State of the art article

Needs analysis in language teaching

Richard West School of Education, University of Manchester

broader aspects such as needs analysis, methodology

Introduction and evaluation. It therefore seems appropriate to
There have been several surveys of approaches to survey the field of needs analysis in a broad context.
needs analysis in foreign-language teaching (James, This survey concentrates on work relating to English
1974; Jordan, 1977; Chambers, 1980; Cunnings- (for a survey of recent work in other European
worth, 1983; Brindley, 1989; Riddell, 1991; van languages, see van Hest & Oud-de Glas, 1990).
Hest & Oud-de Glas, 1990; Robinson, 1991; Jordan,
forthcoming). During the period of 20 years covered
by these surveys, both the focus and scope of needs Origins
analysis have changed. The dominant focus of early The term 'analysis of needs' first appears in India in
needs analysis was occupational/EOP, but this later the 1920s (see Howatt, 1984: 245; White, 1988:
changed to academic language/EAP (for the origin 12-13; Tickoo, 1988), when Michael West intro-
of the terms EOP and EAP, see T.Johns, 1981: 16). duced the concept to cover two separate and
More recently the focus has shifted again to include potentially conflicting concepts of' need' contribu-
general language learning. The scope of needs ting to the 'surrender value' of learning: what
analysis up to and including Munby (1978) was learners will be required to do with the foreign
syllabus specification derived from target-situation language in the target situation, and how learners
needs, but the scope has since been broadened to might best master the target language during the
include areas specifically excluded by Munby - period of training. West was concerned with
practicalities and constraints, teaching methods and secondary-level learners whose needs, though de-
learning strategies, and, recently, materials selection. terminable in broad terms, could not be defined
This evolution can be summarised by characterising with any great precision and whose teaching is
each of three stages in the development of needs indeed often defined in terms which exclude any
analysis, and to hint at the future by suggesting a concept of need-what Abbott (1980: 123; 1981a:
fourth stage (see table below). 12; 1981 b: 228) calls TENOR (Teaching English for
Much of the later work in needs analysis is either not No Obvious Reason). The concept of need does not
widely known or (Richards, 1984, cited by Nunan seem to reappear for almost 50 years after West, a
1988 a: 17) it is still assumed that curriculum point commented on by Schutz and Derwing
development in language teaching should con- (1981: 30): 'it would seem that most language
centrate on language syllabuses to the exclusion of planners in the past have bypassed a logically

Stage Period Focus Scope of analysis Examples

1 early 1970s EOP target situation analysis Richterich, 1971/1980

ELTDU, 1970
ESP Stuart & Lee, 1972/85

2 later 1970s EAP target situation analysis Jordan & Mackay, 1973
Mackay, 1978

3 1980s ESP & general target situation analysis Tarone & Yule, 1989
language teaching deficiency analysis Allwright & Allwright, 1977
strategy analysis All wright, 1982
means analysis Holliday & Cooke, 1982
language audits Pilbeam, 1979

4 early 1990s ESP integrated/computer-based analyses Jones, 1991

materials selection Nelson, 1993

After training as a teacher in Zambia and teaching English for miners and metallurgists there for five years,
Richard West worked on Business and Engineering ESP projects and materials. He is currently Senior Lecturer
in Education at the University of Manchester. The present article is an expansion of a unit from the distance
M Ed module on teaching ESP offered at Manchester.

1-2

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library & Information Services, Swansea University, on 22 Aug 2017 at 12:42:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800007527
 State of the art: Needs analysis in language teaching
necessary first step: they have presumed to set about
going somewhere without first determining whe-
ther or not their planned destination was reasonable
or proper'. However, the term returns to central
prominence with the advent of ESP, for which
needs analysis has become a key instrument in
course design. The term 'English for Special
Purposes' appeared first at the Makerere Conference
in 1960 (Commonwealth Education Liaison Com-
mittee 1961: 19), and this was soon linked to
concepts of need. Indeed, Halliday, Mclntosh and
Strevens (1964: 189) refer to 'English for Special
Needs', although for them 'need' was defined
purely in linguistic terms as a special language or
register.
Language teachers have frequently based their
teaching on some kind of intuitive or informal
analysis of students' needs (Tarone & Yule, 1989:
21) but the concept of a formal analysis of 'the
requirements which arise from the use of that
language in the multitude of situations which may
arise in the social lives of individuals and adults'
(Richterich, 1973: 32) was established during the
early 1970s, largely as a result of the work of those
associated with the Council of Europe, and it was in
the field of ESP that it was taken up most vigorously.
The take-up was by no means immediate: even
though Strevens mentions 'the requirement that
SP-LT should analyse the needs of the learner' in his
1977 survey of ESP (1977: 157), he offers no
examples of how this might be done (despite his
close association with Munby at that time) and most
of his survey is still concerned with the answer to
the question 'what is the nature of scientific
discourse?'. In Coffey's update of Strevens' survey
(1984:7), needs analysis figures prominently 'largely
due to the far-reaching effects of John Munby's
Communicative syllabus design (1978)'. The size and
scope of Munby's work have meant that needs
analysis is now crucial to any consideration of ESP
course design and almost every modern survey of
ESP (McDonough, 1984; Hutchinson & Waters,
1987; Robinson, 1991) accords it a central place
(Swales, 1985, is a notable exception; see 1985: 177
footnote b for the explanation).
Theoretical basis of needs analysis
Needs analysis is, by its very nature, a pragmatic
activity (Schutz & Derwing, 1981) based on highly
localised situations (Tarone & Yule, 1989: 11).
However, explicitly or implicitly, it has a basis in
theory (Coffey, 1984; McDonough, 1984: 31) or
principle (Robinson, 1991: 11-12) that was largely
established by the Council of Europe (Richterich,
1973/1980; see Council of Europe, 1981, for a
survey) and Munby (1978), although Yalden (1987 b:
107) suggests that there has been little subsequent
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library & Information Services, Swansea University, on 22 Aug 2017 at 12:42:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800007527
theoretical discussion. The broad underlying theor-
etical basis is that of curriculum development (see
Rodgers, 1980: 148; Littlewood, 1992), which,
according to Holec (1985: 263-4), has since the
early 1960s followed three main tendencies: im-
proving teaching methods, adapting the teaching to
the type of learning public, and training the learner
how to learn. Needs analysis has been rooted in the
second of these tendencies and, more recently, the
third.
More narrowly, any system of needs analysis is
related to the theory of the nature of language from
which the categories of language employed in the
procedure derive (Tarone & Yule, 1989: 12-20).
The selection of language categories constitutes the
first step of the six-step model of course design
proposed by Coffey (1984: 7-8):
1 selection of theory = nature of language:
| principles of restric-
tione.g. communicative
functions
2 needs analysis a matching of vocat-
\. ional needs with the
categories established
3 language realisation the transforming of the
| functions, skills previous-
ly identified into lan-
guage items
4 course design = the ordering of the lan-
l g u a g e items, by their
relative importance and
their sequencing
5 course construction = the devising of strat-
l egies and techniques
6 classroom teaching
In Munby's case, the theoretical bases of his needs
analysis model were contemporary views on the
nature of communicative competence, derived
principally from Hymes (1971). It would be possible
to build a model of needs analysis on a base of
linguistic competence (as posited by Da vies, 1977:
36; Robinson, 1991: 11), taking both target needs
and present levels of competence into account. Such
a model would, in effect, be a study of interlanguage
and so we may see error analysis, interlanguage
studies and grammatically-based diagnostic testing
(e.g. Cooper, 1970) as the ancestors of needs analysis
(Schutz & Derwing, 1981: 30), followed by other
types of analysis, notably register analysis, discourse
analysis and genre analysis (Jordan, forthcoming). It
is no accident that needs analysis emerged at a time
when communicative approaches to language and
language learning were displacing grammar-based
approaches (e.g. Wilkins, 1976: 55, who noted:
' The first step in the construction of any language
syllabus or course is to define objectives. Wherever
possible these will be based on an analysis of the
needs of the learners and these needs, in turn, will be
expressed in terms of the particular types of
 State of the art: Needs analysis in language teaching
communication in which the learner will need to Coffey's stages (1984: 8). Coffey ended his discussion
engage'. See also Schutz and Derwing, 1981: 31). of the theoretical basis of ESP by predicting little
Despite its base in concepts of communicative change:' There is a need for refinement, for allowing
competence, Munby's model is essentially perform- real-life circumstances and validated successes to
ance related, with his categories of communicative have their proper effect on theory, but in the
activity and communicative event which are cat- communicative idea ESP surely reached its maturity.
egories of real-world language use rather than At any rate, there is nothing else in sight at the
elements of a construct of communicative com- moment'. Even in 1984 this statement was de-
petence. Munby was here following others in the batable: theories of language learning methodology
field of needs analysis (ELTDU, 1970; Bung, 1973; (Phillips, 1981; Crocker, 1981), materials design
ELTDU, 1975; Allwright & Allwright, 1977) in (Phillips & Shettlesworth, 1978) and language-
adopting a 'performance repertoire' model (Hut- learning styles and strategies (James, 1980 a) were
chinson & Waters, 1980) and subsequent models of becoming well established and learning styles had
needs analysis have largely adopted a similar already been incorporated into needs analysis
theoretical base. However, this performance-based procedures (notably in Allwright, 1982), thus
approach has long been questioned by Hutchinson bringing Coffey's fifth stage (course construction)
and Waters (1980; 1987), who have argued that 'it within the scope of needs analysis. It is this area of
is necessary to examine the underlying competencesecond-language acquisition and strategy analysis
which the learner must bring to... the study of any which has provided an additional and important
specialised subject' and 'if we are to prepare the theoretical basis for needs analysis in the 1980s (see
overseas student adequately for, say, technical Ellis & Sinclair, 1989b: Nunan, 1989).
instruction, what he needs to acquire is this assumed
competence' (1980: 178 original emphasis). The Fundamental questions in needs
concept of underlying competence has now been analysis
extended from pre-intermediate technical ESP to
higher-level EAP (Waters & Waters, 1992), yet it In any needs analysis procedure 'we find ourselves
remains evident that the components of any faced with a number of unavoidable questions to
underlying competence are empirical categories which one must, in one way or another, find
derived from observation or introspection rather answers ...These questions with their possible
than theoretical elements of the same order as, say, answers are a prerequisite to all identification meth-
Canale and Swain's (1980) discourse competence or odology' (Richterich, 1983: 1). These fundamental
questions and possible answers are surveyed in this
Bachman's (1990: 84107) language competence
section.
and strategic competence. Attempts have been made
to derive needs analysis procedures from such
theoretical bases: Tarone and Yule (1989: 31-60) What and why
apply Canale and Swain's model of communicative
competence to needs analysis by demonstrating that There has remained a great reluctance to agree on a
various needs studies relate to one of four 'levels of definition of needs: 'The very concept of language
generality': (a) global (i.e. the situations in which needs has never been clearly defined and remains at
learners will need to use the language), (b) rhetorical best ambiguous' (Richterich, 1983: 2; see also van
(the typical way in which information is organised Hest & Oud-de Glas, 1990: 7). Widdowson (1979,
in any language-related activity), (c) grammatical- cited by Bowers, 19806: 66) and Brindley (1989:
rhetorical (those language forms which realise the 65) identify the main source of this ambiguity as the
information structure of the language activity), and distinction or even contradiction between various
(d) grammatical (the frequency with which language concepts of need: necessities or demands (also called
forms are used in different communication sit- objective, product-oriented or perceived needs), learners'
uations) (see James 1973, summarised in Mackay & wants (subjective, or felt needs) and the methods of
Bosquet, 1981: 12-13, for a very similar classi- bridging the gap between these two (process-oriented
fication). Tarone and Yule's model in effect needs). The term 'needs' is often now seen as an
incorporates register analysis (Barber, 1962; Palmer, umbrella term (Richterich, 1983: 2; Porcher, 1983a:
1981 a) and discourse analysis (P. Robinson, 1981; 22; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987: 55) covering
Palmer, 1981/)) as layers of target-situation analysis several interpretations. Hutchinson and Waters
and present-situation analysis, the findings of which (1987) offer a useful classification of needs which
are then available as input data for the syllabus may be seen to reflect differing viewpoints and to
design stage. give rise to different forms of needs analysis (see
Target-situation analysis and present-situation James, 1974: 76; Alderson, 1980: 135; Bowers,
analysis are essentially concerned with establishing 19806: 67; Mackay & Bosquet, 1981: 6-7; All-
language items to be taught and, as such, these wright, 1982: 24; McDonough, 1984: 35-40 and
procedures relate only, at best, to the first four of Robinson, 1991: 7-8 for different classifications):

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library & Information Services, Swansea University, on 22 Aug 2017 at 12:42:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800007527
 State of the art: Needs analysis in language teaching
(a) Necessities are ' the type of need determined by
the demands of the target situation, that is, what the
learner has to know in order to function effectively
in the target situation' (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987:
55). Richterich (1973/1980: 32) described these as
objective needs which ' can more or less be assumed to
be general from an analysis of typical everyday
situations' and any such needs analysis approach
identifying these necessities is frequently known as
target-situation analysis (see Chambers, 1980). It is
apparent, however, that many language courses are
not terminus courses and that interim objectives
short of the necessities of the target situation will
have to be set. In such cases, it would seem better to
regard the course objectives as short- or medium-
term goals or aims rather than target necessities, and
the needs analysis procedure would therefore be one
of goal setting (Frankel, 1983: 123) or aim definition
(Richterich, 1973/1980: 32). Goals or aims of this
type may be determined by the end-of-course test
or examination (Tarone & Yule, 1989: 40), so that
it becomes important to determine the test require-
ments in such a way that they represent practical
and useful learning goals (Morrow, 1983: 1056)
providing beneficial washback and washforward
effects. At the other end of the scale, language audits
may establish target needs in terms of key assets, i.e.
'the need for foreign languages as a " k e y " to new
possibilities and opportunities, e.g. new markets'
(van Hest & Oud-de Glas, 1990: 7).
Target needs may be defined at three levels (van
Hest & Oud-de Glas, 1990: 8-9). At its most basic,
the target-situation analysis may go little further
than identifying which languages are needed. Other
surveys may go further and establish needs in terms
of skills priorities (spoken German, written French,
etc). Most, however, define needs in situational or
functional terms (listening to lectures, speaking on
the telephone, writing business letters, etc). Some
procedures then go even further to specify what
grammatical or lexical language components are
necessary in order to realise a particular function.
(b) Lacks:
To identify necessities alone is not enough... You also need to
know what the learner knows already, so that you can then
decide which of the necessities the learner lacks...The target
proficiency in other words, needs to be matched against the
existing proficiency of the learners. The gap between the
two can be referred to as the learner's lacks (Hutchinson &
Waters, 1987: 55-56; see also Hutchinson, Waters & Breen,
1979).
It is, then, lacks which determine the syllabus:
' rhetorical structures are not included in the syllabus
simply because they exist, but only if they are either
seen to cause comprehension difficulty... or if
knowing how to handle the particular rhetorical
structure can help in the reading process' (Alderson,
1980: 136). In this survey, any needs analysis
procedure adopting this approach will be called
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library & Information Services, Swansea University, on 22 Aug 2017 at 12:42:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800007527
deficiency analysis (see Allwright & Allwright, 1977;
Abbott, 1978: 99).
(c) Wants: Hutchinson & Waters' third class of
needs is wants: ' what the learners want or feel they
need' (1987: 57). These needs are personal and are
therefore sometimes referred to as subjective needs
'which cannot be said to be general...are quite
unforeseeable and therefore indefinable' (Richterich,
1973/1980: 32). It is often pointed out that these
may differ, even conflict, with necessities as perceived
by a sponsor or employer, and lacks as identified by
the teacher. This, however, does not mean that
wants are any less real and ways will have to be
found to accommodate them. While this may be
difficult in cases where the wants are idiosyncratic or
even opposed to the aims of the intended course
(Mead, 1980, cited in Hutchinson & Waters, 1987),
there may be wants which are perceived by the
majority of the potential participants which can be
incorporated into the syllabus or methodology,
especially if this is negotiated between instructor
and learner. A common example of this is the
demand for speaking, which 'normally emerges as
the least needed skill [for EAP students, but]... if not
a need, speaking is often a want, since in many
students' opinions oral proficiency is the best
indicator of mastery of a language' (Robinson,
1991: 105; see also Chamberlain & Flanagan, 1978:
42-3; Chitravelu, 1980: ix; Schutz & Derwing,
1981: 4 1 ; Coleman, 1988: 163). Deficiency analysis,
which asks learners to identify their own learning
priorities, should throw up any such wants.
(d) Learning strategies: Hutchinson and Waters
(1987: 60-2) here identify two types of learning
needs which may usefully be separated, the first
being the learner's preferred learning strategies for
progressing from where they are (present situ-
ation/lacks/deficiencies) to where they want to go
(target situation/necessities). In this survey ins-
truments designed to identify preferred learning
strategies will be discussed under the heading of
strategy analysis (Allwright, 1982; Widdowson,
1983). Once again, these needs may be a source
of conflict because the teacher's interpretation
of suitable strategies may differ from learner's
expectations or 'preconceptions about the form a
language learning experience should take' (Tarone
& Yule, 1989: 9).
(e) Constraints: The second element included by
Hutchinson and Waters when considering the
decision-making process in a needs analysis is the
potential and constraints of the learning situation.
These are the external factors which may include
the resources (staff, accommodation, time) available,
the prevailing attitudes or culture, and the materials,
aids and methods available. These were all areas
deliberately ignored in early approaches to needs
analysis (e.g. Munby, 1978) but they are now seen
as central to the process of course design and have
 State of the art: Needs analysis in language teaching
come to be known as means analysis (Holliday & their needs, although learners' perceptions of their
Cooke, 1982; Holliday, 1984), for 'if the resources own needs may be ill-founded, inaccurate or
are fixed then the objectives themselves must be incomplete, and courses devised by off-line analyses
negotiable' (Crocker, 1981: 14). of this sort may frequently have to be reviewed as
(/) The language audit: This is the sixth type of needs learners' perceptions evolve. Early accounts of off-
analysis (Pilbeam, 1979; van Hest & Oud-de Glas, line needs analysis procedures include ELTDU
1990; Lynch et al., 1993); it is a large-scale survey (1970); Stuart and Lee (1972/85); Mackay (1978);
undertaken by a company, an organisation or even and Munby (1978).
a country to determine what languages ought to be (b) The second answer is 'on-line' or 'first-day'
learnt, for what reasons, by how many people, to needs analysis, which takes place when trainees
what level, in what type of institution, by what arrive to start their course. The advantages and
methods, at what cost, and so on. These are big and disadvantages are the converse of the off-line
often political questions that were originally deemed approach: the trainer or course designer has little
outside the scope of needs analysis (Munby, 1978) time to prepare a detailed course outline, but it is
but which now give it a much broader remit possible to ensure that the information obtained is
making it a matter of language planning. In essence, a full, relevant and accurate, although (as with all
language audit differs from a needs analysis in scale: analyses based on input from trainees) its fullness,
needs analysis is used to determine the various needs relevance and accuracy may be short-lived. An early
of an individual or group; a language audit defines and detailed account of an on-line analysis procedure
the longer-term language-training requirements of is given by Hughes and Knight, 1977.
a company, country or professional sector, and can (c) The third approach is a response to the limi-
thus be seen as a strategy or policy document. The tations of the second and, in particular, the realisation
language audit may include all the levels or layers that learners' needs, or, at least, their perceptions
of a needs analysis (a-e above), so that, say, the
of their needs, will change as the course proceeds
strategy analysis component would seek to identify
(Richterich & Chancerel, 1977: 9; Chambers,
delivery modes which are appropriate for the
1980: 28-30; Holec, 1980: 35; Richterich,
majority of learners or trainees and which would
1983: 5; Coleman, 1988: 157; Jordan, 1993: 74).
then become company practice or ministry policy.
Awareness of both the demands of the target
Each of these approaches to needs analysis will be
examined further below. situation and their own shortcomings become more
clearly focused. So, for example, Jordan (1993)
reports that EAP students attending a pre-sessional
When course expect academic writing to be the most
difficult skill when they transfer to their subject
At what point in the course should needs analysis be departments. After one term, however, the majority
carried out ? There seem to be three or four possible find academic speaking to be the main difficulty,
answers to this question - before, at the start and findings supported by Geoghegan (1983) and
during the training course (Hoadley-Maidment, Christison and Krahnke (1986). In addition, the
1983: 43 adds end-of-course). It has been standard instructors' perceptions of the learners' needs and
practice to conduct as much of the needs analysis as possible solutions may emerge as the course pro-
possible before the start of the course (Robinson, gresses (Henderson & Skehan, 1980: 38). A process
1991: 15) but it is now generally accepted that the of on-going needs re-analysis is therefore required
procedure should be repeated during the course, so in response to these changing perceptions, so that
that needs analysis becomes an on-going process. both learner and teacher can identify new or short-
This is a reflection of the now-common acceptance term priorities. It is also valuable from a motivational
that a concern with process is a ' good thing' in all point of view to have learners reformulate their
areas of language teaching. objectives periodically (Richterich, 1979: 74). It has
(a) The first answer has been called 'off-line' also been pointed out (Richterich, 1983: 3; Nunan,
analysis (Chambers, 1980: 28) and involves analysis 1988 a: 6; Jordan & Mackay, 1973) that learners
in advance of the course so that the course designer often find it difficult to articulate their needs and
has ample time to prepare a syllabus and select or preferences, especially in the initial stages of the
develop appropriate training materials. Typically, course (see also Ellis & Sinclair, 1989 b: 48; Sinclair
off-line approaches build up a picture of the target & Ellis, 1992: 213), and so on-going re-analysis is
situation through questions addressed to sponsors necessary. Finally, frequent but small-scale surveys
(e.g. training managers) or those currently working may well provide a more accurate picture than
in the target situation, who may or may not have an elaborate, large-scale procedures, 'since each new
accurate view of learners' language requirements. attempt can draw on and refine the last' (Gardner &
Alternative approaches to off-line analysis require Winslow, 1983: 75).
learners (if they are accessible and/or if it is thought
desirable) to complete questionnaires identifying

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library & Information Services, Swansea University, on 22 Aug 2017 at 12:42:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800007527
 State of the art: Needs analysis in language teaching
1981 on the arguments for and against the separation
Who of needs analysis and teaching). Alternatively, they
The question to be answered here is 'who should may involve the learner (Allwright & Allwright,
decide what the language needs are?'. There are 1977; Abbott, 1978: 98) more centrally in the needs
three principal parties involved in what has come to analysis process. The involvement of the learner in
be called the needs analysis triangle (Hoadley- the process that Robinson (1991: 14) calls 'par-
Maidment, 1980: 1 and 1983: 40; see also Johns & ticipatory needs analysis' has several advantages
Dudley-Evans, 1980: 8): which have been catalogued by Nunan (1988 a: 5):
Learners come to have a more realistic idea of
what can be achieved in a given course.
teacher-perceived needs student-perceived needs Learning comes to be seen as the gradual accretion
of achievable goals.
Students develop greater sensitivity to their role as
language learners and their rather vague notions of
what it is to be a learner become much sharper.
Self-evaluation becomes much sharper.
Classroom activities can be seen to relate to
company-perceived needs learners' real-life needs.
Skills development can be seen as a gradual, rather
Ideally, these three teacher, student and sponsor than an all-or-nothing, process.
interact in a cooperative way (Hoadley-Maidment, (For other discussion of learner-centred needs analy-
1980; Hawkey, 1983), although, as Jones (1991: sis, see Tarone & Yule, 1989: 46-47; see Kennedy,
163) points out, each party may also impose 1980: 120, Richterich, 1973/1980: 47, Richterich,
constraints. Richterich (1979: 73) states that 'any- 1983: 3, and Porcher, 1983 a: 19 for pitfalls.)
body' can identify language needs and he clarifies However, if needs analysis is to be a cooperative
this statement by listing nine combinations of the process, there is a need for a common language
three principal parties working in cooperation. between trainers and trainees (see Hoadley-
There are also various informants or sources for needs Maidment, 1980: 3 and 1983: 40-1 on the use of
analysis, notably former students (Allen & Spada, the mother tongue in needs analysis) or for a shared
1983: 135), those already working in the target terminology for describing objectives which is
situation (Richterich, 1973/1980: 47; Tarantino, accessible to both language specialists and non-
1988: 34) and specialist/native-speaker informants specialists (Crocker, 1981: 15; Gardner & Winslow,
(Smith & Arun, 1980: 211; Price, 1980; Crocker, 1983: 72; Yates, 1977: 47; Harbord, forthcoming).
1981: 9; Farringdon, 1981: 66-7; Mackay & At the other end of the scale, employers and
Bosquet, 1981: 8; Bheiss, 1988; Tarone & Yule, governments have had to formulate or re-evaluate
1989: 33). Porcher (1983a: 18) stresses the im- their language-training policies in the light of
portance of having the maximum number of sources changing economic or political circumstances, and
of information if the identification of needs is to be have commissioned language audits from experts in
reliable. order to determine their needs and the most efficient
Lurking behind the educational institution/ ways of achieving them (Emmans et al., 1974). One
company/sponsor is the figure of the 'specialist needs outcome of such a language audit might be a re-
analyst', and it is the role of this 'expert' in applied consideration of who the learners actually are: ' the
linguistics which has sometimes been viewed with most effective way of bringing about change in
suspicion as 'isolating needs analysis from other language use in one part of a system may be to
aspects of teaching and learning' (Swales, 1985: provide input in a quite different part of the
177 b; see also Hawkey, 1983: 79; Tarone & Yule, system... we cannot take it for granted that the
1989: 4 and 21), leading to potential conflict. "learners" in a large organisation will be easily
Hutchinson and Waters (1980) lay the blame for this recognisable as such' (Coleman, 1988: 167).
separation of needs analysis from pedagogic concerns
on elaborate analysis models requiring an expert
analysis (e.g. Munby, 1978) and a feature of later For whom
models has been a reaction against sophistication The usual assumption is that the needs analysis is
towards simpler models (Gardner & Winslow, 1983: carried out for the benefit of the user, i.e. the student
74). Some of these place the teacher in the central or trainee. However, language audits are more
role (Richards & Rodgers, 1986: 78; Tarone & Yule, likely to be carried out from the viewpoint of the
1989: 21; but see Mackay & Bosquet, 1981: 7 for requirer - institutions or even countries needing the
spurious 'teacher-created needs', Bowers, 19806: services of trained personal with identifiable foreign-
73; Bachman & Strick, 1981: 45 on teachers' language knowledge (van Hest & Oud-de Glas,
preconceived ideas; and Chambers & McDonough, 1990: 8).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library & Information Services, Swansea University, on 22 Aug 2017 at 12:42:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800007527
 State of the art: Needs analysis in language teaching
How
Needs analysis is carried out through a series of steps
or phases - Schutz and Derwing (1981: 35) list eight
such phases - but perhaps the crucial one is' selecting
the information-gathering instrument'. There are
many ways to carry out a needs analysis ranging
from major 'scientific' surveys to informal tools put
together by an individual teacher for and with
his/her class (Richterich, 1983: 9). Of course, any
project may employ more than one method,
although ' the scope and objectives of the inquiry
will largely determine the nature of the in-
vestigation, and hence the choice of the most
appropriate investigatory instrument' (Schutz &
Derwing, 1981: 37). Richterich (1983: 9) even goes
as far as to say that the method used in each case
must be unique if it is to accommodate all the
variables of persons, institutions, time and place.
Needs analysis methods can be classified in various
ways. Berwick (1989: 56-61) makes a distinction
between inductive (i.e. observations and case studies
from which courses can be generalised) and, more
common, deductive methods (i.e. questionnaires,
surveys or other data-gathering instruments which
provide various forms of information as the basis of
course design). Berwick does not catalogue the
methods for gathering data for needs analyses, but
Richterich and Chancerel (1977: 11), Richterich
(1983: 12), van Hest and Oud-de Glas (1990: 12-13)
and Jordan (1977: 13-18; forthcoming) list various
methods covering both inductive and deductive
approaches. Jordan's (forthcoming) list includes ten
methods of collecting data for a needs analysis:
(1) Pre-course placement/diagnostic tests Pre-course
placement tests estimate the approximate language
level of the student, but the main application of such
tests is selection and for this reason diagnostic
information tends to be limited. The Cambridge
Syndicate's International English Language Test-
ing System is one of the few public tests providing
results in the form of a profile, enabling the teacher
to diagnose areas of weakness and strength according
to skill.
(2) Entry tests on arrival These tests potentially
have greater diagnostic value and are therefore
more precise in identifying learners' language
weaknesses and lacks. Such tests function according
to their underlying construct of language: tests of
underlying linguistic competence (e.g. Chaplen,
1970) may have good predictive validity (James,
19806) but little diagnostic value, while those
covering a broader range of skills (e.g. the English
Language Teaching Development Unit's Test Bat-
tery; see Yates, 1977) may have limitations of
practicality. Placement interviews may lack pre-
cision but provide valuable information akin to that
generated by structured interviews (see 6 below).
(3) Self-placement/diagnostic tests Despite prob-
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library & Information Services, Swansea University, on 22 Aug 2017 at 12:42:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800007527
lems in self-reporting (Jordan, 1977, notes a tendency
for weaker students to over-estimate their language
ability; Blue, 1988, found over- or under-estimation
varied with cultural background), self-assessment
has been used with success to enable learners to
identify their own level of language proficiency and
areas of special priority (see Allwright & Allwright,
1977; Floyd, 1984; Tarantino, 1988, and Brookes &
Grundy, 1990, for examples; see Oskarsson, 1977,
for a survey of procedures; see Ward Goodbody,
1993, for later discussion). Self-assessment may also
present problems when grouping students (but see
Spaventa, 1980).
(4) Observation of classes Yalden (1987a: 132)
suggests classroom observation as an approach
requiring little explanation if ' a checklist or set of
notes is at hand'. She seems to have in mind
observation of learners' classroom performance with
an error-analysis checklist of the type provided for
roleplay by MacGregor (1979) or an evaluation
sheet (North, 1991), or more formal classroom-
observation procedures (Porcher, 1983 a: 19; Fur-
neaux et al., 1991: 767). Jordan's (forthcoming)
summary of the findings of classroom observation
of EAP students in British universities suggests that
this approach is principally of value for deficiency
analysis. He adds that informal class or progress tests
perform a similar function in providing indicators
of present needs or deficiencies.
(5) Surveys based on questionnaires In an early
example, Jordan and Mackay (1973) used a ques-
tionnaire to survey 106 students at two British
universities to assess their learning priorities, and the
questionnaire is now established as the most
common method of needs analysis. Gardner and
Winslow (1983: 74-5) identify objectivity as the
principal advantage of questionnaires but also admit
to expense and a very low (7 %) rate of return plus
a difficulty in achieving a balance between asking
too many questions and asking too few. Classifi-
cations of questionnaires are offered by Richterich
and Chancerel (1977: 59-77) and Mackay and
Bosquet (1981: 9), and analyses of their advantages
and disadvantages for needs analysis are given by
Hoadley-Maidment (1983: 41); Schutz & Derwing
(1981: 37) and Low (1991). Basic rules for question-
naire construction are given by Utley (1992: 40).
(6) Structured interviews Jones (1991: 155) refers to
the 'intrinsic superiority' of the interview as an
information-gathering technique for needs analysis.
Mackay (1978) points out the advantages of the
interview over the questionnaire: completeness of
coverage and the opportunity to clarify and extend
because of the physical presence of the analyst
(although this requirement is also the principal
shortcoming). Porcher (1983a: 18) adds economy,
Gardner and Winslow (1983: 74) include familiarity,
degree of co-operation and lower levels of specialist
training, and Hoadley-Maidment (1983: 41) the
 State of the art: Needs analysis in language teaching
establishment of rapport. Richterich and Chancerel
(1977: 78) offer a classification of interviews and
guidelines for their content and conduct are offered
by Hoadley-Maidment (1980, 1983: 46-51) and
Utley (1992: 402). Discussions of the advantages and
disadvantages of this approach are given by Mackay
and Bosquet (1981: 9), Schutz and Derwing (1981:
37), Hoadley-Maidment (1983: 41) and Jones (1991:
155). Interviews may be combined with ques-
tionnaires to exploit the advantages of each method.
(7) Learner diaries O'Brien (1989) analysed 15 EAP
student diaries and found that they tended to focus
on four areas: course input, tutor performance,
learner performance and external factors affecting
study (home-related anxiety, food and accom-
modation, and personal variables). The first area, in
particular, could provide the basis for students and
tutors to work towards a negotiated syllabus. A
more structured survey of diaries was carried out by
Parkinson and Ho well-Richardson (1990) under
four headings: in-class activities, out-of-class activities,
my problems and what I have learnt. The findings
suggest that there is' a high correlation between rate
of improvement and the amount of time which
students spent outside class in social interaction with
native speakers of English'. In addition to student
diaries, teacher diaries (Porcher, 1983 a: 19-20;
Bailey, 1990; Porter et al., 1990; McDonough,
1994) can be a source of needs analysis. Diaries,
however, are essentially retrospective, i.e. last year's
diaries are useful when planning next year's course,
and this is an obvious limitation.
(8) Case studies, i.e. in-depth investigations of the
learning needs and difficulties of individual students
or groups (Richterich (ed.), 1983, is a major source
of such case studies). Schmidt (1981) conducted a
case study of lecture comprehension and essay
writing of an advanced student and James (1984)
carried out an investigation with a Brazilian student
writing a thesis on the sociology of medicine con-
cluding: 'Students need help with what they find
most difficult. What they find most difficult can
only be discovered by observing them at work on
the job'. Dudley-Evans (1988) extends James' work
with a case study of four students' theses and
suggests that the language tutor may be able to give
clearer advice on the ' move structure' of a thesis
than the subject tutor. The advantages of the case
study as a means of needs analysis, especially in
providing a process-oriented definition of needs, are
discussed by Schmidt (1981: 208-9).
(9) Final evaluation/feedback At the end of the
course, a test or evaluation provides information for
the student on the effectiveness of learning which
can be used as the basis for future self-improvement
(Hoadley-Maidment, 1983: 43). For the teacher, it
indicates the soundness of the initial needs analysis
and can suggest ways in which future courses could
be improved.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library & Information Services, Swansea University, on 22 Aug 2017 at 12:42:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800007527
(10) Previous research Considerable research has
been conducted into the needs and deficiencies of
certain categories of learners. The research can be
divided into two types: case studies of individuals or
small groups (see Robinson, 1991: 1314 for a
survey; Bell, 1981: 159-70 and Cumaranatunge,
1988, for examples of on-site observation or
'shadowing') and surveys of large groups, notably
those of business people (ELTDU, 1970; Stuart &
Lee, 1972/1985; Lee, 1977: Hagen (ed.), 1988);
doctors and patients (Candlin et al. 1974, 1976, 1981)
and academic students (Jordan & Mackay, 1973;
Jordan & Matthews, 1978; Ostler, 1980). Richterich
(1973/1980: 68-84) offers a classification of groups
of adults with sample needs.
The kind of data to be gathered by the needs
analysis will inevitably vary according to the
instrument used and the purpose of the survey (van
Hest & Oud-de Glas, 1990: 7-13), but most of the
following areas are likely to be covered (Schutz &
Derwing, 1981: 37, who give percentages of total
questions for guidance):
(a) general personal background (7%)
(b) occupational speciality or academic field
(1%)
(c) language background (14%)
(d) attitudinal and motivational factors (8 %)
(e) relevance of language to target use (10%)
(f) priority of basic language skills in target use
(25 %)
(g) functional registers and job tasks in target use
(20%)
(h) course content and method of instruction
(13%)
(i) reaction to project (1 %)
How long
The length of time taken to carry out a needs
analysis will obviously vary with the scale and
method. However, Gardner and Winslow (1983:
76) report that the reason most often given for not
setting up and implementing needs analysis pro-
cedures was pressure on staff time. In part, this
problem stems from a lack of awareness on the part
of institutions and employers of the value or even
existence of needs identification.
Target-situation analysis
The most common form of needs analysis is devoted
to establishing the learners' language requirements
in the occupational or academic situation they are
being prepared for - target situation analysis
(Chambers 1980: 29). The earliest TSA procedures
were designed to determine how much English was
used (Ewer & Hughes-Davies, 1971: 16), usually
using a questionnaire (Mackay, 1978). Surveys of
this kind provided a strong justification for TESP
 State of the art: Needs analysis in language teaching
courses but they did not give a clear picture of what and so it is difficult to repeat during the course, thus
the language was used for. The most widely-used setting initially-perceived needs in stone. The
procedure for providing detailed data about the complexity and impracticality have been enough to
precise uses of the target language by different put many off altogether (Schutz & Derwing, 1981:
groups of personnel was devised by the English 32; Nunan, 1988a: 43; Berwick, 1989: 52). All
Language Teaching Development Unit (ELTDU, subsequent systems of needs analysis have striven for
1970) and subsequently adopted by others (e.g. simplicity the systems of Holliday and Cooke
Stuart & Lee, 1972/85; Gardner & Winslow, 1983; (1982), for instance, start with a blank piece of
Hagen (ed.), 1988). This procedure sub-divides the paper, and Harbord (forthcoming) makes use of a
four traditional language skills and so arrives at a 'Chinese take-away' approach, i.e. clients choose a
classification of 20 'activities' to cover all business selection of dishes from a set menu of 14 modules.
and commercial situations. Some of these surveys Learner centredness. Despite Munby's claim, his CNP
were carried out on a vast scale and obtained data is not learner-centred (Nunan, 1988a: 24): the
from training or personnel managers, but the starting point may be the learner but the model
advantage of scale must be balanced against the fact collects data about the learner rather than from the
that the data were collected at second-hand. learner. The very sophistication of the variables and
The most well-known approach to TSA was that their associated inventories and taxonomies tends to
devised by Munby (1978) for the British Council. mean that the profile is drawn up by a needs analysis
The basis of Munby's model is a two-part instrument specialist with limited reference to the participant,
consisting of a communicative needs processor which is what White (1988: 89) calls a 'hands-ofF approach.
then converted into a communicative competence As a reaction, more recent needs analysis procedures
specification. Munby aimed to be systematic and have been developed which deliberately adopt a
detailed where ELTDU was brief and simple; very different starting point, reasserting the value of
ELTDU concentrated on 'activities', whereas this is the judgement of the teacher (Tarone & Yule, 1989:
the one component ('events') for which Munby 21) or involving the learner from the start (e.g.
offers no inventory. The Munby model is well Allwright & Allwright, 1977) without the re-
enough known not to need explanation here - brief quirement for a needs analysis expert. At the other
accounts are available from Munby himself (1977) end of the spectrum, Coleman (1988: 156) notes
and Hawkey (1980a and b), and the model has been Munby's 'tendency to idealise the individual lan-
converted into a four-page questionnaire by Harkess guage learner', making large-scale application of
(reproduced in West, 1992: 75-82). Munby's work the model to the analysis of needs of heterogeneous
has attracted a lot of attention as 'the most groups problematic.
comprehensive' approach to needs analysis (Dickin- Constraints. Munby saw constraints as matters to be
son, 1987: 90) and 'a watershed for the field of considered after the needs analysis procedure had
LSP' (Riddell, 1991: 73; Hutchinson & Waters, been worked through, leading to an inevitable
1987: 54), but much of this attention has been 'compromise phase' (Mackay & Bosquet, 1981: 16;
critical (Swales, 1980: 68-9; Davies, 1981a and b; see also Trim 1973/1980: 22; Ellis & Sinclair,
Hawkey, 1983: 84; Coffey, 1984: 7; Hutchinson & 1989 b: 49) where what is needed has to be
Waters, 1987: 12 & 54; Coleman, 1988: 156; balanced against what is feasible. These constraints
White, 1988: 88-9; Nunan, 1988 a: 24). The rigour were classified (Munby, 1978: 217) as socio-political
and complexity of the Munby model tended to halt (e.g. status of the target language), logistical
rather than advance development in the field of (financial constraints, numbers of teachers available),
needs analysis: 'real advance in this area that was administrative (time available), psycho-pedagogic
originally seen as being so critical to ESP is now (previous learning methods) and methodological
lacking' (Chambers, 1980: 25). However, it is now (recommended methods and materials available).
possible to see that the subsequent developments in Many (e.g. Frankel, 1983: 119; Hawkey, 1983: 84)
needs analysis have either been derived from Munby felt that these practical constraints should be
(Dickinson 1987: 90) or in many ways been a considered at the start of the needs-analysis process
reaction to the shortcomings of Munby's model. and, in later statements, Munby revised his view
Discussion of these shortcomings may be sum- somewhat, allowing that 'political factors affecting
marised under four headings. the target language and the homogeneity of the
Complexity. Munby's attempt to be systematic and learner group should be applied at the needs analysis
comprehensive inevitably made his instrument stage' (1984: 64, added emphasis). Nevertheless, it
inflexible, complex and time consuming (Coffey, was Munby's failure to consider such constraints in
1984: 7; Frankel, 1983: 122; McDonough, 1984: his 1978 model that led to the development of means
33). It has been estimated that it can take two full analysis (Holliday & Cooke, 1982; Holliday, 1984).
weeks to work through (Carrier, 1983: 3, but see Language. One criticism is that Munby fails to
Porcher, 1983 a: 15 for indications that any large- provide a procedure for converting the learner
scale needs analysis is likely to be a lengthy process) profile into a language syllabus (Richards, 1984). It

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library & Information Services, Swansea University, on 22 Aug 2017 at 12:42:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800007527
 State of the art: Needs analysis in language teaching
was also somewhat strange that Munby should
adopt classifications of language in his skills selection
process that were derived from social English,
especially the work of Wilkins (1976) and the
Council of Europe (van Ek, 1975). The work of
Candlin et al. (1974 a-d, 1976, 1981; see also Ranney,
1992) clearly demonstrated that ESP language
functions are related to 'job-specific tasks' (Candlin
et al., 1976: 246) and, as such, are likely to differ
from those used in social or general discourse,
although categories relating to business socialising
are prominent in most surveys. It is also clear that
the language used in real-world ESP situations
differs from that predicted by course designers
(Williams, 1988, on business meetings; Mason,
1989, on service encounters; Lynch & Anderson,
1991, on seminars; Jones, 1991, on technical
employees). It is for this reason that subsequent
needs-analysis procedures have tended not to work
with a pre-ordained inventory of language items,
and certainly not items derived from non-ESP
contexts.
Deficiency analysis
The approaches to needs analysis that have been
developed to take account of learners' present
needs/wants as well as the requirements of the
target situation, may be called analyses of learners'
deficiencies or lacks (Allwright, 1982: 24; Robinson,
1991: 9 refers to this process as combined target-
situation analysis and present-situation analysis):
'start from the target situation and design the
curriculum around the gap between the present
abilities of the target trainees and the needs of the
situation in which they will find themselves at the
end of the training programme' (Smith & Arun,
1980: 210). Most systems taking this approach
include two central components: (a) an inventory of
potential target needs expressed in terms of activities,
and (b) a scale that is used to establish (and
subsequently re-establish) the priority that should be
given to each activity. For example, the ELTDU
system (Yates, 1977) has 27 activities, all described
on an eight-point attainment scale (see Carroll &
West, 1989, and Alderson, 1991, for more on similar
banded scales). In a less complex system, Allwright
and Allwright (1977) list 12 activities that, on past
experience, were judged to be potential needs for
doctors visiting Britain - reading medical textbooks,
writing medical papers, giving papers/lectures
at medical conferences, etc. Learners are first asked
to establish whether or not each potential need is an
actual need, and then to establish their present level
of difficulty ( = deficiency) in each activity on a
none/some/a lot scale. A similar procedure is
described by Shaw (1982), while Richards (1990:
29) provides an extract from a questionnaire where
learners are asked to indicate how frequently each
10
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library & Information Services, Swansea University, on 22 Aug 2017 at 12:42:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800007527
task should be taught, ranging from not at all to 7 or
more times per semester.
A refinement of the Allwright system of com-
bined present-situation analysis and target-situation
analysis is illustrated by Bheiss (1988), who adopted
a more formal procedure for establishing syllabus
priorities. This system has three components: (a) a
list of potential target-situation skills supplied by a
specialist informant, in Bheiss's case a university
nursing tutor; (b) a needs questionnaire using a ' 0 =
unnecessary to 4 = essential' scale to establish target-
situation need for each of the sub-skills; (c) a lacks
questionnaire using a '0 = no difficulty to 4 = very
difficult' scale to establish the present-situation
deficiency of each of the sub-skills. Each ques-
tionnaire is given to either specialist tutors or
students and the overall needs and lacks of the group
are calculated. Learning priorities are then estab-
lished by multiplying the two scores together,
which has the effect of accentuating the scores at
either end of the scale.
Other aspects of deficiency analysis may include
discovering whether students are required to do
something in the target language which they cannot
do in their mother tongue: ' Teaching a student to
do something in English which he or she can already
do in Spanish is a very different problem from
teaching him or her something in English which he
or she cannot do in Spanish' (Alderson, 1980: 135).
Strategy analysis
As was noted at the start of this survey, the 1980s
saw the extension of needs analysis from what
(syllabus content) into how: 'language tutors spe-
cifically need to know the preferred learning styles
and content expectations their students hold when
they learn a language' (James, 1980 a: 8; see Mackay
& Bosquet, 1981:17-18 +appendix 2 for'classroom
procedures: strategies and associated techniques'
selected by teachers but with student feedback
questionnaire). The obvious focus for this analysis is
methodology (Nunan, 1988 a: 17) but related areas
of relevance in a strategy analysis (Nunan, 1988 a:
189-91 developed from Brindley 1984) are pre-
ferences in terms of grouping size, extent of
homework, learning in/out of class, learning styles,
correction preferences, use of audio/visual sources,
and methods of assessment.
It is learning strategies which have been the major
focus of attention: ' there is a growing recognition
within the profession that specification of the end
products (the syllabus design component of the
curriculum) must also be accompanied by spe-
cifications of methodology (that is indications on
how to reach that end point)' (Nunan, 1988a: 17).
Allwright (1982) was a pioneer in this area (see
Dickinson, 1987: 93-4 for discussion) and sub-
sequent instruments of analysis have become ever
 State of the art: Needs analysis in language teaching
more sophisticated: Oxford (1990: 283-300) offers a
comprehensive 'strategy inventory for language
learning' (SILL), with a diagnostic profile designed
to interpret a learner's results in terms of currently-
preferred strategies. Tarone and Yule (1989: 9)
discuss the conflict that may arise between teachers'
and learners' expectations and suggest that there
may be three solutions -fight 'em, join 'em or channel
'em. The problem is particularly acute where learners
bring with them inefficient learning strategies, and
this situation is well documented (summarised by B.
Robinson, 1981: 29). Robinson himself cites rote
learning as one such strategy and several writers
(Henderson & Skehan, 1980: 35; Chamberlain,
1980: 105; Watt, 1980: 40; Hawkey & Nakornchai,
1980: 73; Dudley-Evans & Swales, 1980: 93;
Bowers, 1980a: 110; Blue, 1981: 59; Hoadley-
Maidment, 1983: 39) note that many learners take a
passive, non-participatory, teacher-dependent at-
titude towards language learning (type 1 learners in
the classification offered by James, 1980<J: 13).
Tarantino (1988) and Strevens (1988: 40) show that
previous school learning experience influences both
proficiency and learning style, while James (1980 a)
suggests that learning styles relate to cultural
experience - the culture in which learners have
learned to succeed and the one in which they hope
to succeed. Where these two cultures differ (what
Dudley-Evans & Swales, 1980: 91 call 'education
shock'), there is potential for conflict, especially
where the learner is willing to make only minimal
or negligible changes in learning processes. Some
writers have gone further and attempted 'cultural
profiles' of learners from various backgrounds
(Hawkey & Nakornchai, 1980; Dudley-Evans &
Swales, 1980; Reid, 1987). Brew (1980:123) suggests
that 'creating an atmosphere of dialogue where
students can be helped to articulate and explore for
themselves their attempts to make sense of the
learning environment is important'. The range of
learning/teaching styles selected for any course
obviously has implications for learner-teacher rel-
ationships (James, 1980 a: 16-18) and roles (Wright,
1987). It also has implications for learner training
and the development of learner autonomy (Holec,
1980; Hoadley-Maidment, 1983; Holec, 1985; Ellis
& Sinclair, 1989 a, b).
Means analysis
The failure of the Munby (1978) model to take
account of matters of logistics and pedagogy led
to debate about practicalities and constraints in
implementing needs-based language courses (sum-
marised by Swales, 1989: 86): 'in the real-world of
ELT, there has to be a creative synthesis of theoretical
principles and practical constraints, and... where
these conflict, as they sometimes do, the latter must
take precedence' (Frankel, 1983: 120). Chamberlain
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library & Information Services, Swansea University, on 22 Aug 2017 at 12:42:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800007527
and Flanagan (1978) and Hawkey (1983) list these
practicalities and constraints, and Bachman and
Strick (1981) attempt to quantify them. Others have
argued that instead of thinking about constraints,
course designers should consider how plans can be
implemented in the local situation. This approach
has received powerful expression in what Holliday
and Cooke (1982; Holliday, 1984) call 'means
analysis' or 'the ecological approach'. According to
this view, the question for the course designer is
'how to make ESP take root, grow, bear fruit and
propagate in the local soil' (1982: 126). The course
designer or teacher first identifies the relevant
features of the situation (the 'ecosystem') and
then sees how the positive features can be used
to advantage to accommodate what would con-
ventionally be seen as constraints. Holliday (1984: 45)
identifies four principal steps in such a means
analysis: (1) observe lessons, taking random notes
on all significant features; (2) use the notes to
construct a report on the lesson to form the basis of
discussion with the teacher; (3) review all the
original notes and draw out significant features
common to all observations; (4) construct a
communicative device (chart, diagram, etc.) which
expresses the findings. This device then forms the
basis of realistic negotiation of the course between
all interested parties in the light of available resources
and options (Crocker, 1981: 9).
This approach is directly opposite to the way in which needs
analysis is usually done, where the categories are defined before
the observation and are based on linguistic descriptions and not
the situation being observed. The Means Analysis approach
allows sensitivity to the situation and prevents the imposition of
models alien to the situation (Holliday, 1984: 45).
Mountford (1988) and Swales (1989) have de-
veloped the scope of means analysis further by
suggesting other factors which need to be taken into
consideration by curriculum specialists if courses are
to have any chance of success, especially in ' alien'
learning environments. Swales lists five such factors:
classroom culture (Holliday, 1984; cf. Mount-
ford's learner factors)
EAP staff profiles (T.Johns, 1981; Chamberlain,
1980; cf. Mountford's teacher factors)
pilot target-situation analysis
status of service operations (Drury, 1983; Tan,
1988; cf Mountford's institutional factors)
study of change agents (Kennedy, 1987, 1988;
White, 1988: 136-56).
On the basis of the data thrown up by analysis of
these five factors, Swales argues, decisions can be
made. The literature contains project case studies
(Frankel, 1983; Drury, 1983; Holliday, 1984) but no
documentation of a full means analysis. It is, of
course, true that many programmes have been
successfully implemented, but this success becomes
evident only with hindsight. Means analysis is an
attempt to reduce the hit-and-miss nature of many
11
 State of the art: Needs analysis in language teaching
projects and this kind of approach, which is normally definition, coordination and objectivity involved in
discussed in EAP contexts, has parallels with more carrying out a language audit, but guidelines in
systematic approaches to EOP and general language formulating the basic operational questions are
course design (Holliday, 1994) which have involved offered by Olshtain (1989).
investigations of the 'objective context' (Porcher, Language audits have become important as a
1983 a). response to changing economic and political cir-
Related questions of culture include cultural cumstances, notably the single European market,
factors that must be taken into account in conducting economic developments in the Middle East and
the needs analysis itself (Hoadley-Maidment, 1980: south-east Asia and political changes in eastern
3). It is also possible to see the EOP equivalent of Europe, although audits can also be prospective (van
classroom culture as the business culture of the Hest & Oud-de Glas, 1990: 16). Richards (1984)
target situation (Reed, 1992): 'What makes them points out that needs analysis was espoused in a
tick will be different from your own cultural climate of language planning within the Council of
background and upbringing. They will have dif- Europe (see Emmans et al., 1974, for a Council of
ferent attitudes to business relationships, to neg- Europe survey of national requirements in foreign
otiations... to life in general' (Embleton, 1992: 31). languages). Although there has been nearly 20 years
of such work in Europe, the results have often been
Language audits limited and disappointing. Hagen (1988) surveys
company language audits ranging from 1972 to
The early literature on language audits (e.g. Pilbeam, 1981 and reports depressing results: 'Despite the
1979) defined them in rather narrow terms derived findings on employers' needs, it is still apparent that
from ELTDU experience (ELTDU, 1970; Stuart & many firms remain unconvinced of the commercial
Lee, 1972/1985): (a) analysis of needs based on on- advantages of taking on personnel with foreign
the-job tasks; (b) assessment of current staff capa- language skills' (1988: xviii). Despite the origin of
bilities by means of a sophisticated placement test; language audits within mainstream needs analysis
(c) a training specification drawn up to bridge the for specific-purpose language teaching (notably
training gap between present performance and ELTDU, 1970, and Stuart & Lee, 1972/1985), it has
required performance in the target language. The to be said that much of the recent literature of
scope of language audits has now been broadened to language audits is not always 'clear and worked
include any large-scale exercise forming the basis of out' (van Hest & Oud-de Glas, 1990: 15).
strategic decisions on language needs and training The primary limitation of language audits derives
requirements carried out by or for (i) individual from their very scale:
companies (e.g. Hagen (ed.), 1988; Embleton, as these data take the form of statistical averages, which may
Hancy & Gannon, 1992) or institutions (e.g. indeed be representative for a common core of learning
Coleman, 1988), (ii) professional sectors (e.g. Rich- objectives, but do not coincide with the particular situation of
terich, 1971; Brown et al., 1993) or (iii) countries the individual learner, the picture has to be completed by a
(e.g. Denmark Looms, 1983; Portugal Rod- further needs analysis involving personal contact with the
individual learner... (van der Handt, 1983: 32).
rigues, 1983; Hungary - Teemant et al., 1993) or
regions (Hagen (ed.), 1988). At their most basic,
language audits simply provide data about the Conclusions
current state of language needs in the sector; at their
most sophisticated they lead on to the development Nunan (1988 a: 44) points out that needs analysis
of an integrated policy or strategy which may take and syllabuses planned on a needs basis have been
months or even years to implement: ' the first issue widely criticised. While some of this criticism may
concerns the efficiency of the present system, the be justified, ' recent critics have generally failed to
second implies changes with a view to a future appreciate the significant shift which has occurred
system...' (Looms, 1983: 62). The basic issues of over the years, and still tend to equate needs analysis
definition, prerequisites and procedures are surveyed with the sort of narrow-band ESP approach which
by Utley (1992), the strategic reasons for a language typified the work of people such as Munby'. There
audit are established by van Hest and Oud-de Glas has been a broadening of the scope of needs analysis
(1990: 6), and the stages of proceeding in various to encompass the full educational process - the
types of audit are set out by Pilbeam (1979 determination of objectives, contents and curricula,
company audits), Berggren (1987 - company for the production and testing of new materials, for
audits), van Hest and Oud-de Glas (1990 the development of autonomous learning, assess-
company audits), Lynch et al. (1993 company ment by the learner, feedback for the conduct and
audits), Hagen (1988 - regional audits), Dubin and reorientation of the project, teacher education and
Olshtain (1986 - national educational audits) and re-education, and 'for running an entire system'
Richterich (1971 - national vocational audits). (Richterich, 1983: 12). Nevertheless, needs analysis
Looms (1983: 66-7) discusses the problems of is still perceived to have limitations.
12
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library & Information Services, Swansea University, on 22 Aug 2017 at 12:42:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800007527
 State of the art: Needs analysis in language teaching
than language)... and in order to participate in these
Limitations of needs analysis things in a foreign language, certain language skills
Several criticisms of needs analysis and its ap- will be needed'. In the case of second-language
plicability to language teaching have emerged since learners where the target language is also the
the mid-1970s (Richterich, 1983: 2-5; Gardner & medium of instruction, needs are defined in terms of
Winslow, 1983: 77-8). The most fundamental different school disciplines (Tongue, 1991: 112-13;
remains the lack of awareness of the existence of Martin, 1985,1986). Ellis (1991:192) takes a broader
needs analysis as a tool in course design, as well as approach and sees learner training as an effective
narrower problems of familiarity and expertise. method of developing an awareness of needs in
There is also little information on the validity or young learners. For a further discussion of the needs
reliability of the instruments used and the results of young learners, see Porcher (19836).
obtained (van Hest & Oud-de Glas, 1990: 13). More Self-assessment of needs. Strevens (1980: 27) points
general areas where limitations have been identified out that early models of needs analysis (e.g. Munby,
are discussed in the following sections. 1978) reflect little that has to do with 'personalised
Needs analysis in general ELT. Most of the literatureinstruction', although subsequently needs analysis
on needs analysis originally came from the realm has been seen as 'a sine qua non of all learner-centred
of TESP but needs analysis procedures have in- teaching and of all learning which is matched to the
creasingly come to be seen as 'fundamental to the learner's resources, expectations and interests'
planning of general language courses' (Richards, (Richterich, 1983: 2). Holec (1980) and Dickinson
1990: 2; but see Trim, 1980: 50 and Hutchinson & (1987: 88-98) outline applications of needs analysis
Waters, 1987: 53 for practical difficulties). Ash worth to general self-instructional language learning, and,
(1985: 78) and Yalden (1987 a: 130-56) give outlines while pointing out that 'the vast majority of
of the scope of needs analysis in ESL situations, and learners do not have any [needs]', Dickinson suggests
Dubin and Olshtain (1986: 25) point out that needs that a needs analysis questionnaire can be used to
are 'more pronounced in the ESL [situation] in help learners assess their achievement of their
those cases where the target language plays a crucial objectives. He cites an 'aims and objectives'
role in the overall process of acculturation...the questionnaire (Cousin, 1982) as an example of such
learners might be painfully aware of immediate, a procedure which lists a range of general language
daily needs in order to begin to function in the new objectives (correct model of spoken English, reading
community'. They go on to apply this observation speed, etc.) and asks the student to estimate the
to young learners and adult ESL students, whose necessity and priority of each one. A somewhat
needs not only include social-survival needs outside similar needs analysis questionnaire is described by
the classroom but, additionally, the need to learn the Blue (1988). Bloor and Bloor (1988: 66-7) describe
TL in order to have access to other academic a learner's questionnaire designed to serve as the
subjects. basis for a subsequent consultation with a counsellor
In the field of EFL as opposed to ESL, there has in order to determine learning objectives.
been an increasing application of needs analysis, Converting needs into goals. Needs analysis has been
especially as learner training has become an es- accused of being both too limiting and not limiting
tablished component of course books (Sinclair & enough: Richterich (1972, cited by Trim, 1980: 62)
Ellis, 1992). Harding-Esch (1982) describes a and Widdowson (1983; 1987, cited by Nunan,
'MAFIA' model for general learners in Britain, 1988 a: 43-4) suggest that syllabuses which specify
where MAFIA stands for motivation - aims - precise needs or ends result in restricted competence
functions - information - activities. The aim of the (Maley, 1980: 37 and Holec, 1985, address the
procedure is to get learners to identify their own same concern), while Dubin and Olshtain (1986:
aims and objectives in a language course before 102) complain that 'an assessment of individual
selecting a course or materials (see Dickinson, 1987: needs could result in multiple course objectives'.
95 for a summary). The broader context of needs The first objection is discussed approvingly by
analysis in state-sector TENOR situations is dis- Tomlin (1988) but has been dismissed as 'logico-
cussed by Holliday (1994). deductive rather than empirical' (Nunan, 1988a:
Needs analysis for young learners. Young learners may44); the second objection is well handled by Shaw
seem to present the ultimate TENOR situation of (1982) and Holec (1985), who offer alternative
learners whose needs cannot yet be defined, and procedures for converting individual needs into
Rixon's (1992: 80) observation that many countries teaching objectives either through group nego-
have adopted syllabuses which have a structural tiation (Shaw, 1982) or through the development of
basis would seem to support this. However, whole- self-directed or autonomous learning programmes
language classrooms (Goodman, 1986) emphasise (Holec, 1985).
the creation of individual meaning and Williams Requirements for an effective needs analysis procedure.
(1991: 206-7) proposes a content-based approach in Several commentators have now produced con-
which 'the purpose is learning other things (other siderations or requirements for an effective needs

13

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library & Information Services, Swansea University, on 22 Aug 2017 at 12:42:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800007527
 State of the art: Needs analysis in language teaching
analysis procedure. Dickinson (1987: 98), for
example, lists eight considerations:
- Is the questionnaire to be used by the learner or by
a specialist (teacher, helper, counsellor) ?
- Is the questionnaire complete in itself or is it
designed to act as the basis of an interview with a
specialist ?
- Is it designed to elicit needs irrespective of whether
facilities exist for meeting them or only to the level
for which teaching/learning facilities and materials
exist ?
- Should it elicit information on learners' preferred
learning strategies, etc.?
- Will the questionnaire be concerned with identi-
fying the time available?
- Should the questionnaire endeavour to analyse
needs into short-term objectives?
- Will the questionnaire attempt to suggest ap-
propriate materials to meet objectives?
- Will the questionnaire attempt to guide the
learner in ways of assessing the achievement of
objectives?
Ways forward for needs analysis. The last two points
in Dickinson's analysis lead to areas currently
thought to be beyond the scope of needs analysis -
materials selection and self-assessment. Most needs
analysis procedures do not begin to handle the leap
between needs analysis and methods/materials
selection or development. It is often stressed that the
two processes are closely linked (Porcher, 1983 a:
17) but moving from the former to the latter is
usually seen as a subjective matter (Jones, 1991: 166)
of teachers' intuition or inspiration:
there exists a wide range of alternatives, both in teaching
methods and in types of materials, and ... the way to make their
own lessons work effectively with their own particular students
is to develop the ability to select from those alternatives (or
even to create novel approaches) in accordance with what they
perceive to be their students' needs (Tarone & Yule, 1989: 3;
but see Porcher 1983a: 21 for a rejection of 'irrational
intuition').
Crocker (1981: 9) points out that 'there is no
necessary content or methodology for an LSP course
since the only criterion for course evaluation must
be whether what is used works'. However, it has
been pointed out that this intuition may be unsound
or, in ESP situations, totally lacking: ' the only way
round the problem is to have an intuitive feel for
what is appropriate for scientists, and it is just this
intuition that the EST teacher, with his literary
background, does not possess' (Greenall, 1981: 25).
Richterich (1983: 3) is also pessimistic: 'Relating
teaching to language needs remains the most difficult
problem to resolve in the implementation of learner-
centred teaching systems'. For this reason attempts
have been made to establish a more sophisticated
picture of needs through computer analysis (Jones,
1991) and to link perceived or identified priorities to
a database cataloguing potentially suitable teaching
materials (Nelson, 1992, 1994). Nelson's model
integrates placement testing, needs analysis and
materials selection:

EVALUATION 1 EVALUATION 2

Oxford Placement Test (Allan 1985/1992) Needs analysis carried out:

a) of the students
b) of the company point of view

INTERPRET RESULTS

PRELIMINARY COURSE DESIGN - defined by subject areas

MATERIALS chosen from Materials Data Base

COURSE BEGINS - negotiation with students about course plan

Mid-course evaluation:
students evaluate course so far; possible re-orientation, new materials, etc

FINAL TEST: course specific

Final evaluation of the course by the students

14
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library & Information Services, Swansea University, on 22 Aug 2017 at 12:42:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800007527
 State of the art: Needs analysis in language teaching
Dickinson's final consideration self-assessment isBACHMAN, L. & STRICK, G. (1981). An analytic approach to
both topical and relevant. Dickinson (1987: 98-102) language program design. In Mackay & Palmer (eds.), 45-63.
suggests learner contracts as a means of self- BAILEY, K. (1990). The use of diary studies in teacher education.
In Richards & Nunan (eds.), 215-26.
assessment of objectives using a model adapted from BARBER, C. (1962). Some measurable characteristics of modern
Knowles (1975), while others have suggested scientific prose. Reprinted in Swales (ed.) (1985), 116.
questionnaires to assess progress (Blue, 1988). BELL, R. (1981). An introduction to applied linguistics. London:
It may be, however, that there is most to be Batsford.
gained from adopting simpler approaches to needs BERGGREN, O. (1987). From haphazard language teaching to
efficient language training. Language Training, 8, 2.
analysis (Harbord, forthcoming) or improved train- BERWICK, R. (1989). Needs assessment in language program-
ing in needs analysis techniques. In a recent survey ming: from theory to practice. In Johnson (ed.), 48-62.
of British master's degrees (Brown, 1992: 7), it was BHEISS, M. (1988). English for Nursing Purposes: the English
revealed that there was little principled discussion of language needs at the Nursing School of Al-Makassed Hospital
approaches to syllabuses or curricula. More rigorous (Jerusalem). Unpublished M Ed TESOL dissertation, Uni-
versity of Manchester.
discussion of these areas might lead to greater BLOOR, M. & BLOOR, T. (1988). Syllabus negotiation: the
knowledge and application of the various needs basis of learner autonomy. In Brookes & Grundy (eds.),
analysis approaches and, therefore, teaching pro- 62-74.
grammes which are more firmly based on the BLUE, G. (1981). Self-directed learning systems and the role of
various needs of the learners. the ESP teacher. ELT Documents, 112, 58-64.
BLUE, G. (1988). Self-assessment: the limits of learner in-
Acknowledgements: I should like to thank the following current dependence. In Brookes & Grundy (eds.), 100-18.
and former members of the School of Education, University of BLUE, G. (ed.) (1993). Language, learning and success: studying
Manchester for their assistance: Gerry Abbott, Mike Beaumont, through English. London & Basingstoke: Modern English
Richard Fay, John Harbord, Lindsay Howard, Bob Jordan, Publications/British Council.
Gary Motteram, Mike Nelson, June O'Brien, Teresa O'Brien, BOWERS, R. (1980a). The background of students from the
Gillian Walsh and Isao Yasuhara. I should also like to thank Indian sub-continent. ELT Documents, 109, 104-13.
Mike Crompton of Manchester Metropolitan University for BOWERS, R. (1980i). The individual learner in the general class.
help with the section on language audits. In Altman & James (eds.), 66-80.
BREW, A. (1980). Responses of overseas students to differing
teaching styles. ELT Documents, 109, 115-25.
References BRINDLEY, G. (1984). Needs analysis and objective setting in the
Adult Migrant Education Program. Sydney: New South Wales
ABBOTT, G. (1978). Motivation, materials, manpower and Adult Migrant Education Service.
methods: some fundamental problems in ESP. ELT Doc- BRINDLEY, G. (1989). The role of needs analysis in adult ESL
uments, 103, 98-104. programme design. In Johnson (ed.), 63-78.
ABBOTT, G. (1980). ESP and TENOR. ELT Documents, 107, BROOKES, A. & GRUNDY, P. (eds.) (1988). Individualization and
122-4. Autonomy in Language Learning ELT Documents, 131.
ABBOTT, G. (1981a). Approaches to English teaching. In G. BROOKES, A. & GRUNDY, P. (1990). Writing for study purposes.
Abbott & P. Wingard (eds.), The teaching of English as an Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
international language, 1136. London: Collins. BROWN, G. (1992). The state of the art in applied linguistics.
ABBOTT, G. (1981 b). Encouraging communication in English: a Review of English Language Teaching, 2, 1, 510.
paradox. English Language Teaching Journal, 35, 3, BROWN, G., O'RIORDAN, A. & POWELL, G. (1993). Language
228-30. training for trade unionists. Manchester: Department of Trade
ADAMS, P., HEATON, B. & HOWARTH, P. (eds.) (1991). Socio- Union Education.
cultural issues in English for Academic Purposes. London &BRUMFIT, C. & MITCHELL, R. (eds.) (1990). Research in the
Basingstoke: Modern English Publications/British Council. Language Classroom -ELT Documents, 133.
ALDERSON, C. (1980). A process approach to reading at the BRUMFIT, C , MOON, J. & TONGUE, R. (eds.) (1991). Teaching
University of Mexico. Projects in Materials Design-ELT English to children. London: Collins.
Documents Special, 13463. BUNG, K. (1973). The foreign language needs of waiters and hotel
ALDERSON, C. (1991). Bands and scores. Review of English staff. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Language Teaching, 1, 1, 71-86. CANALE, M. & SWAIN, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of
ALLAN, D. (1985/1992). Oxford Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford communicative competence. Applied Linguistics, I, 1, 1-47.
University Press. CANDLIN, C , BRUTON, C. & LEATHER, J. (\974a-d). Doctor-
ALLEN, W. & SPADA, N. (1983). Designing a communicative patient communication skills: working papers I-IV. Lancaster:
syllabus in the People's Republic of China. In Jordan (ed.), University of Lancaster (mimeo).
132-45. CANDLIN, C , BRUTON, C. & LEATHER, J. (1976). Doctors in
ALLWRIGHT, J. & ALLWRIGHT, R. (1977). An approach to the casualty: applying communicative competence to com-
teaching of Medical English. In Holden (ed.), 58-62. ponents of specialist course design. International Review of
ALLWRIGHT, R. (1982). Perceiving and pursuing learner's needs. Applied Linguistics, 14, 3, 245-72.
In M. Geddes & G. Sturtridge (eds.), Indiuidualisation, 24-31. CANDLIN, C , BRUTON, C , LEATHER, J. & WOODS, E. (1981).
Oxford: Modern English Publications. Designing modular materials for communicative language
ALTMAN, H. (1980). Foreign language teaching: focus on the learning; an example: doctorpatient communication skills.
learner. In Altman & James (eds.), 1-16. In Selinker et al. (eds.), 105-33.
ALTMAN, H. & JAMES, C. V. (eds.) (1980). Foreign language CARRIER, M. (1983). Computer-assisted needs analysis. Language
teaching: meeting individual needs. Oxford: Pergamon. Training, 4, 4.
ASHWORTH, M. (1985). Beyond methodology. Cambridge: Cam-CARROLL, B. & WEST R. (1989). The ESU framework -
bridge University Press. performance scalesfor language examinations. Harlow: Longman.
BACHMAN, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language CHAMBERLAIN, R. (1980). The SP of the E. ELT Documents, 106,
testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 97-108.
15
LTA 27

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library & Information Services, Swansea University, on 22 Aug 2017 at 12:42:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800007527
 State of the art: Needs analysis in language teaching
CHAMBERLAIN, R. & BAUMGARDNER R. (eds.) (1988). ESP in the EMBLETON, D. & HAGEN, S. (eds.) (1992). Languages in
Classroom: Practice and Evaluation ELT Documents, 128. international business. Sevenoaks: Hodder & Stoughton.
CHAMBERLAIN, R. & FLANAGAN, M. (1978). Developing a EMBLETON, D., HANCY, H. & GANNON, H. (1992). In-company
flexible ESP programme design. ELT Documents, 101, 36-55. language training: three case studies. In Embleton & Hagen
CHAMBERS, F. (1980). A re-evaluation of needs analysis in ESP. (eds.), 203-25.
ESP Journal, I, 1, 25-33. EMMANS, K., HAWKINS, E. & WESTOBY, A. (1974). Foreign
CHAMBERS, F. & MCDONOUGH J. (1981). How many people? languages in industry /commerce. University of York, Language
Opposing views on the function and preparation of the ESP Teaching Centre.
teacher. ELT Documents, 112, 71-80. EWER, J. & HUGHES-DAVIES, E. (1971-72). Further notes on
CHAPLEN, F. (1970). The identification of non-native speakers of developing an English programme for students of science and
English likely to under-achieve in university courses through technology. English Language Teaching, 26, 1, 65-70; 26, 3,
inadequate command of the language. Unpublished PhD thesis, 103-13. [Reprinted in Swales (ed.), 1985.]
University of Manchester. FARRINGDON, O. (1981). The first five seconds: the ESP teacher
CHITRAVELU, N. (1980). The University of Malaya English for and 'out-of-the-blue' language. ELT Documents, 112, 6570.
Special Purposes project. ELT Documents, 107, v-xvi. FLOYD, J. (1984). Study skills for higher education. London:
CHRISTISON, A. & KRAHNKE K. (1986). Student perceptions of Collins.
academic language study. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 1, 61-81. FRANKEL, M. (1983). Designing a pre-EAP course: practical
COFFEY, B. (1984). State of the art article: ESP - English for problems. In Jordan (ed.), 119-31.
specific purposes. Language Teaching, 17, 1, 216. FURNEAUX, C , LOCKE C , ROBINSON, P. & TONKYN, A. (1991).
COLEMAN, H. (1988). Analysing language needs in large Talking heads and shifting bottoms: the ethnography of
organisations. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 3, 15569. academic seminars. In Adams et al. (eds.), 7588.
COMMONWEALTH EDUCATION LIAISON COMMITTEE (1961). Report GARDNER, P. & WINSLOW, J. (1983). Present and proposed
of the Commonwealth Conference on the Teaching of English as a methods of determining the needs of students in public sector
Second Language. Entebbe: Government Printer. higher education. In Richterich (ed.), 69-78.
COOPER, M. (1970). Measuring language problems and at- GEOGHEGAN, G. (1983). Non-native speakers of English at
tainment. English Language Teaching, 25, 1, 726. Cambridge University. Cambridge: Bell Educational Trust.
COUNCIL OF EUROPE (1981). Modem languages (1971-1981). GOODMAN, K. (1986). What's whole about whole language? New
Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Hampshire: Heinemann Educational Books.
COUSIN, W. (1982). Report of the workshops in the role and trainingGREENALL, G. (1981). The EST teacher: a negative view. ELT
of helpers for self-access language learning systems. Edinburgh:Documents, 112, 23-7.
Moray House (mimeo). HAGEN, S. (1988). Introduction to Hagen (ed.), xi-xlii.
COWIE, A. & HEATON, J. B. (eds.) (1977). English for Academic HAGEN, S. (ed.) (1988). Languages in British industry. Newcastle
Purposes. Reading: British Association for Applied Linguistics. & London: Newcastle-upon-Tyne Polytechnic Products/
CROCKER, T. (1981). 'Scenes of endless science': ESP and Centre for Information on Language Teaching & Research.
education. ELT Documents, 112, 7-15. HALLIDAY, M., MCINTOSH, A. & STREVENS, P. (1964). The
CUMARANATUNGE, L. (1988). An ESP case study: domestic aides linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longman.
in West Asia. In Chamberlain & Baumgardner (eds), 127-33. HARBORD, J. (forthcoming 1994). Needs analysis: a teacher/
CUNNINGSWORTH, A. (1983). Needs analysis - a review of the student oriented approach. Perspectives Journal (Prague),
state of the art. System, n , 2, 149-54. June.
DA VIES, A. (1977). Do foreign students have problems? In HARDING-ESCH, E. (1982). The open access sound and video
Cowie & Heaton (eds.), 34-6. library of the University of Cambridge: progress report and
DAVIES, A. (1981 a). Review of Munby, Communicative Syllabus development. System, 10, 1328.
Design, 1978. English Language Teaching Journal, 35, 4, 472-3. HAWKEY, R. (1980a). Syllabus design for specific purposes. ELT
DAVIES, A. (1981 b). Review of Munby, Communicative syllabus Documents Special: Projects in Materials Design: 82-133.
design, 1978. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 332-6. HAWKEY, R. (1980 b). Needs analysis and syllabus design for
DICKINSON, L. (1987). Self-instruction in language learning. specific purposes. In Altman & James (eds.), 81-93.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HAWKEY, R. (1983). Programme development for learners of
DRURY, J. (1983). The introduction of service English courses in English. In Richterich (ed.), 79-87.
ESL tertiary institutions in Africa. ELT Documents, 116, HAWKEY, R. & NAKORNCHAI, C. (1980). Thai students studying.
121-34. ELT Documents, 109, 70-8.
DUBIN, F. & OLSHTAIN, E. (1986). Course design: developing HENDERSON, W. & SKEHAN, P. (1980). The team-teaching of
programs and materials for language learning. Cambridge: introductory economics to overseas students. ELT Documents,
Cambridge University Press. 112, 34-47.
DUDLEY-EVANS, T. (1988). One-to-one supervision of students HOADLEY-MAIDMENT, E. (ed.) (1980). Analysing student needs.
writing M.Sc or Ph.D. theses. ELT Documents, 131, 136-41. London: National Centre for Industrial Language Training,
DUDLEY-EVANS, T. & SWALES, J. (1980). Study modes and Working Paper 16.
students from the Middle East. ELT Documents, 109, 91-103. HOADLEY-MAIDMENT, E. (1983). Methodology for the identi-
ELLIS, G. (1991). Learning to learn. In Brumfit, Moon & fication of language learning needs of immigrant learners
Tongue (eds.), 191-200. of English through mother-tongue interviews. In Richterich
ELLIS, G. & SINCLAIR, B. (1989a). Learning to learn English. (ed.), 39-51.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HOLDEN, S. (ed.) (1977). English for Specific Purposes. Oxford:
ELLIS, G. & SINCLAIR, B. (19896). Learning to learn English - Modern English Publications.
teacher's book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HOLEC, H. (1980). Learner training: meeting needs in self-
ELTDU (1970). English for Business: research and preliminary directed learning. In Altman & James (eds.), 30-45.
planning report. Colchester: English Language Teaching HOLEC, H. (1985). Taking learners' needs into account in self-
Development Unit. directed learning. In Riley (ed.), 263-75.
ELTDU (1975). Stages of Attainment Scale and Test Battery. HOLLIDAY, A. (1984). Research into classroom culture as
Daventry: English Language Teaching Development Unit. necessary input into syllabus design. In J. Swales & H.
EMBLETON, D. (1992). An integrated strategy. In Embleton & Mustafa (eds.), English for Specific Purposes in the Arab world,
Hagen (eds.), 1-32. 29-51. Birmingham: University of Aston.

16
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library & Information Services, Swansea University, on 22 Aug 2017 at 12:42:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800007527
 State of the art: Needs analysis in language teaching
HOLLIDAY, A. (1994). The house of TESEP and the com- LITTLEWOOD, W. (1992). Curriculum design. Review of English
municative approach: the special needs of state English Language Teaching, 2, 1, 1122.
language education. ELT Journal, 48, 1, 311. LOOMS, P. (1983). A re-examination of foreign language
HOLLIDAY, A. & COOKE, T. (1982). An ecological approach to teaching provision in Denmark. In Richterich (ed.), 60-8.
ESP. Lancaster Practical Papers in English Language Education, Low,5 G. (1991). Talking to questionnaires: pragmatic models
(Issues in ESP), 123-43. in questionnaire design. In Adams et al. (eds.), 117-33.
HOWATT, A. (1984). A history of English language teaching. LYNCH, P., STEVENS, A. & SANDS, P. (1993). The language audit.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Milton Keynes: Open University.
HUGHES, G. & KNIGHT, M. (1977). Student specific English - LYNCH, T. & ANDERSON, K. (1991). Do you mind if I come in
one-to-one courses. In Holden (ed.), 67-9. here?-a comparison of EAP seminar/discussion materials
HUTCHINSON, T. & WATERS, A. (1980). ESP at the crossroads. and characteristics of real academic discussion. In Adams et al.
ESP Newsletter, 36, [Reprinted in Swales (ed.), 1985, 177-85.] (eds.), 88-99.
HUTCHINSON, T. & WATERS, A. (1987). English for Specific MACGREGOR, E. (1979). Feedback and evaluation in role-play.
Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In J. Webb (ed.), 326. Lexden Papers 1. Colchester: Lexden
HUTCHINSON, T., WATERS, A. & BREEN, M. (1979). An English Centre.
language curriculum for technical students. Lancaster Practical MACKAY, R. (1978). Identifying the nature of learners' needs. In
Papers in English Language Teaching, 2. Mackay & Mountford (eds.), 21-42.
HYMES, D. (1971). On communicative competence. In J. Pride MACKAY, R. & BOSQUET, M. (1981). LSP curriculum de-
&J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics, 269-93. Harmondsworth : velopment from policy to practice. In Mackay & Palmer
Penguin, 1972. (eds.), 1-28.
JAMES, C. V. (1974). Estimating adult needs. In G. E. Perren MACKAY, R. & MOUNTFORD, A. (eds.) (1978). English for
(ed.), Teaching languages to adults for special purposes, 76-90.Specific Purposes. London: Longman.
London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching & MACKAY, R. & PALMER, J. (eds.) (1981). Languages for Specific
Research. Purposes. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
JAMES, K. (1980a). Seminar overview. ELT Documents, 109, MALEY, A. (1980). Making sense: reconciling ideas and
7-21. constraints in materials production. Projects in Materials
JAMES, K. (19806). Survey of University of Manchester overseas Design ELT Documents Special, 3760.
post-graduate students' initial level of competence in English MARTIN, J. (1985). Factual writing: exploring and challenging social
and their subsequent academic performance: calendar year reality. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University.
1977. ELT Documents, 109, 126-33. MARTIN, J. (1986). Systemic functional linguistics and an
JAMES, K. (1984). The writing of theses by speakers of English understanding of written text. Papers in Applied Linguistics
as a foreign language: the results of a case study. ELT (University of Sydney), 4, 91-109.
Documents, 117, 99-113. MASON, D. (1989). An examination of authentic dialogues for
JOHNS, A. (1981). Necessary English: a faculty survey. TESOL use in the ESP classroom. English for Specific Purposes, 8, 1,
Quarterly, 15, 1, 51-7. 85-92.
JOHNS, T. (1981). Some problems of a world-wide profession. MCDONOUGH, J. (1984). ESP in Perspective. London: Collins.
ELT Documents, 112, 16-22. MCDONOUGH, H. (1994). A teacher looks at teachers' diaries.
JOHNS, T. & DUDLEY-EVANS, A. (1980). An experiment in ELT Journal, 48, 1, 57-65.
team-teaching of overseas postgraduate students of trans- MEAD, R. (1980). Expectations and sources of motivation in
portation and plant biology. ELT Documents, 106, 6-23. EAP. English Language Research Journal, I (University of
JOHNSON, R. (ed.) (1989). The second language curriculum. Birmingham).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MORROW, K. (1983). The Royal Society of Arts Examination in
JONES, C. (1991). An integrated model for ESP syllabus design. the Communicative Use of English as a Foreign Language. In
English for Specific Purposes, 10, 3, 155-72. Jordan (ed.), 102-7.
JORDAN, R. (1977). Identification of problems and needs: a MOUNTPORD, A. (1988). Factors influencing ESP materials
student profile. In Cowie & Heaton (eds.), 12-20. production and use. In Chamberlain & Baumgardner (eds),
JORDAN, R. (cd.) (1983). Case studies in ELT. London: Collins. 76-84.
JORDAN, R. (1993). Study skills: experience and expectations. In MUNBY, J. (1977). Processing profiles of communicative needs.
Blue (ed.), 70-9. In English for Specific Purposes. Bogota: British Council.
JORDAN, R. (book forthcoming). English for Academic Purposes.MUNBY, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge:
JORDAN, R. & MACKAY, R. (1973). A survey of the spoken Cambridge University Press.
English problems of overseas postgraduate students at the MUNBY, J. (1984). Communicative syllabus design: principles
universities of Manchester and Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Journal and problems. In J. Read (ed.), Trends in language syllabus
of the Institute of Education of the Universities of Newcastle-upon- design anthology series 13, 55-67. Singapore: SEAMEO
Tyne and Durham, 125. Regional Language Centre.
JORDAN, R. & MATTHEWS, A. (1978). English for academic NELSON, M. (1992). A model for course design in ESP for Business.
purposes: practice material for the listening comprehension Unpublished M.Ed. TESOL dissertation, University of
and writing needs of overseas students. ELT Documents, IOI, Manchester.
7-22. NELSON, M. (1994). The Complete Business English Generator.
KHNNEDY, C. (1980). Fundamental problems in ESP. ELT Turku, Finland: Media-Time (UK distributor: Oxford
Documents, 106, 118-26. English Book Centre).
KENNEDY, C. (1987). Innovating for a change. English Language NORTH, B. (1991). Standardisation of continuous assessment
Teaching Journal, 41, 3, 163-70. grades. Review of English Language Teaching, 1, 1, 167-77.
KENNEDY, C. (1988). Evaluation of the management of change NUNAN, D. (1988a). The learner-centred curriculum. Cam-
in ELT projects. Applied Linguistics, 9, 4, 32942. bridge: Cambridge University Press.
KNOWLES, M. (1975). Self-directed learning: a guide for learners and NUNAN, D. (1988 b). Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University
teachers. Association Press. Press.
LEE, E. (1977). Non-specialist use of foreign languages in NUNAN, D. (1989). Hidden agendas: the role of the learner in
industry and commerce. Audio-Visual Language Journal, 15, 3, programme implementation. In Johnson (ed.), 176-86.
223-31. O'BRIEN, J. (1989). Involving the learners in course evaluation: a

17
2-2

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library & Information Services, Swansea University, on 22 Aug 2017 at 12:42:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800007527
 State of the art: Needs analysis in language teaching
diary study during a pre-sessional English language course.RILEY, P. (ed.) (1985). Discourse and learning. London : Longman.
Unpublished M.A. dissertation, University of Lancaster. RIXON, S. (1992). English and other languages for younger
OLSHTAIN, E. (1989). The fact-finding phase in the policy- children. Language Teaching, 25, 2, 73-93.
making process: the case of a language of wider com- ROBINSON, B. (1981). The helpful EST teacher. ELT Documents,
munication. In C. Kennedy (ed.), Language planning and 112, 28-32.
English language teaching, 4457. Hemel Hempstead: PrenticeROBINSON, P. (1981). The contribution of discourse analysts to
Hall International. ESP and of ESP practitioners to discourse analysis. ELT
OSKARSSON, M. (1977). Approaches to self-assessment in foreign Documents, 112, 53-7.
language learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe/Oxford: ROBINSON, P. (1991). ESP today. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice
Pergamon. Hall International.
OSTLER, S. (1980). A survey of academic needs for advanced RODGERS, T. (1980). Materials development: in prospect. Projects
ESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 4, 489-502. in Materials - Design - ELT Documents Special, 144-71.
OXFORD, R. (1990). Language learning strategies. New York:RODRIGUES, M. DO R. (1983). Identification of the language
Newbury House. needs of pupils learning French within the Portuguese
PALMER, J. (1981a). Register research design. In Mackay & educational system. In Richterich (ed.), 52-60.
Palmer (eds.), 64-73. SCHMIDT, M. (1981). Needs assessment in English for Specific
PALMER, J. (1981 b). Discourse analysis. In Mackay & Palmer Purposes: the case study. In Selinker, Taronc & Hanzcli
(eds.), 74-91. (eds.), 199-210.
PARKINSON, B. & HOWELL-RICHARDSON, C. (1990). Learner SCHUTZ, N. & DERWING, B. (1981). The problem of needs
diaries. In Brumfit & Mitchell (eds.), 128-40. assessment in English for Specific Purposes: some theoretical
PHILLIPS, M. (1981). Toward a theory of LSP methodology. In and practical considerations. In Mackay & Palmer (eds.),
Mackay & Palmer (eds.), 92-105. 29-44.
PHILLIPS, M. & SHETTLESWORTH, C. (1978). How to ARM your SELINKER, L., TARONE, E. & HANZELI, V. (eds.) (1981). English
students: a consideration of two approaches to providing for Academic and Technical Purposes. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury
materials for ESP. ELT Documents, 101, 23-35. House.
PILBEAM, A. (1979). The language audit. Language Training, 1, SHAW, P. (1982). Ad hoc needs analysis. Modern English Teacher,
2, 4-5. 10, 1, 10-15.
PORCHER, L. (1983 a). Migrant workers learning French in SINCLAIR, B. & ELLIS, G. (1992). Survey: learner training in EFL
France: a practical experiment. In Richterich (ed.), 14-23. course books. ELT Journal, 46, 209-25.
PORCHER, L. (1983i). Reflections on language needs in the SMITH, M. & ARUN, P. (1980). Common sense and ESP. Projects
school. In Richterich (ed.), 127-49. in Materials Design - ELT Documents Special, 207-21.
PORTER, A., GOLDSTEIN, L., LEATHERMAN, J. & CONRAD, S. SPAVENTA, L. (1980). Testing people and placement. Modem
(1990). An ongoing dialogue: learning logs for teacher English Teacher, 7, 4, 28-31.
preparation. In Richards & Nunan (eds.), 227-40. STREVENS, P. (1977). Special-purpose language learning: a
PRICE, J. (1980). The structure of postgraduate taught courses in perspective. Language Teaching & Linguistics: Abstracts, 10, 3,
engineering: some implications for language course design. 145-63.
ELT Documents, 109, 50-68. STREVENS, P. (1980). The paradox of individualised instruction:
RANNEY, S. (1992). Learning a new script: an exploration of it takes better teachers to focus on the learner. In Altman &
sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1, 25-50. James (eds.), 17-19.
REED, B. (1992). Business culture training. In Embleton & STREVENS, P. (1988). The learner and the teacher of ESP. In
Hagen (eds.), 153-65. Chamberlain & Baumgardner (eds.), 39-44.
REID, J. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. STUART, W. & LEE, E. (1972/1985). The non-specialist use
TESOL Quarterly, 21, 1, 87-109. of foreign languages in industry and commerce. Sidcup:
RICHARDS, J. (1984). Language curriculum development. RELC London Chamber of Commerce & Industry Examinations
Journal, 15, 1, 1-29. Board.
RICHARDS, J. (1990). The language teaching matrix. Cambridge:SWALES, J. (1980). The educational environment and its
Cambridge University Press. relevance to ESP programme design. Projects in Materials
RICHARDS, J. & NUNAN, D. (eds.) (1990). Second language teacher Design - ELT Documents Special, 61-81.
education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SWALES, J. (ed.) (1985). Episodes in ESP. Oxford: Perg-
RICHARDS, J. & RODGERS, T. (1986). Approaches and methods in amon/Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International.
language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SWALES, J. (1989). Service English programme design and
RICHTERICH, R. (1971). Analytical classification of the categories opportunity cost. In Johnson (ed.), 79-90.
of adults needing to learn foreign languages. Reprinted in TAN, C. (1988). The organisational administration of an ESP
Trim et al. (1973/1980), 63-88. unit: a case study. In Chamberlain & Baumgardner (eds)
RICHTERICH, R. (1973/1980). Definition of language needs and 108-24.
types of adults. In Trim et al., 29-88. TARANTINO, M. (1988). Italian in-field EST users self-assess their
RICHTERICH, R. (1979). Identifying language needs as a means of macro- and micro-level needs: a case study. English for
determining educational objectives with the learners. In A Specific Purposes, 7, 1, 33-52.
European unit/credit system for modern language learning by TARONE, E. & YULE, G. (1989). Focus on the language learner.
adults. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
RICHTERICH, R. (1983). Introduction to Richterich (ed.) (1983), TEEMANT, A., VARGA, Z. & HELTAI, P. (1993). Hungary's
1-13. nationwide needs analysis of vocationally-oriented foreign language
RICHTERICH, R. (ed.) (1983). Case studies in identifying language teaching. Budapest: Ministry of Culture & Education/USIS.
needs. Oxford: Pergamon/Council of Europe. TICKOO, M. (1988). Michael West in India: a centenary salute.
RICHTERICH, R. & CHANCEREL, J.-L. (1977/80). Identifying the English Language Teaching Journal, 42, 4, 294300.
needs of adults learning a foreign language. Strasbourg: CouncilTOMLIN, S. (1988). On clarifying curricular intent: ESP and
of Europe/Oxford: Pergamon. contributions from curriculum theory. Teaching English for
RIDDELL, P. (1991). Analysing student needs in designing Specific Purposes (Manila), 7 (June), 1-22.
specific purpose language syllabuses. Language Learning TONGUE, R. (1991). English as a foreign language at primary
Journal, 3. level. In Brumfit, Moon & Tongue (eds.), 109-14.

18
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library & Information Services, Swansea University, on 22 Aug 2017 at 12:42:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800007527
 State of the art: Needs analysis in language teaching
TRIM, J. (1973/80). Draft outline of a European unit/credit WATT,J. (1980). Performance of overseas postgraduate students:
system for modern language learning by adults. In Trim el a management teacher's view. ELT Documents, 109, 3843.
/., 15-28. WEST, R. (1992). Teaching English for Specific Purposes- Unit 5:
TRIM, J. (1977/80). Preface to Richterich & Chancercl, vii-viii. needs analysis approaches (a). Manchester: Centre for English
TRIM, J. (1980). The place of needs analysis in the Council of Language Studies in Education, University of Manchester.
Europe Modern Language Project. In Altman &James (eds.), WHITE, R. (1988). The ELT curriculum. Oxford: Blackwell.
46-65. WIDDOWSON, H. (1979). ESP: criteria for course design (mimeo).
T R I M J . , RICHTERICH, R., VAN EK, J. & WILKINS, D. (1973/80). WIDDOWSON, H. (1983). Learning purpose and language use.
Systems development in adult language learning. Strasbourg: Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Council of Europe/Oxford: Pergamon. WIDDOWSON, H. (1987). Aspects of syllabus design. In M.
UTLEY, D. (1992). The language audit. In Embleton & Hagen Tickoo (ed.), Language syllabuses: state of the art. Singapore:
(eds.), 33-46. RELC.
VAN DER HANDT, G. (1983). Needs identification and curricula WILKINS, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford
with particular reference to German for migrant workers. In University Press.
Richterich (ed.), 24-38. WILLIAMS, M. (1988). Language taught for meetings and
VAN EK,J. (1975). The Threshold Level. Strasbourg: Council of language used in meetings: is there anything in common?
Europe. Applied Linguistics, 9, 145-58.
VAN HEST, E. & OUD-DE GLAS, M. (1990). A survey of techniques WILLIAMS, M. (1991). A framework for teaching English to
used in the diagnosis and analysis of foreign language needs in young learners. In Brumfit, Moon & Tongue (eds.), 20312.
industry. Brussels: Lingua. WRIGHT, T. (1987). Roles of teachers and learners. Oxford: Oxford
WARD GOODBODY, M. (1993). Letting the students choose: a University Press.
placement procedure for a pre-sessional course. In Blue (ed.), YALDEN, J. (1987a). Principles of course design for language
49-57. teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
WATERS, M. & WATERS, A. (1992). Study skills and study YALDEN, J. (1987 b). The communicative syllabus. Hemcl
competence: getting the priorities right. English Language Hempstead: Prentice Hall International.
Teaching Journal, 46, 3, 274-84. YATES, C. (1977). What objectives? In Holden (ed.), 47-9.

19

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library & Information Services, Swansea University, on 22 Aug 2017 at 12:42:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800007527