis of needs’
first appeared in India in the 1920s (Howatt, 1984; White,
1988). Defining NA is an oft argued point as ‘‘The very concept
of language needs has never been clearly defined
and remains at best ambiguous’’ (Richterich, 1983, p. 2).
However, in broad terms NA can be described as identifying
‘‘what learners will be required to do with the foreign language
in the target situation, and how learners might best master the
target language during the period of training’’ (West, 1994, p. 1).
Before the 1970s NA was generally very informal and little
research was done as language teachers based their teaching on
‘‘some kind of intuitive or informal analysis of students’ needs’’
(West, 1994, p. 1). The 1970s saw a much more detailed
analysis of NA with Munby (1978) having a considerable
influence with his instrument of profiling students needs by
creating lists and ticking boxes. Munby’s performance-based
approach had its merits but essentially excluded areas that have
been broadened by others since – such as practicalities and
constraints, teaching methods, learning strategies and materials
selection. More recently, task-based NAs are gaining attention
(Gilabert, 2005; Long, 2005; Long & Crookes, 1992, 1993;
Long & Norris, 2000) using multiple sources and methods (Al-
Khatib, 2005; Bosher & Smalkoski, 2002; Jasso-Aguilar, 2005;
Li So-mui & Mead, 2000; Long, 2005; Sullivan & Girginer
2002) to gather quality data. The different sets of data from
these sources/methods can then be triangulated to produce
credible results (Bosher & Smalkoski, 2002; Jasso-Aguilar,
2005; Long, 2005). Focus is now moving away from outsiders’
views (such as pre-experience learners and applied linguists)
which ‘‘focused on the notions and functions supposedly
required to satisfy various occupational language’’ (Long, 2005,
p. 21) to insiders’ views (such as experts of their domain who
therefore have expert insider knowledge, for example, company
employees in the target language situation), although the
majority of NAs continue to rely the views of outsiders
(Gilabert, 2005).