NATIONAL AND KAPODISTRIAN UNIVERSITY OF

ATHENS
SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHY
FACULTY OF ENGLISH STUDIES

Designing a Syllabus based on the ILFC after

administering a Needs Analysis Questionnaire to a group of

C1 teen learners

Student Name: Krystallia Katsarou

Student ID: 213007

Course: Curriculum and materials development and evaluation

Programme: MA in Applied Linguistics

Instructors: Prof. Kia Karavas

Date of Submission: 22/04/2015

Table of Contents
PART A: RATIONALE OF THE NEEDS ANALYSIS QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................................3
1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................3
2. Needs Analysis..........................................................................................................................3
2.1. Objective Needs............................................................................................................4
2.2. Subjective Needs ..........................................................................................................4
3. Overall Remarks........................................................................................................................6
4. Presentation and Discussion of Results....................................................................................7
4A. Personal Information.....................................................................................................7
4B. Language Profile ............................................................................................................7
4C. Preferences..................................................................................................................10
5. Constraints..............................................................................................................................13
6. Implications ............................................................................................................................13
7. Concluding Remarks ...............................................................................................................15
PART B: RATIONALE OF THE SYLLABUS .........................................................................................16
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................16
2. Type of Syllabus - Organizing Principle...................................................................................16
3. Methodology ..........................................................................................................................17
4. Concluding Remarks ...............................................................................................................19
Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 21

Appendix 1 Questionnaire ............................................................................................... 23

Appendix 2 Syllabus .......................................................................................................... 26

2
 PART A: RATIONALE OF THE NEEDS ANALYSIS QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to design a Syllabus based on the IFLC for a group of C1 teen

learners. To that end, in the first place an analysis of the learners’ needs is required, which

is done through a questionnaire (see Appendix 1). Then will follow a presentation and

analysis of the findings, while this first part will be completed with some reference to the

constraints and implications of the results to take into account when designing the syllabus

in the second part.

To begin with, what is deemed necessary is some theoretical background with regard to

needs analysis and questionnaires, thus, providing the rationale behind each question

included in the questionnaire handed out.

2. Needs Analysis

According to Brown (2009), needs analysis (or needs assessment) refers to the process

followed in order to gather information about a particular client group in industry or

education. In this case, this definition seems quite fit with an emphasis on “the particular

client group”, since the questionnaire is administered at the beginning of the academic year

to a group of seven (7) C1 teen learners in a private foreign languages school where the

school policy overrides many of the teacher decisions (see also Constraints). Richards

(2001) also suggests that the first step in conducting a needs analysis is to decide what its

3
purpose is. In this case, the purpose is to try and transform a traditionally exam-preparatory

class level (C1) – traditional for the private sector and “frontistiria”, at least – into a more

rewarding experience for both the learners and their knowledge of English as a language

and culture, and, consequently, the final outcome (i.e. success in the C2 level following up

shortly afterwards). The needs analysis Questionnaire will be divided in two major types

of needs, the objective and the subjective ones (Brindley, 1989).

2.1. Objective needs

The questions in the first part of the questionnaire (see Appendix 1, A) are designed in order

to obtain more objective, factual needs, such as gender, age, years of studying English, and

class attended in the Greek school, wishing to identify to what extent learners share more

or less some basic background knowledge and experience from official schooling not only

in English but also in Greek.

2.2. Subjective needs

The questions in the next two parts of the questionnaire (see Appendix 1, B and C) will be

covering subjective needs. Part B is given the general title Language Profile, while Part C

the heading Preferences.

Question B.1. asks the learners’ reasons for learning English as perceived by themselves

because that will be underlying and guiding the whole teaching/learning process and

orientation to a great extent (see also Implications, Concluding Remarks).

4
Question B.2. wishes to locate the learners’ difficulties and lacks in specific skills and

subskills. That way their strengths will be reversely identified too, as the smallest

percentage given to a difficult area will automatically mean that the learners find this area

not so problematic. As to the choice of those “areas”, they were given having in mind the

four basic skills (Reading, Writing, Listening, Speaking) but also some sub-categories

(grammar, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation), so as to have a more comprehensive view of

their strengths and weaknesses.

Question C. 1. refers to the topics learners find more interesting, which will give a hint as

to the themes covered; after all, learner motivation does play a major role in the whole

learning procedure (Cheng & Dörnyei, 2007). In general, learner motivation is one of the

leading principles of not just the questionnaire, but also of the whole syllabus presented

later on. As to the topics listed themselves, they were put in that box taking beforehand

into account predominantly the learners’ teen age.

Question C.2. asks that learners state how they prefer to work and, along with the next

question C.3., the aim is to facilitate the methodological part of the syllabus. So, on one

hand (C.2.), learners should say if they prefer working alone, in pairs, or in groups which

is very precise. On the other hand (C.3), the options given are more diverse in nature that

help towards an overall understanding of the learners’ perception and preference with

regard not only to class work and activities but also to the way they work alone at home.

That way it is, somehow, attempted to help students realise that those two are and will be

treated in conjunction with one another. The last two options (Interactive Whiteboard and

peer-teaching), in particular, are specifically included having in mind the school’s much

5
advertised (in the flyers handed out and to the parents coming to enroll their children)

facilities and teaching techniques.

3. Overall Remarks

This questionnaire has been designed following, to a great extent, Leung’s (2001)

suggestions as to: the length, what questions we should choose, how, and in what order, as

well as what the general layout should be. The questionnaire also starts with a small

paragraph for the students, saying that it does not take long to be completed, that the

information given will help me (the teacher) shape the lessons to their own needs, and that

it will be anonymous, so that students can start building a relationship of confidence with

me (the teacher), and eliminate the fear of their answers being known to anyone else. Also,

the pictures throughout the questionnaire and before each question wish to make it more

attractive to the teen learners and also give a hint as to what they have to do, since not many

read the instructions. Finally, in all questions the option to comment and specify, apart

from the given choices, is provided (open-ended form), so that learners can express

themselves more freely on their concerns, wishes, and desires.

6
4. Presentation and Discussion of Results

The results (number of answers and percentages per question) can be seen below following

the order and the parts of the questionnaire. A brief summative discussion will follow right

after each table while a final concluding discussion will be presented at the end gathering

all the information that will help form my learners’ overall needs profile.

4A. Personal Information

With regard to the gender factor, the majority is females (5/7, 71%). In terms of Greek

school class, the majority 71% (5/7) are in the 1st year of senior high-school (aged 15-16),

while 2 (29%) are at the last year of junior high-school (aged 13-14). The majority again

71% (5/7) have been doing English for 7 years and the rest (29%) for 6 years. This

information, and particularly the teen age factor, will be a solid basis for designing the

syllabus.

4B. Language profile

It can be seen from Table 1 below that all students (7/7, 100%) listed as their top priority

that they learn English to get a certificate, to be able to understand books, magazines, or

newspapers in English, to surf the Internet, and to understand songs in English. The young

age of most of the learners justifies that high percentage of those reasons, coming in

accordance with their understanding of the important role of the English language in the

world today (43%).

7
 1. Why are you learning English? Tick as many answers as you Percentage
want.

So that I get better marks at school. (2/7) 29%

So that I get a certificate in English. (7/7) 100%
So that I can speak to foreign people. (3/7) 43%
So that I can travel abroad. (3/7) 43%
So that I can study abroad. (3/7) 43%
So that I can understand songs in English. (7/7) 100%
So that I can understand books, magazines, or newspapers in (7/7) 100%
English.
So that I can surf the Internet. (7/7) 100%
Because I enjoy learning English. (5/7) 71%
Because I will have more qualifications. (4/7) 57%
Because I realise the important role of English in the world today. (4/7) 57%
I don’t know why I’m learning English. 0
Other, please specify: 0
Table 1.

Travelling, studying abroad, and speaking to foreign people (43% each) is considered

rather important by many students. Also, learners seem to realise that they need English as

a qualification (43%) which is normal since most are slowly getting in track for the

Panhellenic examinations that are inextricably linked to getting a job. A last point worth

mentioning is that only 2 students opted for learning English just for a grade, a pleasant

surprise since parent and Greek school influence is a common phenomenon in Greece.

Also, no one said that they do not know why they are learning English or commented

otherwise. The results from this part of the questionnaire will be used in deciding upon the

thematic type of texts used in the syllabus.

8
 2. To what degree do you find difficulty in the following areas? Circle one number
for each.
1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = a lot
1 = Not at all 2 = Somewhat 3 = A lot
Speaking (2/7) 29% (3/7) 43% (2/7) 29%
Listening (2/7) 29% (3/7) 43% (2/7) 29%
Reading (2/7) 29% (2/7) 29% (3/7) 43%
Writing (2/7) 29% (2/7) 29% (3/7) 43%
Vocabulary (1/7) 17% (3/7) 43% (3/7) 43%
Grammar (1/7) 17% (3/7) 43% (3/7) 43%
Spelling (4/7) 57% (2/7) 29% (1/7) 17%
Pronunciation (4/7) 57% (2/7) 29% (1/7) 17%
Comments: The grammar and vocabulary of this class is a bit more difficult than the
previous class. (3/7) 43%
I would like everyday language, expressions, idioms to help me with movies and songs.
(3/7) 43%
Table 2.

It can be seen from Table 2 above that the majority of students (3/7, 43%) find great

difficulty in Reading, Writing, Vocabulary, and Grammar, followed by Speaking and

Listening (2/7, 29%). Out of those seven areas, Spelling and Pronunciation seem to be

considered by the students as not so problematic, since only 1 circled ‘a lot’ in both.

Listening and Speaking seem to pose the least difficulty compared to the rest (‘a lot’ 2/7,

29%), which may be attributed to the young age of all students, and to the fact that English

is predominant in the Greek reality (e.g. TV, movies, songs) and the international Internet

reality (e.g. websites, blogs, social media etc.). That also explains the comment given by 3

students (request for everyday, colloquial and idiomatic language); young people today

live within an “English-dominant” Internet and multimedia world. Vocabulary and

Grammar marginally seem to outnumber the rest in terms of difficulty as only 1 student

mentioned ‘not at all’, which, combined with the other comment, points to the conclusion

that the transition from B2 to C1 seems like a leap for them, especially since it is the

beginning of the year. It should be noted at this point that the areas which received the

9
lowest percentage in terms of difficulty constitute, at the same time, the ones that the

students see as their strong points. In general, the table shows that the results are more or

less split, with the option “somewhat” ticked by a lot of students each time, so an

enhancement and consolidation of each area will be sought after at the syllabus, as well.

4C. Preferences

1. What topics are you interested in? Tick as many answers as Percentage
you want.
Movies (5/7) 71%
Music (6/7) 86%
Sports (3/7) 43 %
Fashion (3/7) 43 %
Famous people (4/7) 57%
Technology (6/7) 86%
Teenagers (7/7) 100%
Environment (5/7) 71%
Art (2/7) 29%
Science (5/7) 71%
Other, please specify: computers, internet (5/7) 71%
Table 3.

It can be seen from Table 3 above that all students (7/7, 100%) ticked teenagers as their

favourite topic to work on, with music and technology (6/7, 86%), coming second, and

movies, environment and science following right next (5/7, 71%), which can be explained

taking into account the students’ personal profile and the fact they these are common topics

even in the Greek schools. In fact, 5/7 (71%), almost the same percentage as Technology,

commented that they wish for Computers and Internet to be as a separate topic, which is

indeed something that initially had not been thought of as a separate topic, yet learners

themselves specified this preference of theirs. The list of preferences is completed with

10
Famous People (4/7, 57%), as well as Sports and Fashion (3/7, 43%), which will also be

taken into account. The results from this part of the questionnaire will be used in deciding

upon the theme chosen and the topics treated.

2. How do you prefer to work? Circle one number for each.

1 = disagree, 2 = neither agree nor disagree, 3 = agree
Disagree Neither agree nor Agree
disagree
I like working on my own. 0 (4/7) 57% (3/7) 47%
I like working in pairs. (1/7) 17% (3/7) 47% (3/7) 47%
I like working in groups. (1/7) 17% (2/7) 29% (4/7) 57%
Table 4.

It can be seen from Table 4 above that learners’ preferences are pretty clear in the ‘working

alone’ option which no one ticked, but instead seemed rather neutral (the majority: 4/7,

57% versus 3/7, 47% that said ‘agree’). Group work seems to be a bit more preferable

compared to pair work (4/7, 57%) which might be explained taking into account that teen

students at this age can be more shy to collaborate one-to-one – especially with only two

boys – while working in a group makes everyone safer both in terms of language

proficiency (not afraid of mistakes) and perhaps in “delicate” boy-girl interaction. The

results from this part of the questionnaire will be used in deciding upon the classroom

activities and the overall methodology.

It can be seen from Table 5 below that all students really like working with the Interactive

Whiteboard (no one disagreed, 6 fully agreed and only one was neutral), which is

absolutely normal considering the digital world teenagers live in today.

11
 3. To what extent do you like the following ways of learning? Circle one number for
each way. 1 = disagree, 2 = neither agree nor disagree, 3 = agree
1 = disagree 2 = neither agree 3 = agree
nor disagree
Studying grammatical rules. (2/7) 29% (3/7) 47% (2/7) 29%
Doing most exercises at home. (1/7) 17% (1/7) 17% (5/7) 71%
Doing tests. (3/7) 47% (3/7) 47% (1/7) 17%
Listening to authentic English
materials (e.g. songs, YouTube (1/7) 17% (1/7) 17% (5/7) 71%
videos)
Working with the Interactive
0 (1/7) 17% (6/7) 86%
whiteboard
Peer-teaching (5/7) 71% (2/7) 29% 0
Table 5.

Likewise, most students opted in favour of authentic English input (‘agree’ 5/7, 71%). That

one person disagreeing completely may also be the one having most difficulty in listening.

In addition, most learners seem to be against peer-teaching (one of the school’s much

advertised teaching practices), which is also not such a familiar practice to them even from

their Greek school. With regard to work at home, learners are reluctant to have a lot of

workload there, so it can be easily assumed that they prefer most of the work done in the

classroom. However, they seem to be more or less neutral as to studying grammar at home

which is quite likely something they are used to throughout their formal English studies.

Finally, as pretty much expected, the students seem rather negative towards testing, at least

in the traditional, strict and formal format of it, which points to the adoption of alternative

ways for evaluation, too. The results from this part of the questionnaire will be used in

deciding upon the classroom methodology and evaluation.

12
5. Constraints

With regard to constraints, it is important to refer to the foreign languages school where

the lesson will take place, since I, as a teacher, am obliged to comply with the school policy.

Undoubtedly, the school facilities allow for a use of whiteboard and other multimedia (CD

player, video recorder), so that convenience will be incorporated in the syllabus and

methodology. However, a significant constraint that will dictate the choice of can-do

statements from the Integrated Foreign Languages Syllabus (ΕΠΣ-ΞΓ) is the fact that no

use of Greek whatsoever is allowed in the classroom in any form, as a “mandate” coming

from the “headquarters” of the school to be applied in all branches-schools. Therefore, the

“Greek-oriented” written and spoken mediation descriptors will be excluded from the

syllabus, as will also be discussed in the next part of this paper. Moreover, the school is

interested in its students’ succeeding in the large-scale official exams (mainly Michigan)

which guides, to some extent, the choice of activities which will have to be, at least

partially, centered around the exam style, too.

In terms of time constraints (West, 1994), the syllabus will be designed for a 3-month

period at the beginning of the school year, amounting to a total of 60 hours of lessons (5

hours a week). However, the syllabus can easily be followed with 4 hours a week by

limiting the extent to which some activities can be carried out by the teacher.

6. Implications

Overall, the syllabus presented in the next part of this paper will be designed taking into

account first and foremost the age and identity of the students, that is that they are teens.

13
Even at this young age, these students of this level (C1) are interested in getting a certificate

for a future qualification – probably an influence from their immediate environment

(parents, teachers) – but also in learning English so that they can better cope with their

extra-curricular activities, too (Internet, games, social media, music, movies, etc.). That is

why emphasis will be given both on the more formal part aiming to an exam, but also on

the everyday, colloquial, idiomatic aspect as also commented in the questionnaire by the

students themselves.

What will also be attempted is treating “soar spots” for the students – such as revision of

the tenses, passive voice, modals, as well as vocabulary “scaffolding” (word production,

thematic groups of words, idioms, collocations; spelling and pronunciation will be in the

agenda, too). In order to incorporate grammar and vocabulary, a reading text will be the

main introductory activity of the thematically-oriented unit. Of course, all four skills

(Reading, Writing, Listening, Speaking) will be treated too in an integrated way, since the

students’ answers suggest that they face even “some” difficulty in all areas, and, thus, there

should be a well-rounded learning with no subskill undeveloped.

In addition, based on the answers given, the topics chosen will be mainly focused around

teenagers, environment, technology, computers, internet, and science, but also famous

people, sports and music, so as to cover as many of the learners’ preferences as possible.

Working in groups is preferred by most students, so speaking will be mainly based upon

that through discussions and debates. Pair work, however, cannot be completely excluded,

as it is also part of the formal exams. Assigned homework will not be too much, since most

students prefer working in the classroom, while assessment will not be done in terms of

14
traditional and frequent formal quizzes and exams, but still it will take other forms in class

so as to evaluate the process of learning.

7. Concluding remarks

The constraints described above portray the saddening reality of the foreign languages

schools in Greece where the official stakeholders inadvertently influence and limit the

teacher’s work, as Richards also succinctly highlights (Richards, 2001). Nevertheless, this

is still a reality that we cannot ignore (West, 1994) and what I will try to do in the syllabus

design of the next part is to take advantage of the affordances of the private sector

(multimedia, etc.) while at the same time enrich and enhance the syllabus with an

immediate linking to the can-do statements of the Integrated Foreign Languages Syllabus,

which will ultimately meet my students’ needs and also cater for their wish to be able to

function and communicate effectively within an English-dominant world reality. In other

words, I will try to both help them take a certificate but also gain insightful knowledge in

everyday English and speech, since English is part of their immediate environment, may

that be school, work, entertainment, and so on. After all, as Cunningsworth (1983:149)

points out “language learning should prepare learners for real language use beyond the

confines of the classroom”, which is one of the ruling underlying principles of the syllabus

design that follows in Part B.

15
 PART B: RATIONALE OF THE SYLLABUS

1. Introduction

In this part of the paper the results derived and analysed from the needs analysis

questionnaire are combined into the design of a syllabus (see Appendix 2) that is in line

with the IFLC can-do statements and Munby’s (1978: 123-213) language skills. As can be

seen in Appendix 2, the syllabus consists of 3 pages, each one covering 1 unit and 1 month.

The table is divided in 6 columns (apart from the first that is just headings) Reading,

Vocabulary, Grammar, Listening, Speaking, and Writing, with the IFLC can-do statements

and Munby’s (1978: 123-213) language skills under each skill/area. Both the IFLC can-do

statements for C1 level and Munby’s language skills appear with a number in front (in

bold), which is the number they have in the IFLC website

(http://rcel.enl.uoa.gr/xenesglosses/analdiktes7.htm) and Munby’s book (Communicative

Syllabus Design, 1978: 123-213), respectively.

It should be mentioned that an exact one-to-one correspondence is not feasible under each

skill/area, but, instead, the purpose of each is derived from the needs analysis and is part

of the organizing principle described below.

2. Type of Syllabus – Organizing Principle

After analysing the results and concluding to some implications (see Implications) some of

the main things to take into account are the reason for learning English, the topics the

16
learners are interested in, as well as their teen age. Araya’s (1999:95) comment proves

highly facilitating, too: “it is important that the information of the needs analysis be used

in selecting topics the students might be more interested in reading”.

Therefore, it was concluded that the best choice would be to opt for a combination of an

integrated (as it covers all skills and sub-skills) syllabus that is also thematic, especially in

the Reading texts at the beginning of each unit that link everything together. In fact, that

combination in the syllabi is a usual teacher practice as Kranhke (1987 in Araya, 1999)

reports. In the same vein, Ur (1996) considers that, “increasingly, modern syllabuses are

combining different aspects in order to be maximally comprehensive and helpful to teachers and

learners.”

In addition, since the IFLC can-do statements are also an indispensable part of the syllabus

design, the communicative-functional view of language is also served – as stated in the

IFLC website on its view of language (http://rcel.enl.uoa.gr/xenesglosses/arxes2.htm) “the

IFLC is inspired by contemporary theoretical approaches that study the function of

language in communicative environments where it is being used”.

3. Methodology

The starting point for the whole unit, as already mentioned, is Reading, the importance of

which is evident in Araya (1999:96): “from all those texts on the same topic, it is important

to choose the one that best fits the principles of authenticity and relevancy of content and

tasks, background knowledge, strategy selection, and appearance”. It should be stressed

17
that it is up to the teacher to facilitate the whole learning process and elicit the best out of

her students, by posing the correct questions when necessary.

Thereby, at the beginning of the lesson the teacher should do some background knowledge

check, provide learners with some basic relevant vocabulary, and discuss with them in

general so as to spur their interest. Cabrera and Bazo (2002) also suggest that “where

possible, encourage pupils to work out the meaning of vocabulary as they come across it,

using the context and the supporting illustrations”.

Then, Vocabulary and Grammar are inextricably linked to the Reading texts, as the

vocabulary is thematically oriented (e.g. Echoes of Geckos: science/environment

vocabulary and collocations), and the grammar is also found in the texts (e.g. Second Life:

future tenses and time expressions because it talks about the future in education). Word-

building is also an activity found in all 3 units, since vocabulary aid was requested by the

students themselves, a view also supported by Tahaineh (2012:1112): “we have held that

knowing word formation rules and mechanisms is basic for the development of

autonomous and independent learners, especially concerning vocabulary production,

creativity, understanding and even proficiency”.

Proceeding to Listening, it is also thematically linked and has a range of formats (e.g. short

conversations, interviews). The originality here lies in unit 2 which is about teen life, in

general, with an emphasis on idioms and life in the USA. Listening here is done through

the use of the original YouTube video “Californication” as it depicts what is heard in the

lyrics – complex multimodal ensembles of image, sound, and animated movement Jewitt’s

(2005) – and, thus, enhances multimodality. A worksheet prepared by the teacher is handed

18
out to learners, with questions to check understanding of idioms and the lyrics writers’

stance towards social phenomena in the USA, with the aim to raise pragmatic awareness,

and at the same time, appeal to learners’ needs for music, songs, and everyday spoken

English.

Speaking follows naturally after Listening, even though it should not be treated only in that

separate section, but, instead, throughout the lesson. As to the activity per se, learners

should be encouraged to speak as much English as possible without interfering to correct

the mistakes that they will probably make (Cabrera and Bazo, 2002). The teacher should

also not correct mistakes on the spot, but rather note them all down and discuss them

afterwards as a class. Students are asked to work in groups and pairs, exactly so as to feel

more secure, as also pointed out in the needs analysis results. Each speaking activity aims

at one specific can-do statement and language skill (e.g. how to turn-take) which the teacher

presents to learners beforehand so as to give input and consolidation.

Writing is the last skill, where all the input offered so far is used as a model and the learners

are encouraged to write a variety or texts (e.g. opinion or advantages/disadvantages essay).

As to the role of the teacher in the whole scaffolding and genre writing, it should be viewed

as supportive and authoritative rather than authoritarian (Rothery, 1996).

4. Concluding Remarks

Overall, most of the work should be conducted in class through meaningful and engaging

activities and not a lot of homework should be assigned, as also indicated in the students’

preferences and the flipped classroom axiom (Tucker, 2012). Authentic input should also

19
be used whenever possible so as to foster communication and real-life language use. As to

evaluation, formal tests are one way to assess students and meet the “frontistirio”

requirements, yet, according to the IFLC principles

(http://rcel.enl.uoa.gr/xenesglosses/guide_kef7.htm), there should be a constant

observation and data collection on both individual and team work, evaluating the students’

ability to use the language meaningfully in various contextualized environments. Summing

all the above up, the evaluation should be completed not simply by giving a grade but by

explaining what the student can do, which proves once again the significance of the IFLC

can-do statements. That way, the students themselves can monitor their progress and have

a feeling of achievement, leading to autonomous learning, too.

20
Bibliography

Araya, X. C. (1999) “A material design model.” Letras Vol. 31. pp. 91-103.
Brindley, G. (1986) The role of needs analysis in adult ESL programme design. In R. K.
Johnson (ed) The second Language Curriculum. Cambridge University Press:
CUP.
Brown, J.D. (2011) The Handbook of Language Teaching. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Ltd.
Cabrera, M., and Bazo, P. (2002) “Teaching the Four Skills in the Primary EFL
Classroom.” The Internet TESL Journal. Vol. VIII, No. 12. Available at:
http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Bazo-FourSkills.html
Cheng, H.F. & Dörnyei, Z. (2007) “The Use of Motivational Strategies in Language
Instruction: The Case of EFL Teaching in Taiwan.” Innovation in Language
Learning and Teaching. Vol. 1. No 1. pp. 153-174.
Cunningsworth, A. (1983) “Needs Analysis – A Review of the State of the Art.” System.
Vol. 11. No 2. pp. 149-154.
Jewitt, C. (2005). “Multimodality, ‘Reading’, and ‘Writing’ for the 21st Century.”
Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education. Vol. 26. No 3. p. 315-331.

Kranhke, K. (1987) Approaches to Syllabus Design for Foreign Language Teaching. New
Jersey: Prentice Hal l, Inc. In Araya, X. C. (1999) “A material design model”.
Letras. Vol. 31. pp. 91-103.

Leung, W.C. (2001) “How to design a questionnaire.” Studentbmj. Vol. 9.

Munby, J. (1978) Communicative Syllabus Design. CUP. pp. 123-213.
Richards, J. (2001) Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rothery, T. (1996). Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics. In Tuan, T. L.
2011. Teaching Writing through Genre-based Approach. Theory & Practice in
Language Studies. Vol. 1. Issue 11. pp. 1471-1478.
Tahaineh, Y. (2012) “The Awareness of the English Word-formation Mechanisms is a
Necessity to Make an Autonomous L2 Learner in EFL Context” Journal of
Language Teaching and Research. Vol. 3. No. 6. pp. 1105-1113.
Tucker, B. (2012) “The Flipped Classroom” Education Next. Winter 2012. Available at:
educationnext.org

21
Ur, P. (1996) A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
In Defining Thematic Lessons
https://sites.google.com/site/lessoninvest/home/defining-thematic-lessons
West, R. (1994) “Needs analysis in language teaching.” Language Teaching and
Linguistics Abstracts. Vol. 27. No. 1. pp. 1-19.

Internet sources
http://rcel.enl.uoa.gr/xenesglosses/analdiktes7.htm
http://rcel.enl.uoa.gr/xenesglosses/guide_kef7.htm
http://rcel.enl.uoa.gr/xenesglosses/arxes2.htm
https://sites.google.com/site/lessoninvest/home/defining-thematic-lessons
http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Bazo-FourSkills.html

Images
http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/learn-english-and-have-fun.png
http://us.123rf.com/450wm/aroas/aroas1110/aroas111000022/10779000-sketch-of-little-
kids.jpg
http://www.redhotmarketingblender.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/like-300x145.jpg
http://www.talkenglishdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/talkenglish-why.jpg
https://encrypted-
tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQKZ1aogOzyki8F_DH0wG8osQ8WT8tYsg001
M7GKQD71Fp6qowS
http://natashaeldridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/About-Me.jpg

22
 APPENDIX 1
English
Questionnaire and I

Dear students, please fill out the following questionnaire (it will take no more than
10 min.) about your relationship to English and learning.
Your responses will help me as a teacher to improve my lesson and make it a better
experience for all of you.
Don’t worry, you don’t have to put your name anywhere. Thank you!

A. Personal Information: Tick the appropriate box and answer the questions.

1. Gender: Male Female

2. Age: ……………
3. How many years have you been studying English? …………………………………..
4. What class are you in the Greek school?…………………………………………………...

B. Language profile

1. Why are you learning English? Tick as many answers as you want.
So that I get better marks at school.
So that I get a certificate in English.
So that I can speak to foreign people.
So that I can travel abroad.
So that I can study abroad.
So that I can understand songs in English.
So that I can understand books, magazines, or newspapers in English.
So that I can surf the Internet.
Because I enjoy learning English.
Because I will have more qualifications.
Because I realise the important role of English in the world today.
I don’t know why I’m studying English.
Other, please specify: ...............................................................................................

23
 2. To what degree do you find difficulty in the following areas?
Circle one number for each. 1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = a lot

Not at all Somewhat A lot

Speaking 1 2 3
Listening 1 2 3
Reading 1 2 3
Writing 1 2 3
Vocabulary 1 2 3
Grammar 1 2 3
Spelling 1 2 3
Pronunciation 1 2 3
Comments: ………................................................................................................................
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

C. Preferences

1. What topics are you interested in? Tick as many answers as you want.

Movies
Music
Sports
Fashion
Famous people
Teenagers
Technology
Environment
Art
Science
Other, please specify: ..........................................................................................
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

2. How do you prefer to work? Circle one number for each.

1 = disagree, 2 = neither agree nor disagree, 3 = agree

Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree

I like working on my own. 1 2 3
I like working in pairs. 1 2 3
I like working in groups. 1 2 3

24
3. To what extent do you like the following ways of learning? Circle one number for
each way.
1 = disagree, 2 = neither agree nor disagree, 3 = agree

Disagree Neither agree Agree

nor disagree
Studying grammatical rules. 1 2 3
Doing tests. 1 2 3
Doing most exercises at home. 1 2 3
Listening to authentic English materials
1 2 3
(e.g. songs, YouTube videos).
Working with the Interactive
1 2 3
Whiteboard.
Peer-teaching 1 2 3

25