BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEENNEEDS ANALYSIS ANDCOURSE EVALUATION INSIGHTS
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Abstract: The “Advancing English Skillsâ€, textbook was compiled and introduced about a decade ago, at the Faculty of Humanities, Dhaka University, Bangladesh, to teach the foundation English courses, to freshmen students from thirteen departments, including English. Today the course is still being taught at some departments. The department of English scrapped the foundation course, but the textbook is still being used for another compulsory course. This paper presents the ï¬ndings of a study conducted to determine the English language needs of students (60) and teachers (30) at the Humanities Faculty of Dhaka University. Additionally a two prong evaluation of the course and materials from the viewpoints of both students and teachers of the Humanities faculty was carried out, in order to shed light on the nature, effectiveness, and objectives of the course. Strengths and shortcomings of the present course, and areas of mismatch between the students’ needs and the course, were identiï¬ed. Suggestions have been made, to improve the English language courses based on these ï¬ndings, and implications for pedagogy have been highlighted.
Keywords: needs analysis, course evaluation, perceptions, ability, mismatch
Article Details
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
References
Alam F. (2001). The Dhaka University English curriculum. Revisioning English in Bangladesh, P1-14. UPL.
Banu, R. (1993). A comparative needs analysis: Bangladeshi students at IML and one Japanese student at Georgetown University. Journal of the institute of Modern Languages (ed.).
Basturkmen, H., and A. Al Huneidi (1996). The language needs analysis project at the college of petroleum engineering Kuwait University. ERIC document. Retrieved on 10/11/2008
Chaudhury, T. A. (2011). Identifying the English language needs of humanities students at Dhaka University. Journal of Linguistics, 32-53.
Choudhury S. I. (2001). Rethinking the two Englishes. Revisioning English in Bangladesh, 15-27. UPL
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). London: Longman
Dudley Evans, T., and M.J. St. John. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: a multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1998) Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 139-60.
Flowerdew, J., and M. Peacock. (2001). The EAP curriculum: issues, methods, and challenges. In Flowerdew, J and Peacock, M. (Eds.) Issues in EAP: A preliminary perspective. UK: Cambridge University Press
Haque, S. M. F., and M. Maniruzaman. (1999). Attitudinal and motivational impact on EFL proficiency of undergraduates: afurther investigation. The Dhaka University Studies, 65-87.
Harvey, D. (1990). The condition of postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hossain, M. D. (2012). EAP course design: compromising with learner needs. Research Journal of Commerce and Behavioral Science. 1(6), 7-13.
Hutchinson,T., and A. Waters. (1987). English for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jordan, R. (1997). English for academic purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Khan, R. (2000). The English foundation course at Dhaka University: an evaluation. The Dhaka University Studies, Part A, 57(1), 77-110.
Kennedy, C. et al. (2001). Sociolinguistics. Birmingham: Centre for English Language studies.
Manivannan, G. (2006). The importance of the English language. Retrieved on April 6, 2009.from http://www.usingenglish.com/teachers/articles/importance-english-language.html.
Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle publishers.
Rahman, A. (2007). The history and policy of English education in Bangladesh. In Thehistories and policies of English education in Asia. (Ed) Asia TEFL Series I (205-231) Cobblestone Austin TX
Rea-Dickins, P., and K.P. Germaine. (1998). (Eds) Managing evaluation and innovation in language teaching: building bridges. England: Longman Ltd.
Robinson, P, (1991). ESP today. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Tsui, A. B. M. &J. W. Tollefson. (2007). Language policy and the construction of National Cultural identity. In A. B. M. Tsui & J. W. Tollefson (Eds.) Language, Policy, Culture, and Identity in Asian Contexts. Lawrence Erlbaum Mahwah N.J. 1-24.
Tuckman, B. W. (1985). Evaluating instructional programs. (2nd ed.) Massachusetts, USA: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
Weir, C. and J. Roberts. (1994). Evaluation in ELT. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Zaman, N., R. Khan, N. Huq, Z. Alam, T. S. Mahboob, and B. S. Sinha (2000) Advancing English skills. Bangladesh: Department of English University of Dhaka.
Zhu, W., and J. Flaitz. (2005). Using focus group methodology to understand International students’ academic needs: a comparison of perspectives. TESL- EJ 8(4).