Are lecturers' and students' needs different? A needs analysis for reading tasks in Flemish higher education

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_at_lessius.eu tine.vanhoutven_at_lessius.e
  u

2
Outline

• Project description
• Background
• Aim and research questions
• Methodology
• Results and interpretation
• Conclusion

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 focusing on text competence/reading
  skills

4
Project

• Aim of our project is to provide an answer to
  this problem by
• Determining required level of text competence
• Carrying out a descriptive study into first year
  students reading skills and text competence
• Comparing students existent level of
  reading/text competence with 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

5
Project

• How?
• Not one-size-fits-all-approach
• Necessity of a large scale needs analysis in four
  different curricula.
• the language learning needs of particular groups
  of learners or individuals () are learner- or
  group-specific, () are tied to local contexts
  and may change over time (Van Avermaet Gysen,
  2006 19)
• What?
• NA findings used in design and development of
  task-based reading support materials.

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.
  
  
  

7
Background Long (2005)

• A task-based needs analysis
• Possible sources for a needs analysis
• Literature, learners, teachers/applied linguists,
  domain experts, and triangulation.
• Needs analysis should involve insiders/domain
  experts
• Use of multiple sources add breadth/depth to the
  analysis
• Possible methods for a needs analysis
• intuitions, (un)structured interviews,
  questionnaires, observation, tests, diaries, role
  plays etc. .
• Unstructured interviews.
• Questionnaires ascertain existing views, not
  creating new views often over-rated.
• Use of multiple methods of data collection
• A needs analysis time-consuming

8
Aim and research questions

• Which reading tasks do we need to develop for
  first year students from four different
  curricula?
• First-year students of four different curricula
  university colleges ? clearly-defined domain
  academic language proficiency
• 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 to develop the reading
  materials

9
Aim and research questions

• Which source(s) or method(s) or source 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 /-
  corroborate Longs hypotheses

10
Methodology

• Four sources
• Four methods
• Triangulation of sources and methods
• Same methodology in four case studies

11
Sources

• PTHO ( Profiel Taalvaardigheid Hoger Onderwijs
  (Language Proficiency Higher Education))
• Description of tasks students need to be able to
  carry out at the start of their academic career
• Determining expected level of text competence
• Students from 4 different curricula
• First-year students
• Third-year students
• Convenient and purposive sample
• Lecturers from 4 different curricula ( domain
  experts)
• Language experts ? methodological advice

12
Methods

• Literature survey
• Reading test
• Questionnaire
• Interview
• Triangulation by sources methods

13
Method 1 Reading test PTHO

• Target group Dutch as a foreign language
• Based on needs analysis ? typical tasks a student
  needs to be able to carry out
• N 176 (L1 Dutch 165 L2 Dutch 9)
• Part 1 multiple choice questions
• Questions reading-the-lines level (Alderson,
  2000) or descriptive level (Bogaert et al., 2008)
• Part 2 summary
• Read three texts on same topic
• Write one summary reading-between-the lines
  level (Alderson) or upper-textual level (Bogaert
  et al.)

14
Method 1 Reading test PTHO results

• Part 1 (multiple choice questions) high scores
• Ceiling effect
• Part 2 (summary)
• 1/3 of students problematic
• Difficulty with information processing ?
  functional reading
• Wrong/incomplete account of information
• Large differences in terms of educational program
  in secundary education/preparatory training
• General gt technical gt vocational secundary
  education
• Problem areas were identified vocabulary, text
  cohesion and synthesis
• Answer to RQ1 in terms of problem areas for each
  curriculum

15
Method 2 Questionnaire

• Questionnaire tapped into
• Types of reading texts
• Strategy use
• Orientation and planning (e.g. reading
  title/images/)
• Monitoring reading process (e.g. looking up
  unknown words)
• Evaluating reading process (e.g. how difficult do
  you find ? linked to activities of different
  levels of information processing)
• Possible, useful reading tasks
• Closed questions with pre-specified response
  categories 1 open question
• Questionnaire was piloted

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

17
Method 2 Questionnaire - results

• Sources/participants
• Students N 455 ? what do you think/do?
• Lecturers N 97 ? what do students do/think?
• Tasks with increasing text competence
• Reading tasks were perceived more difficult by
  lecturers compared to the students
• Answer to RQ1 in terms of problem areas,
  students strategy use, and useful tasks for each
  curriculum.

18
Method 3 Interview

• Semi-structured interview
• Partially based on results reading test
• Partially based on data of questionnaire
• One-hour audio-taped interviews with
• Lecturers in four different curricula
• Students in four different curricula
• 1st and 3rd year students in one curriculum
• Nine interviews in total
• All interviews were transcribed

19
Method 3 Interview - results

• Information obtained about
• Target reading tasks and implementation methods
  were identified
• 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.)

20
Discussion

• Four case studies

21
Discussion RQ1

• Differences in target reading tasks and
  implementation methods between the four curricula
  ? needs vary greatly
• one-size-fits-all approach doesnt 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
• Students tended to overestimate themselves in the
  questionnaires but counterbalanced in the
  interviews

22
Discussion RQ2

• Evidence of four case studies
• Use of several methods and sources ? obtain more
  reliable data
• Sources triangulation of sources
• Lecturers (domain experts)
• Methods triangulation of methods
• Interviews ? semi-structured interview
• BUT only because of the results of the reading
  test and questionnaire
• Interview alone would not have sufficed
• Our results tend to corroborate Longs findings
  but with regard to the method there is an if.

23
Discussion RQ2
Methods -
reading test PTHO - Language Proficiency Higher Education ? relevant tasks small sample unfeasible to test all relevant tasks
questionnaires - large sample normalized, quantifiable data issues of validity overestimation of oneself pre-specified anwering categories ? limit variety of responses interpretation differences between lecturers and students
semi-structured interviews - thorough coverage of the matter - target reading tasks and methodologies were identified time-consuming
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 cant 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

25
References

• Alderson, J.C. (2000). Assessing Reading.
  Cambridge Cambridge University Press
• 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.
  Den Haag Nederlandse Taalunie  Den
• Long, M. (Ed.) (2005). Second Language Needs
  Analysis. Cambridge Cambridge University Press
• Profiel Taalvaardigheid Hoger Onderwijs van het
  Certificaat Nederlands als Vreemde Taal.
  Downloaded from http//www.cnavt.org/files/Profiel
  beschrijving20Profiel20Taalvaardigheid20Hoger2
  0Onderwijs.pdf on September 5 2008
• Van Avermaet, P. Gysen, S. (2006). From needs
  to tasks Language learning needs in a task-based
  approach. In K. Van den Branden (Ed.), Task-Based
  Language Education (pp.17-46). Cambridge
  Cambridge University Press

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
• If you have any questions, you can always send us
  an e-mail
• Elke.peters_at_lessius.eu
• Tine.vanhoutven_at_lessius.eu