Elke Peters & Tine Van Houtven Lessius University College, Antwerp

1. Are lecturers' and students' needs different? A needs analysis for reading tasks in Flemish higher education Elke Peters & Tine Van Houtven Lessius University College, Antwerp elke.peters@lessius.eu & tine.vanhoutven@lessius.eu

2. Outline • Project description • Background • Aim and research questions • Methodology • Results and interpretation • Conclusion TBLT 2009

3. Introduction • Language plays a key role in education. • Mastery of academic language is crucial. • But research has shown that many students, non-native as well as native speakers of Dutch, struggle with academic language upon entering Flemish university colleges. • poor command of Dutch and of academic Dutch in particular • Projects centering around the theme of (L1) language support  • Project focusingontextcompetence/readingskills TBLT 2009

4. Project • Aim of our project is to provideananswertothisproblemby • Determiningrequired level of textcompetence • Carrying out a descriptivestudyintofirstyearstudents’ readingskills and textcompetence • Comparingstudents’ existent level of reading/textcompetencewith the required level • developing reading materials for four courses in four different curricula • In order to facilitate first-year students’ chances of achieving academic success TBLT 2009

5. Project • How? • Not “one-size-fits-all-approach” • Necessity of a large scale needs analysis in four different curricula. • “the languagelearningneeds of particulargroups of learnersorindividuals (…) are learner- orgroup-specific, (…) are tiedtolocalcontexts and maychange over time” (Van Avermaet & Gysen, 2006: 19) • What? • NA findings used in design and development of task-based reading support materials. TBLT 2009

6. Background: Long (2005) • Long (2005) • a number of methodological issues that need to be considered in learner needs analysis in terms of sources, methods, and source x method combinations. • The aim should be to obtain reliable, valid, and usable data about the tasks students need to carry out to be successful. • Van Avermaet & Gysen (2006) • Take into account both subjective and objective needs. TBLT 2009

7. Background: Long (2005) • A task-basedneedsanalysis • Possiblesourcesfor a needsanalysis: • Literature, learners, teachers/applied linguists, domain experts, and triangulation. • Needsanalysisshouldinvolve insiders/domain experts • Use of multiple sources: addbreadth/depthto the analysis • Possiblemethodsfor a needsanalysis: • intuitions, (un)structured interviews, questionnaires, observation, tests, diaries, role plays etc. . • Unstructured interviews. • Questionnaires: ascertainexisting views, notcreatingnew views; oftenover-rated. • Use of multiple methods of data collection • A needsanalysis = time-consuming TBLT 2009

8. Aim and research questions • Whichreadingtasks do we needtodevelopforfirstyearstudentsfromfour different curricula? • First-yearstudents of four different curricula & university colleges  clearly-defined domain = academiclanguageproficiency • What is the required level of text competence? • What is the actual of first year students’ text competence? • Is there a difference between the two? • Practical RQ in order todevelop the readingmaterials TBLT 2009

9. Aim and research questions • Whichsource(s) ormethod(s) orsource x method-combinations is/are the most reliable and informative? • As compared in four case studies (four different curricula and university colleges) • Methodological/evaluative RQ in order to +/- corroborateLong’s hypotheses TBLT 2009

10. Methodology • Foursources • Fourmethods • Triangulation of sources and methods • Same methodology in four case studies TBLT 2009

11. Sources • PTHO (= Profiel Taalvaardigheid Hoger Onderwijs (LanguageProficiencyHigherEducation)) • Description of tasksstudentsneedtobeabletocarry out at the start of theiracademiccareer • Determiningexpected level of textcompetence • Studentsfrom 4 different curricula: • First-yearstudents • Third-yearstudents • Convenient and purposive sample • Lecturersfrom 4 different curricula (= domain experts) • Language experts  methodologicaladvice TBLT 2009

12. Methods • Literaturesurvey • Reading test • Questionnaire • Interview • Triangulationbysources & methods TBLT 2009

13. Method 1: Reading test PTHO • Target group: Dutch as a foreignlanguage • Basedonneedsanalysis typicaltasks a student needstobeabletocarry out • N = 176 (L1 Dutch = 165; L2 Dutch = 9) • Part 1: multiple choicequestions • Questions = “reading-the-lines” level (Alderson, 2000) ordescriptive level (Bogaert et al., 2008) • Part 2: summary • Read threetextsonsame topic • Writeonesummary = “reading-between-thelines” level (Alderson) orupper-textual level (Bogaert et al.) TBLT 2009

14. Method 1: Reading test PTHO: results • Part 1 (multiple choicequestions): high scores • Ceiling effect • Part 2 (summary) • 1/3 of students = problematic • Difficultywithinformation processing  functionalreading • Wrong/incomplete account of information • Largedifferences in terms of educational program in secundaryeducation/preparatory training • General > technical > vocational secundary education • Problem areas wereidentified: vocabulary, textcohesion and synthesis • Answerto RQ1 in terms of problem areas foreach curriculum TBLT 2009

15. Method 2: Questionnaire • Questionnaire tappedinto • Types of readingtexts • Strategyuse • Orientation and planning (e.g. readingtitle/images/…) • Monitoringreadingprocess (e.g. lookingupunknownwords) • Evaluatingreadingprocess (e.g. howdifficult do youfind … linkedtoactivities of different levels of information processing) • Possible, usefulreadingtasks • Closedquestionswithpre-specified response categories + 1 open question • Questionnaire was piloted TBLT 2009

16. Method 2: Questionnaire - example Arrange in order of difficulty. • Visualize the structure (e.g. highlighting, annotating) • Detect the topic sentence in a section • Interpret charts and diagrams • Attain a high level of comprehension • Make comparisons and connections • Represent information schematically * setting: course or handbook TBLT 2009

17. Method 2: Questionnaire - results • Sources/participants: • Students: N = 455  what do youthink/do? • Lecturers: N = 97  what do students do/think? • Taskswithincreasingtextcompetence • Readingtaskswereperceived more difficultbylecturerscomparedto the students • Answerto RQ1 in terms of problem areas, students’ strategyuse, and usefultasksforeach curriculum. TBLT 2009

18. Method 3: Interview • Semi-structured interview • Partiallybasedonresultsreading test • Partiallybasedon data of questionnaire • One-houraudio-taped interviews with • Lecturers in four different curricula • Students in four different curricula • 1st and 3rd yearstudents in one curriculum • Nine interviews in total • All interviews weretranscribed TBLT 2009

19. Method 3: Interview - results Informationobtainedabout … • Target readingtasks and implementationmethodswereidentified • Students modified students’ answers supplied in questionnaires  more in line with lecturers’ opinions • Students contribute to ‘means analysis’ (they provide useful information on learning styles, likes and dislikes, etc.) TBLT 2009

20. Discussion Four case studies TBLT 2009

21. Discussion: RQ1 • Differences in target readingtasks and implementationmethodsbetween the four curricula  needsvarygreatly • one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work • NA = prerequisite for effective design of support materials • taking into account specificities of each course and curriculum • beneficial for both students’ and lecturers’ motivation + gain an insight into their attitudes (what they think and do)  self-knowledge ; level of awareness  • combining and balancing needs of students, lecturers and language experts • Studentstended to overestimate themselves in the questionnaires but counterbalanced in the interviews TBLT 2009

22. Discussion: RQ2 • Evidence of four case studies • Use of severalmethods and sources obtain more reliable data • Sources: triangulation of sources • Lecturers (domain experts) • Methods: triangulation of methods • Interviews  semi-structured interview • BUT onlybecause of the results of the reading test and questionnaire • Interview alonewouldnot have sufficed • OurresultstendtocorroborateLong’sfindingsbutwithregardto the methodthere is an “if”. TBLT 2009

23. Discussion: RQ2 TBLT 2009

24. Conclusion NA • time-consuming undertaking, but prerequisite for design of support materials • multiple sources and methods  should be carefully sequenced Sources • insiders/domain experts: informative source • 1st year students: can’t be the sole or principal source because they lack experience and understanding of present/future needs Methods • interviews  yield important information, but only because results of test and questionnaires could be used • questionnaires  effective for ascertaining existing beliefs, not for creating new views TBLT 2009

25. References • Alderson, J.C. (2000). Assessing Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress • Bogaert, N., Devlieghere, J., Hacquebord, H., Rijkers, J., Timmermans, S. & Verhallen, M. (2008). Aan het werk! Adviezen ter verbetering van functionele leesvaardigheid in het onderwijs. DenHaag: Nederlandse Taalunie  Den • Long, M. (Ed.) (2005). SecondLanguageNeedsAnalysis. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress • Profiel Taalvaardigheid Hoger Onderwijs van het Certificaat Nederlands als Vreemde Taal. Downloadedfromhttp://www.cnavt.org/files/Profielbeschrijving%20Profiel%20Taalvaardigheid%20Hoger%20Onderwijs.pdfon September 5 2008 • Van Avermaet, P. & Gysen, S. (2006). Fromneedstotasks: Languagelearningneeds in a task-basedapproach. In K. Van den Branden (Ed.), Task-BasedLanguageEducation (pp.17-46). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress TBLT 2009

26. Acknowledgements • OOF-comittee of the Association K.U.Leuven • Projectpartners • Katholieke Hogeschool Limburg, Katholieke Hogeschool Kempen, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Katholieke Hogeschool Leuven, GroepT, KATHO, Katholieke Hogeschool Mechelen,Katholieke Hogeschool Brugge-Oostende, Katholieke Hogeschool Sint-Lieven, Hogeschool Universiteit Brussel • Ifyou have anyquestions, youcanalwayssendusan e-mail: • Elke.peters@lessius.eu • Tine.vanhoutven@lessius.eu TBLT 2009