Needs Analysis and Syllabus Design for

Language for Specific Purposes

HELEN BASTURKMEN

Introduction

Needs analysis and language for specific purposes (LSP) courses are “inextricably inter-
twined” (Brown, 2016, p. 4). LSP courses aim to help learners function linguistically within
a particular academic, professional, or workplace environment, and the course syllabus is
based on analysis of the needs of the learners in relation to such environments. The anal-
ysis of learners’ needs is thus a key process in the design and ongoing revision of the LSP
syllabus. Such is the importance of needs analysis that it is generally seen as the defining
characteristic of LSP (Bocanegra-Valle, 2016). This entry discusses the importance of needs
analysis in LSP, identifies trends in the practices and methodologies used, and examines how
the results of needs analysis can be used to inform the design of the LSP syllabus. Although
needs analysis is often viewed as essentially procedural, it is not without theory, nor is it
devoid of controversy and debate. The final sections discuss the role of theory and issues in
needs analysis.

The Role and Importance of Needs Analysis

Needs analysis is widely seen as being of major critical importance to the development of
LSP courses (Gollin-Kies, Hall, & Moore, 2015; Serafini, Lake, & Long, 2015; Brown, 2016).
Brown (2016) defines needs analysis as the “systematic collection and analysis of all infor-
mation necessary for defining and validating a defensible curriculum” (p. 4). In this process,
course developers investigate what learners need to know or be able to do in the target lan-
guage in order for them to function effectively in their chosen profession, work, or study
area. This is referred to as target situation analysis. In devising an LSP course for a group
of students of accounting, for example, the teacher or course developer will typically carry
out a target situation analysis to identify the tasks and functions the learners will need to
perform and, in relation to these, the language competencies they will require, such as areas
of language knowledge (for example, particular semantic fields and genres) and linguistic
skills. A needs analysis for students of accounting may indicate that the learners need to be
familiar with vocabulary on topical areas (such as loans and asset management), written gen-
res (such as financial statements and market reports), and linguistic skills (such as making notes
while listening to lectures) in order to make the most of their accounting studies. In addition
to target situation analysis, the teacher or course developer may conduct a present situation
analysis to identify the learners’ current ability to perform functions and tasks in the target
situation. This involves assessing the learners’ current level of competence with the level
required for successful participation in their profession, work, or study area. The informa-
tion obtained from the analyses is used in designing the course: for example, by organizing
the syllabus wholly or partly around the areas of need identified.
The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Edited by Carol A. Chapelle.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0861.pub2
2 NEEDS ANALYSIS AND SYLLABUS DESIGN FOR LSP

Although needs may be analyzed in the design of syllabi in general language teaching,
needs analysis is considered a critical step in the design of LSP syllabi. There are a number of
reasons for this. One reason relates to the purposes of LSP. LSP courses are established not so
much for the general value that knowing the target language may have for the learners as for
the specific value that knowledge of the language will have in helping learners gain entry to,
or advance in, their chosen area (discipline, profession, or workplace). Thus, teaching in LSP
is focused on needs related to that area. Another reason needs analysis is critical is related
to the duration of LSP courses. Unlike general language-teaching courses, which may be
long-term, LSP courses are often relatively short-term. Given the usual time constraints, it
is essential that time is used effectively in teaching LSP, and thus instruction is focused only
on the areas of language and skills of direct relevance. A further reason is the nature of
learners’ needs in LSP. It is feasible to organize LSP instruction around needs because the
learners have shared needs, since they are all currently studying or working in, or hoping to
gain entry to, a particular field or discipline. It is thus possible to identify a set of common
needs to a greater extent in an LSP situation than would be the case in a general language
teaching situation.

Trends in Scope and Methods

Over the years, the practice of needs analysis in LSP has been subject to change and devel-
opment. The scope has become broader, and what was once seen as a relatively simple
pre-course procedure to analyze language and communication in the target situation (target
situation analysis) has widened considerably over time (Flowerdew, 2013).
Early needs analyses tended to focus on the language requirements of the target situation
to establish priorities in terms of the situations, functions, tasks, or skills needed (West, 1997).
Over time, the scope has widened to include present situation analysis (assessment of the
learners’ current ability to perform the skills, tasks, or functions) and investigation of learn-
ers’ subjective needs (what learners would like to learn), in addition to investigation of objec-
tive needs (needs identified through target situation analysis), investigation of learning needs
(learners’ preferred learning styles and strategies, and preferred instructional methods), and
means analysis (assessment of the teaching context, including how the course will be run and
the LSP background of the teachers). At present, needs analyses in LSP generally include
target situation analysis and some or all of the other types of analysis shown in Table 1.
A comprehensive list of options for analysis is available in Brown (2016). It includes refine-
ments of some categories above, such as target situation use analysis (what students would
be able to do in the LSP by the end of the LSP course), target situation linguistic analysis
(what linguistic features learners need to know and be able to use in the LSP), and target
situation learning analysis (features of learning and continuing learning in the target LSP
community) as well as other types of analysis, such as language audits, which are defined
as analyses to determine the kind of strategic language policies that should be adopted.
Conventional methods of inquiry include the use of questionnaires and interviews to
elicit the perceptions of learner needs as seen by the various stakeholders (learners, teach-
ers, institutional representatives, and employers) and concomitant use of linguistic analysis
of communication in the target discipline, profession, or workplace. The latter may take
the form of a functional or speech act analysis in the case of spoken communication and
text-based analysis in the case of written communication. Although these methods remain
popular, others have also emerged. One trend is the investigation of real-world tasks in the
target situation. Tasks, units not defined by linguistic criteria, have been a unit of analysis in
a number of studies (Thomas, 2009; Spence & Liu, 2013). A second trend is the collection of
qualitative data, such as in-depth interviews, learner journals, or narrative accounts. Bosher
 NEEDS ANALYSIS AND SYLLABUS DESIGN FOR LSP 3

Table 1 Types of analysis

Type of analysis Aims to identify . . .

1 Target situation analysis language-related tasks, activities, and skills that

2 Present situation analysis
3 Learner factor analysis
4 Teaching context analysis
the learners should ideally be able to perform in
the profession, work, or study situation they
wish to enter or advance in.
the level of the learners’ ability to perform the
language-related tasks, activities, and skills
activities in relation to the demands of the target
situation.
learner factors, such as their motivation, how they
learn, and their perceptions of needs and wants
in relation to the LSP course.
factors related to the environment in which the
LSP course will run and what the course and
teacher can realistically offer.

and Stocker (2015), for example, asked nurses in a Taiwanese context to write narrative
accounts of how they used language in the target environment. The nurses wrote accounts
of the ways they used English in the workplace and described any communication prob-
lems they encountered. A further trend is the use of multiple sources and methods in the
collection and triangulation of data. For example, Lu (2018) generated two kinds of data
for an analysis of nurses’ English-language needs: observational data gained by shadowing
nurse participants as they went about their work and semi-structured interviews. Learner
perspectives continue to be a major focus of investigation in addition to the perspectives of
institutional representatives or employers. A review of studies reporting needs analysis in
the field of English for academic purposes (EAP) (Bocanegra-Valle, 2016) found that all the
studies had taken into account students’ perspectives. The needs analyst may, for example,
seek current LSP course members’ views of their needs or difficulties, or contact former LSP
course members now working or studying in the target environment.
Recent years have seen the emergence of ethnographic approaches—see, for example,
Önder Özdemir (2014) and Johns and Makalela (2011). Ethnographic needs analyses aim to
reach an in-depth understanding of communication in the target community from the per-
spectives of insider-members. They generally involve sustained engagement in the research
site. In line with ethnographic inquiry generally, analysts using this approach draw on meth-
ods such as observations of communicative events in the target environment and in-depth
interviewing in their investigations.
Although most needs analyses have a narrow focus on needs in a particular discourse
community, and are thus essentially case studies (Spence & Liu, 2013; Lu, 2018), some
needs analyses have a broad focus on the requirements of learners across geographical,
institutional, and/or disciplinary contexts. These include Lockwood’s study (2012) of the
English-language needs of customer service representatives in Asian call centers, Caplan
and Stevens’s study (2017) of academic language needs across disciplines in one university,
and Afshar and Movassagh’s nationwide study (2016) of the EAP needs of students in Iran.
The latter study investigated the needs of students from a variety of disciplinary areas
at different universities in Iran. Surveys are typically used in large-scale needs analyses.
Afshar and Movassagh (2016), for example, administered questionnaires to over 800
students and over 50 EAP teachers to gather perceptions of students’ listening, speaking,
reading, and writing needs. Following the questionnaire, some students and teachers were
4 NEEDS ANALYSIS AND SYLLABUS DESIGN FOR LSP

interviewed and the classes of some of the teachers were observed. The study found that
the students and teachers held some significantly different perceptions of students’ needs.
Recent years have seen the emergence of systematic reviews of needs analyses in LSP
which aim to identify trends and developments. Bocanegra-Valle (2016) reviewed 20 needs
analyses in EAP and classified each study in terms of data sources and research methods.
Serafini et al. (2015) reviewed needs analyses in English for specific purposes from 2000 to
2014 and classified each in terms of data sources, research methods, and triangulation of
data sources and/or methods. From the review, Serafini et al. (2015) identified a number of
positive methodological developments, which included greater consultation with domain
experts, triangulation of sources and methods, use of mixed methods (qualitative and quan-
titative methods), and involvement of research participants with experience in the target
setting as opposed to pre-experienced participants.

From Needs Analysis to Specification of Syllabus Content

An important consideration in the design of syllabi concerns what content is to be covered

in the course and the sequence in which it is to be covered. In general language teaching,
determining content may be related to a number of considerations, one possible consider-
ation being disciplinary, professional, or workplace needs. In LSP, however, such needs are
generally given primary importance in determining course content.
The results of needs analysis are generally used to suggest or revise student learning out-
comes, or objectives, for LSP courses or training initiatives and to specify content areas to
be covered and the sequence in which they are to be covered (for example, most immedi-
ate to longer-term needs, or greatest needs to lesser needs). Outcomes or objectives may be
formulated using expressions such as by the end of the course, the nursing students in the LSP
class will be able to write nursing care plans in English. To illustrate, the analysis of the needs
of process integration engineers in a workplace setting reported in Spence and Liu (2013)
aimed to identify the communicative events the engineers performed that required English.
The study found that these events largely concerned dealing with international customers
and straddled engineering and business domains. In light of this finding, the researchers
recommended that English courses preparing engineering students for their future careers
could incorporate a focus on business English as well as engineering English. An investiga-
tion into the linguistic needs of internationally educated nurses (IENs) in the United States
(Staples, 2015) involved an analysis of lexicogrammatical features in nurse–patient inter-
action. Two groups of registered nurses at three hospitals in the US—IENs and US-trained
nurses (USNs)—performed a nurse–patient scenario with trained actors taking the role of
the patients. Although much of the language used by IENs and USNs was found to be simi-
lar, some differences were observed. For example, among findings, the use of stance markers
(such as, maybe and kind of), a feature that appeared to play an important role in creating
rapport with patients, were observed to be more frequent in the USN data. The findings
enabled the researcher to make very specific suggestions for linguistic devices to target in
IEN training.
In LSP, writers distinguish between two types of content: real content and carrier content
(Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Basturkmen, 2010). Real content refers to the aims of
instruction, what we want our students to learn, and carrier content refers to the means
of delivering the real content. Returning to the example of the students of accounting
introduced earlier, our aim might be to familiarize our learners with vocabulary related
to market reporting, and we could select a market report-type text from a newspaper to
“carry” the content. In the remainder of this discussion, the word “content” is used to refer
to “real content.” The course developer might opt for a multistrand syllabus combining
 NEEDS ANALYSIS AND SYLLABUS DESIGN FOR LSP 5

different elements including grammar, lexis, functions, and tasks related to the needs
identified in the needs analysis. For example, the vocabulary strand in the first module of
the course might focus on assets and in the second on loan management.
How the course developer determines course content often depends not just on areas
of need identified in the needs analysis but also on views about language and language
learning. The course developer may structure the syllabus around one particular feature
of language that is seen as primary. For example, Feez (1998) describes the development
of a text-based syllabus reflecting the view that “language occurs as whole texts which are
embedded in the social contexts in which they occur and people learn language through
working with whole texts” (p. 3). In this view, texts are the units by which the syllabus is
organized. The content of the syllabus is based on texts selected in relation to learner needs
and the social contexts the learners aim to access. Taking this view, the developer of the
course for students of accounting could devise a syllabus around text types with module
one as financial statements and module two as market reports, with language and skills con-
tent related to the texts at hand and to vocabulary and skills involved in reading financial
statements and market reports.

The Role of Theory

Not only can language theories inform needs analysis (for example, by influencing the selec-
tion of the unit the analyst chooses to investigate) but it is possible that needs analysis may
be able to contribute to theory. Molle and Prior (2008), conducting a genre-based needs anal-
ysis of student writing in university settings, found a number of complexities in the written
texts in their setting that challenged the notion of genre on which the study had been based.
This finding led the researchers to reconceptualize their understanding of genre and offer
a perspective of genre in university settings as a multimodal set of systems merged within
academic activities (2008, p. 563).
Views of language learning may also influence the analyst in decisions about what to
investigate. Räsänen (2008) describes a transition in her teaching context from a view of
learning as acquiring knowledge of language systems to a view of learning as the devel-
opment of competencies in language-related skills, and in line with this reorientation, a
subsequent investigation of core language-related skills was involved in the process of LSP
course development. As argued by Robinson (1991),

The needs that are established for a particular group of students will be an
outcome of a needs analysis project and will be influenced by ideological pre-
conceptions of the analysts. A different group of analysts working with the
same group of students, but with different views on teaching and learning,
would be highly likely to produce a different set of needs. (p. 7)

Issues in Needs Analysis

Although limited, there has been some discussion of issues associated with needs analysis
and needs-based course design in the literature. First, the term “needs analysis” is open to
differing interpretations. Brown (2016) describes four possible conceptualizations of needs
analysis: a democratic view in which needs are defined as whatever the majority of stu-
dents (and/or other stakeholders) want; a discrepancy view in which needs are defined as
differences in students’ present abilities and what they ought to be able to do in the LSP;
an analytic view whereby needs are defined in relation to SLA theory and what should be
6 NEEDS ANALYSIS AND SYLLABUS DESIGN FOR LSP

the next step in learning; and a diagnostic view whereby needs are defined as aspects of the
LSP that would cause harm if they were missing.
Needs analysis may serve institutional rather than learner interests, and in effect marginal-
ize learners. Needs analysts might over-rely on information from institutional representa-
tives who have definite expectations about what the learners should be able to do (Auerbach,
1995). By developing courses around needs, designers are in effect training learners to fit into
the communicative practices of linguistically privileged in-groups. Needs analysis may at
first sight seem to be a neutral endeavor, but, in fact, it is a means by which institutions
can try to get others to conform to their own established communicative practices (Benesch,
2001). Workplace needs-based LSP courses may serve as a covert means of channeling immi-
grants into marginal occupations. By ensuring the learners only have sufficient English to
perform specific low-wage jobs, such courses in effect deprive learners of the opportunity
to develop the general language competence that might enable them to move beyond these
jobs (Tollefson, 1991).
To avoid an overemphasis on institutional interests, many needs analysts do not limit their
investigation to the perspectives of the institutions, but investigate the views of various
stakeholders. Analysts may find, however, that perceptions of needs vary, and in these cases
the course developer has to decide whose perceptions to take into account in designing
LSP instruction or otherwise try to merge divergent perspectives. In such circumstances,
institutional expectations might exert more pressure on the course designer than those of
the learners or workers.
Basing courses on the language requirements of the target environment raises educational
concerns. Language needs are not learning needs, and although learners may need to use
certain language structures or features in their target environments, this does not mean that
they are ready to acquire these structures or features (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). By devel-
oping needs-based instruction, it is generally assumed that the learners will find the course
content relevant and thus motivating. But this may not be the case. For example, engineering
students may need to work with texts concerned with technical matter. The texts LSP teach-
ers (other than those who have an engineering background or understanding of engineering
beyond that of the layperson) might select to use in the classroom may be technically low
level and not prove interesting to the learners. It is difficult to justify needs-based courses
except with reference to relevance and motivation.
The methods used in needs analysis have been subject to scrutiny. Although needs ana-
lysts often seek to elicit the learners’ perceptions of their needs, the learners may not be
reliable sources of information about their needs, particularly if they are relatively unfa-
miliar with the job they are to perform or subject they are to study (Long, 2005). Studies
can compensate for this, however, by gathering data from students who have progressed
from the LSP course into the target setting. For example, Mede, Koparan, and Atay (2018)
interviewed graduates from their aviation English program to explore their perspectives of
how the program had and had not prepared them for their English needs as cabin crew.
Analysts may try to elicit the perceptions of employers and institutional representatives,
but they, like learners, may not have a sophisticated knowledge about the language and
metalanguage needed to describe target situation language use and the nature of linguistic
difficulties in a meaningful way.
The methods used in a needs analysis may affect the results. Long (2005), in a study to
identify the needs of airline cabin crews, compared different methods of data elicitation in
an attempt to see how the choice of method impacted on the data obtained and ultimately
on the results of the needs analysis. Thomas (2009), in a study to identify language-based
tasks of engineers within a civil engineering company, compared two methods of data
elicitation: oral interviews and written introspection. Thomas found that the written
introspections elicited a greater range of tasks than the interviews but the interviews
 NEEDS ANALYSIS AND SYLLABUS DESIGN FOR LSP 7

elicited more detail and complexity of task descriptions than the introspections. Such
results support calls for the use of multiple methods and triangulation in needs analysis
(Long, 2005; Serafini et al., 2015).
Serafini et al.’s review of need analysis studies in ESP (2015) revealed that studies often
lacked information about sampling procedures and if or how data collection materials, such
as questionnaires, had been piloted. The review found that although most studies had gath-
ered data from different sources and/or by means of different methods, less than half trian-
gulated data from multiple sources by multiple methods (source × method interactions).

Conclusion

To conclude, needs analysis is seen as a defining, if not the defining, characteristic of LSP.
Although long recognized as a fundamental characteristic, the practice of needs analysis in
this field has changed over time: the scope of investigation has widened and the methods
used have become ever more varied. The focus of needs analysis has been expanded from
a relatively narrow investigation of the linguistic requirements of the target situation to a
wider investigation that also includes investigation of needs related to learner factors and
teaching context.
The importance of needs analysis lies in the potential of its findings to inform the devel-
opment of the syllabus of the LSP course in question. As Long (2005) argues, findings from
any particular needs analysis are restricted to the setting of the study and cannot be gener-
alized to a wider audience. What may, however, be of interest to the wider audience is the
choice of methods, and, as we have seen, methods in this area have become increasingly
sophisticated over time.

SEE ALSO: Critical English for Academic Purposes; Genre and Discourse Analysis in Lan-
guage for Specific Purposes; Needs Analysis; Speech Acts; Syllabus Design; Teacher Educa-
tion for Language for Specific Purposes

References
Afshar, H. S., & Movassagh, H. (2016). EAP education in Iran: Where does the problem lie? Where
are we heading? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22(1), 132–51.
Auerbach, E. R. (1995). The politics of the ESL classroom: Issues of power in pedagogical choices.
In R. Tollefson (Ed.), Power and inequality in language education (pp. 9–33). Cambridge, Eng-
land: Cambridge University Press.
Basturkmen, H. (2010). Developing courses in English for specific purposes. Basingstoke, England:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics and practice. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2016). Needs analysis for curriculum design. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.),
The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 560–76). London, England: Rout-
ledge.
Bosher, S., & Stocker, J. (2015). Nurses’ narratives on workplace English in Taiwan: Improving
patient care and enhancing professionalism. English for Specific Purposes, 38, 109–20.
Brown, J. D. (2016). Introducing needs analysis and English for specific purposes. Abingdon, England:
Routledge.
Caplan, N. A., & Stevens, S. G. (2017). “Step out of the cycle”: Needs, challenges, and success of
international undergraduates at a US university. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 15–28.
Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
8 NEEDS ANALYSIS AND SYLLABUS DESIGN FOR LSP

Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney, Australia: National Centre for English Language
Teaching and Research.
Flowerdew, L. (2013). Needs analysis and curriculum development in ESP. In B. Paltridge & S.
Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 325–46). Oxford, England:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Gollin-Kies, S., Hall, D. R., & Moore, S. H. (2015). Language for specific purposes. Basingstoke,
England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning-centred approach.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Johns, A. M., & Makalela, L. (2011). Needs analysis, critical ethnography, and context: Perspec-
tives from the client—and the consultant. In D. Belcher, A. M. Johns, & B. Paltridge (Eds.),
New directions in English for specific purposes research (pp. 197–221). Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Lockwood, J. (2012). Developing an English for specific purposes curriculum for Asian call cen-
tres: How theory can inform practice. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 14–24.
Long, M. H. (2005). Methodological issues in learner needs analysis. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Second
language needs analysis (pp. 19–78). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lu, Y.-L. (2018). What do nurses say about their English language needs for patient care and their
ESP coursework: The case of Taiwanese nurses. English for Specific Purposes, 50, 116–29.
Mede, E., Koparan, N., & Atay, D. (2018). Perceptions of students, teachers and graduates about
civil aviation cabin services ESP program: An exploratory study in Turkey. In Y. Kirkgöz &
K. Dikilitaş (Eds.), Key issues in English for specific purposes in higher education (pp. 157–75).
Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Molle, D., & Prior, P. (2008). Multimodal genre systems in EAP writing pedagogy: Reflecting on
a needs analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 42(4), 541–66.
Önder Özdemir, N. (2014). Diagnosing the EAP needs of Turkish medical students: A longitudinal
critical needs analysis. Ibérica, 28, 35–58.
Räsänen, A. (2008). Tuning ESP/EAP for mobility, employability and expertise: A pedagogical
process of change in focus, insight and practice. ESP in European Higher Education: Integrating
Language and Content, 6, 247–66.
Robinson, P. (1991). ESP today: A practitioner’s guide. Hemel Hempstead, England: Prentice Hall.
Serafini, E. J., Lake, J. B., & Long, M.H. (2015). Needs analysis for specialized learner populations:
Essential methodological improvements. English for Specific Purposes, 40, 11–26.
Spence, P., & Liu, G.-Z. (2013). Engineering English and the high-tech industry: A case study of an
English needs analysis of process integration engineers at a semiconductor manufacturing
company in Taiwan. English for Specific Purposes, 32, 97–109.
Staples, S. (2015). Examining the linguistic needs of internationally educated nurses: A
corpus-based study of lexico-grammatical features in nurse–patient interactions. English for
Specific Purposes, 37, 122–36.
Thomas, J. (2009). The language based tasks of civil engineers in a New Zealand workplace (Unpublished
MA dissertation). University of Auckland.
Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality. New York, NY: Longman.
West, R. (1997). Needs analysis: State of the art. In R. Howard & G. Brown (Eds.), Teacher education
for LSP (pp. 68–79). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.