Needs Analysis of E class Greek Primary School

HELLENIC OPEN UNIVERSITY

1. Ed. In TESOL

COURSE DESIGN AND EVALUATION

ASSIGNMENT 2:

DESIGN AND ADMINISTRATION OF A NEEDS ANALYSIS

Of

GREEK PRIMARY SCHOOL LEARNERS

at a public school : a case study.

by

KAVOURAS SPYRIDON

082197

TUTOR: Dr ELENI GHERALIS-ROUSSOS

CHIOS

February 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction                                                                            3

• Literature Review of Needs Analysis 3
• Situational Analysis                                                             4

• • Rationale of the Questionnaire                                                 5

2.2     Research Methodology                                                           6

2.3     Description of the Questionnaire-Results                               6

Implications for Teaching/Conclusion                                    8

Bibliographical References

APPENDIX I: Letter to the pupils’ parents requesting their contribution and clarifying the aims of the questionnaire.

APPENDIX II: Needs Analysis Questionnaire for Greek Learners of English FL in Greek State Primary School. ( in English).

APPENDIX III: Needs Analysis Questionnaire for Greek Learners of English FL in Greek State Primary School. ( in Greek).

APPENDIX IV: Results of the Questionnaire

Introduction

What do teachers choose to teach, how they determine their methods, activities, topics, how they adapt the materials, and who the learners-stakeholders who take part in the decision/ learning are, through what kind of processes the decision is taken, all comprise vital elements for a successful language learning program. Such processes are determined through needs analysis (Spinthourakis, 2004, p.47). This assignment aims to review the theoretical principles of the aforementioned process, describe the current situation in the educational setting where we teach this year, and present a small scale survey on year 5 five as an example on the learners’ needs and wants with reference to learning English at the Greek public primary school. The results of the survey are presented as benchmarks for improvement of our teaching this year, along with suggestions for possible implications for EFL teaching in Greek public primary schools in general.

PART 1

1.1 Literature Review of Needs Analysis: “ For teachers who are required to use a certain text, course development is the adaptation of the text, …;rather, what the teacher and students do with the text constitutes the course. Textbooks are tools that can be rearranged to suit the needs, abilities, and interests of the students…” (Graves, 1996, p.27). Such ideas have been the result of ESP and have been widely adopted in teaching English (White, 1988, p. 84), along with the dominance of Reconstructionism and Progressivism, with emphasis on learner-centeredness, in curriculum design (Clark, 1987, pp.93-96). Stakeholders and parameters of any course had to be taken into consideration in the planning and design of language courses (Manolopoulou-Sergi, 2004, p. 83). The rise of accountability, social marginal value of courses, consideration of cost-efficiency in education are factors that have imposed needs analysis (Long, 2005, p. 6-7).

The two basic types of syllabi, A and B, product-oriented and process-oriented focus on divergent aspects of competences; in search of those, needs have been defined as Objective –searching for pragmatic, conceptual, linguistic, interactive and cultural knowledge or Subjective-related to the process of learning and learners’ beliefs, preferences, style, aptitude, motivation, strategies use (Manolopoulou-Sergi, 2004, pp.88-98) . Various methods have been devised, inductive and deductive, to elicit the information for determining those needs, such as surveys, questionnaires, ethnographic methods, case studies, observation, diaries, journals, logs, interviews, content analysis, performance tests, triangulation, etc (Long, 2005, pp. 30-48).

Processes how to implement needs analysis have been proposed and established for its design, administration, collection of information, responses, analysis and exploitation of results. Formative, illuminative and summative evaluations, as they are considered, before, during, or at the end of a programme respectively, determine the content of courses, how they are adapted, or renewed to meet learners’ needs successfully (Richards, 2001, pp.289-291), or even reshape whole curricula (Clark, 1987).

1.2 Situational Analysis: Dubin offers a clear exposition of factors influencing syllabi which should be taken into account during needs analysis (Dubin, 1986, pp. 1-14).So does Richards (Richards, 2001, pp.90-108).  

Curriculum: Currently I have been teaching in primary schools in Chios, Greece. The formal curriculum, as defined by the Greek Ministry of Education is the new Integrated Foreign Languages Curriculum; http://rcel.enl.uoa.gr/xenesglosses/eps.htm  (Government Gazette issue ΦΕΚ 2871τ. Β /9-9-2016). It is in accordance with the EU directives on multilingualism and multiculturalism, (ΕΠΣ-ΞΓ, p.7) and conforming to the guidelines of the CEFL ( Common European Framework for Languages ). Though as an adaptation, renewal of the previous DEPPS-APS (ΔΕΠΠΣ, 2003, http://www.pi-schools.gr/lessons/english/aps_agg.php- Government Gazette, 2003) it claims to be learner-centered, with emphasis on the communicative approach. It is connected to the KPG language certificate, placing emphasis on mastery learning, setting goals referring to the 6 six-level scale of the CEFFL, accounting for A1+ level/A2 for year 5 five of primary school (ΕΠΣ-ΞΓ, pp.25-27, and Appendices Ι and II).Yet, methods, techniques, and materials to be taught are the teachers’ and learners’ responsibility to define: students are encouraged to develop their own learning pace, both intra and outside educational environment ( ΕΠΣ-ΞΓ, p. 10), a process to be determined through needs analysis, with formative and illuminative evaluation ( Richards, 2001, pp.289-290, and Graves, 1996, p.31) with the aim of adapting materials towards a negotiated syllabus (Graves, 1996, p. 30).

Coursebook: The 5^th grade coursebook is issued by the Ministry of Education, distributed to learners  for free, yet being compulsory for schools to adopt. It was published following the directives of the previous curriculum, DEPPS-APS, 2003, with emphasis on the principles of literacy, multiculturalism, project–based learning in accordance with the cross–thematic approach of DEPPS-APS. It features thematic units, incorporating cross-thematic activities which set English as a global language for communication among nations (Kolovou E. & Kraniotou A., 2009, p.5), setting thus a target-speech community for learners (Seedhouse, 1995, p.61).

Societal factors: In Greece generally, English is a compulsory subject at primary school; it is taught as a foreign language for three teaching hours per week for year 5. English classes used to start in year 3 three, at present they start in the first year for one hour per week. The class in question did not attend English lessons at school in years one and two. Students , however, tend to attend EFL classes outside the official educational setting, having private classes, thus increasing their linguistic capacity (Mitits, 2012, pp.454-455), and setting as a goal to attain a language knowledge certificate later in their adolescence (ΕΠΣ-ΞΓ, 2016, p.8). Thus, classes are of mixed ability groups, set according to their age and attendance of the Greek language curriculum. It is worth noting that pupils are taught French as a second foreign language for the year at school as a compulsory subject.

Students’ parents seem to have a basic knowledge of English, while a great number of them have been immigrants, especially from eastern Europe, whereas a number of local Greek parents or their relatives have been immigrants to the USA, or other countries of the western world (Long, 2005, p. 82,85), though there are not any heritage speakers of English; so the class forms a heterogenous group of learners. A lot of parents are also employed in the tourism industry of the island, offering pupils the opportunity to be exposed to other languages, and realize the necessity of being a fluent FL speaker.

The school is centrally located in Chios, at an urban neighborhood, mostly inhabited by middle- or low-income families. It is equipped with one computer per class with a projector, speakers and internet connection. Seating arrangements are organized in group-work seating, facilitating group or pair work (Papaeftymiou-Lytra, 1993, p. 132) . Classroom walls are surrounded by cork panels for students to publicize their work. The teachers’ room is adequately-equipped with photocopiers, printers and extra paper for instructors to print additional material for classroom use. Class size of year five (5) is of nineteen pupils (19).

The teacher is appointed by the local administrative-educational authorities at schools. The current teacher was placed at school this year for the first time, having 17 seventeen years of teaching experience. Their work is supported by the regional school advisory for English.

Constraints: School is not equipped with a language laboratory; there is a computer lab with internet connection where students attend ICT classes. Yet it consists of only five monitors, without speakers, and with no special EFL learning software, apart from one sent by the Ministry of Education in 2003, which is outdated and impractical. Graves offers an outline of possible limitations to the learning process (Graves, 1996, p.34).

Resources are pretty scarce; there are neither  any vocabulary books or companions of study, nor any dictionaries for learners; unfortunately, the school library is undersupplied, lacking appropriate space, featuring no English readers or any other books in English for the pupils to borrow or exploit in class-despite the clear reference in the teachers book of a long list of approved graded readers for exploitation in class ( Kolovou, 2009, pp. 137-138) . Posters for vocabulary or grammar presentation are non-existent, so are English grammar books for reference; as a consequence, the ministry-imposed coursebook remains the only available resource of study, which is prescribed to be covered within the school teaching year.

Time– Learning sessions are very often missed due to a host of reasons (ΕΠΣ-ΞΓ, 2016, p.26),  limiting exposure to the language, other cultures and cross-curricular thematic reference (Tzotzou, 2014, p.61).

2.1 Rationale of the Questionnaire: the questionnaire was administered to pupils of year 5 five at the 3^rd third primary school of Chios, Greece. It was meant to be used as an adaptation tool to the curriculum, to investigate students’ interests, entry and exit levels, set goals, engage them in the learning process, aiming towards cultivating their learner autonomy, and consequently improving the effectiveness of the learning process (ΕΠΣ-ΞΓ, 2016, p. 15). Furthermore, the class was facing problems of lack of interest from the pupils’ part, resulting in poor participation, insufficient, ill preparation of homework, with concurrent discipline problems. The questionnaire was designed to raise learners’ self-awareness of learning methods and strategies, increase their motivation for participation, improve their attitude towards the course by establishing better rapport with their instructor, interact with parents/custodians, so as to engage and activate not only learners, but their parents and co-teachers as responsible stakeholders, with a view to maximizing the factors contributing to higher, qualitative education, preventing possible resistance to change (Nair, 2003, p.12).

It opens with an explanatory note, to rest participants assured of their anonymity, thus elicit honest replies, by explaining its goals as a call for participation. The first part of the questionnaire deals with matters of participants’ identity, roles (teacher/pupil/parent), age, previous experience(s).

The main body of the questionnaire follows the distinction of needs to objective and subjective ones. So it examines as objective needs matters of language skills (question 4), learners’ performance, vocabulary topics (question 5) and language functions (question 6). The latter two refer to the list given in the appendix of the Integrated Foreign Languages Curriculum for A1+-A2 level for years five and six, and constitute topics from the table of contents of the class coursebook. Subjective needs are investigated in two separate parts; at the beginning, through questions 1(reasons for learning English-motivation) ( Manolopoulou-Sergi, 2004, pp.111-121), 2 (preferences/style of learning/modes of work- ibid, pp.95-108), 3 (learning strategies-Dornyei, 1998, pp.117-131), all of which are less face-threatening questions to lower participants’ inhibitions of self-defense. They are interrupted by reference to the objective needs, so as the more face-threatening questions of personal information and beliefs to appear last; questions 7a-7h inquire about participants attitudes, past experiences, beliefs, family background, and rapport with their instructor. Since the teacher himself has carried out this short survey, there was the danger of participants not answering, or giving dishonest answers.

The length of the document was designed to be answered within 20 twenty minutes; average learners\ attention span is of that time, participants should not be discouraged by its length, leave it unanswered, and it had to be covered by pupils within the maximum time allowance of one teaching session. As a consequence, the list of questions, strategies, topics, interests, styles, etc had to be very selective of those raised in the scientific bibliography, the teachers’ books, or the curriculum documents. After all, it is meant for classroom reference, not as an exhaustive survey of all kinds of needs.

The focus was on both product and process oriented needs. As the curriculum dictates that it is up to the learners and teachers to determine the methodology, activities, and topics, questions referring to learning style, multiple intelligences, language learning strategies, attitudes and motivation outnumber those referring to product needs. Since material is connected to KPG exams, linguistic matters of competences, skills, phonology are determined through the dictated coursebook, allowances are available for adaptation of the texts, emphasizing process-based learning (ΕΠΣ-ΞΓ, p. 10).

Finally, the last question calls for participants’ opinion on limitations to the learning process related to external factors, naming the book, the teacher, the school shortages of equipment, and asks for open ended answers to provide for differences of opinion.

2.2 Research Methodology: the questionnaire was administered in different stages to pupils as a convenience sample (Long, 2005, p. 34)

First, it was piloted among school teachers, to express their pedagogical criticism, and contribute towards triangulation of sources, for higher validity of the survey (Long, 2005, p.63). The specific teachers involved were the Greek teacher, the school head teacher, the French teacher, and the teacher for special education, all of whom share a clear personal image of the group.

In the next step, a group of four pupils were selected, at random, from the high achievement ones. They were taken separately to answer the questionnaire under the instructors’ guidance, to clarify possible enquiries, and for the surveyor to take notes of their responses for rectifying questions in the document. So a couple of pupils’ remarks led to simplification of expression, and clearer request in matters of parents’ age and previous experiences. These individuals functioned as multipliers in the next stage in class.

In class, the document was delivered by the group of the four students who had piloted its content, at the presence of the English language instructor; they were scattered around the class, one at each project-seating, offering explanation to their classmates, as peer tutoring (Nair, 2003, p.8); it is worth noting that the class participates in an Erasmus+ project on inclusive education techniques, based on Nair’s proposals. Pupils collaborated silently, creating the appropriate atmosphere for honest replies and productive self-reflection by the learners.

As an extension, extra copies with an escorting note were handed for their parents to answer at home; thus their replies would be verified through triangulation of sources, by expert and non-expert intuitions-teachers and parents ( Long, 2005, p.62). The papers were selected after the weekend, leaving convenient time for custodians to reply, out of whom a satisfactory number replied, ten out of  nineteen.

2.3 Description of the Questionnaire-Results:

The questionnaire in both Greek and English versions, its results in tabular form by all three groups of respondents are presented in the appendices.

The main inferences to be elicited from the answers follow below:

1. a) Motivation: pupils chose first extrinsic motivation propositions, ‘to get good marks’ and ‘pass a certification exam’, contrary to parents and teachers who underestimate their significance; the latter have opted for real life use of the language for travel or better career prospects. Though different, all choices comprise extrinsic motives, according to motivational psychology of expectancy-value theories (Dornyei, 1998, p.120).
2. b) Learning styles/multiple intelligences: the most popular proved to be acoustic auditory style of learning through songs, exploiting music intelligence, as well as watching subtitled films, though not as popular with parents. Following, traditional methods of learning through copying vocabulary, writing homework, or translating proved the second pupils preferable style, maybe due to the visual and kinesthetic elements associated with them, thinking style related to mathematical-logical intelligence. Computer games were high in the list, as interactive forms, despite the lack of such facility. (Manolopoulou, 2004, p.97, and ibid, p. 104).

Modes of work : most pupils’ choices refer to working alone (q. 2a, g, h,I,s), yet chatting, a pair work activity, seemed equally popular (q. j,k).

1. c) Strategies: (Oxford, 1990, and Kolovou, 2009, pp. 6-7) compensation, and metacognitive ones (questions 3f,3d), in accordance with the analytical thinking, prevailed in pupils’ and parents’ choices, though teachers preferred memory strategies (3a, 3c). Interestingly, learners whose either parent was bilingual learner of another language opted for more memory strategy of contextual stories (q. 3c), and sought social interaction strategies (q. 3m). ( Mitits, 2012, pp. 457-459,.
2. d) Attitudes:Lerning English was evaluated very highly by the majority of participants, yet some parents considered it rather difficult, in the same number with those who rarely talk with the instructor about their kids’ progress. Half of the pupils and parents confessed to seldom contact the instructor! As for the inhibiting factors, the majority of all participant groups blamed the coursebook; however, no one raised issue of lack of school facilities, which are quite grave, remembering the constraints raised earlier in this assignment ( see part 1.2).

Implications for Teaching/Conclusion

 A variety of inferences may be drawn by this needs analysis about the styles of learning, strategies, motivation and teacher-pupils’/parents’ rapport. Students’ participation for a negotiated syllabus can increase their engagement, and motivation towards intrinsic motivation, and improvement of skills. So work towards establishing permanent rapport with all stakeholders is the key to effective learning. After all, as Dornyei says ‘‘the voluntary use of strategies to facilitate learning…presupposes a great deal of commitment’’ (Doryei, 1998, p.130)

Word count: 2756