ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION :AN ENGLISH COURSE DESIGN AT A STATE UNIVERSITY.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE ……….. i

DECLARATION ……….. ii

APPROVAL PAGE ……….. iii

ABSTRACT ……….. v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ……….. vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ……….. viii

LIST OF TABLES ……….. xi

LIST OF FIGURES ……….. xii

LIST OF GRAPHS ……….. xiii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ……….. 1

1.1Background ……….. 1

1.2Research Questions ……….. 9

1.3Research Purposes ……….. 10

1.4Research Significance ……….. 11 CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ……….. 13

2.1 English for Specific Purposes ……….. 13

2.1.1 Basic Concept of English for Specific Purposes ……….. 14

2.1.2 Needs Analysis ……….. 19

2.1.3 ESP Syllabus and Curriculum ……… 27

2.1.4 ESP Materials ……….. 30

2.1.5 ESP Methodology ……….. 36

2.1.6 Evaluation in ESP ……….. 42

2.2 Course Design ……… 46

2.2.1 Concept of Course Design ……….. 46

2.2.2 Approaches to Course Design ……….. 48

2.3 Previous Related Studies ……….. 77

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ……….. 82

3.1 Research Design ………. 82

3.2.1 Questionnaire ……… 90

3.2.2 Interview …….………. 94

3.2.3 Observation ……….. 98

3.2.4 Review of Documents ……… 100

3.3 Methods of Data Analysis ……….. 102

3.4 Limitations of the Study ……….. 104

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND A PROPOSED COURSE DESIGN

107

4.1 A Portrait of the English Course ………. 107

4.1.1 Institutional Goals ………. 107

4.1.2 Class Management ………. 114

4.1.3 Instructional Materials ………... 116

4.1.4 Instructors ………. 120

4.1.5 Teaching Methodology ………. 122

4.1.6 Evaluation ………. 125

4.1.7 Interpretation of the Findings ……….. 129

4.2 Students’ Need Analysis ……….. 136

4.2.1 Present Situation Analysis ………. 136

4.2.2 Target Situation Analysis ………. 145

4.2.3 Strategy Analysis ………. 150

4.2.4 Deficiency Analysis ………. 158

4.2.5 Interpretation of the Findings ………. 160

4.3 A Proposed Course Design ……….……… 168

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ……… 181

5.1 Conclusions ……… 181

5.2 Suggestions ……… 184

REFERENCES ……… 187

APPENDICES ……… 203

Appendix 3.1 Questionnaire for the Students (in Indonesian) ……….… 203

Appendix 3.2 Guide for Interview with the Instructors (in Indonesian) ………... 211

Appendix 3.3 Guide for Interview with the Faculty’s Management (in Indonesian) ……….. 215

Appendix 3.5 Samples of the Results of Interview with the Faculty’s

Management ……….. 229 Appendix 3.6 Samples of the Fieldnotes (Observation in the Classroom) …..…

239

CURRICULUM VITAE ……….. 248

LIST OF TABLES

Page Table 2.1 Twenty Principles of Language Teaching (Nation & Macalister, 2010) ... 61 Table 2.2 Content and Sequencing Guidelines (Nation & Macalister, 2010) ……….. 65 Table 2.3 Format and Presentation Guidelines (Nation & Macalister, 2010) ……… 68 Table 2.4 Conditions and Activities for the Four Strands

(Nation & Macalister, 2010) ………. 71 Table 2.5 Monitoring and Assessment Guidelines (Nation & Macalister, 2010) …... 74 Table 3.1 Number of Classes and Students ……….. 86

Table 3.2 Distribution of Instructor’s Teaching Load ………. 87

Table 3.3 Structure of the Questionnaire ……….. 93

Table 4.1 Students’ Responses on the Syllabus ………. 112

Table 4.2 Students’ Responses on the Instructional Materials ……… 119

Table 4.3 Instructors’ Academic Qualifications ………

121

Table 4.4 Students’ Responses on the Teaching and Learning Activities ………… 124

Table 4.5 Final Grade Conversion ……….

126

Table 4.6 Objective Profile of the Students ………..

162

Table 4.7 Subjective Profile of the Students ………. 162

Table 4.8 Wants of the Students ………...

165

Table 4.9 Necessities of the Course ……….

166

Table 4.10 Learning Preferences of the Students ………. 167

Table 4.11 Lacks of the Students ……….. 168

Table 4.12 Environment Constraints and Effects ……….. 169

Table 4.13 Target Needs ………. 170

Table 4.14 Learning Needs ……….. 171

Table 4.15 Syllabus of the Proposed English Course ………... 175

LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2.1 ESP Classification by Experience (Robinson, 1991: 3-4) ……….. 16

Figure 2.2 Simplified Tree of ELT (cf. Hutchinson & Waters, 1987: 17) ………... 17

Figure 2.3 A Synthesized Tree of ELT ………... 19

Figure 2.4 Materials Design Model (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987: 109) ………… 35

Figure 2.5 Factors Affecting ESP Course Design (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987: 22) 47

Figure 2.6 Connection between Curriculum and Syllabus (Dubin & Olshtain (1986: 43) ………. 50

Figure 2.7 Components of an Audiolingual Curriculum (Dubin & Olshtain (1986: 36) ………. 51

Figure 2.8 Components of a Communicative Curriculum

(Dubin & Olshtain (1986: 68) ………...…… 52

Figure 2.9 Nation & Macalister’s (2010) Curriculum Design Model ………..…... 55

Figure 4.1 Classroom Setting (Reece & Walker, 2003) ……….. 115

Figure 4.2 A Summary of the Course Design Process ………. 180

LIST OF GRAPHS Page Graph 4.1 Age Distribution ……….. 137

Graph 4.2 Students’ Proficiency Levels ……….. 138

Graph 4.3 Students’ Motivation to Learn English ………..

138

Graph 4.4 Students’ Assessment of their Language Skills ……….. 139

Graph 4.5 Students’ Assessment of their Language Aspects ………. 140

Graph 4.6 Students’ Assessment of their Reading Sub-skills ………. 141

Graph 4.7 Students’ Perception of Important Language Skills ……….. 142

Graph 4.8 Students’ Interest to the Course ……… 142

Graph 4.9 Students’ Assessment of Instructional Materials ………

143

Graph 4.10 Students’ Perception of the Course ……… 143

Graph 4.11 Students’ Reasons to Study English at Present ……… 144

Graph 4.12 Students’ Reasons to Study English for the Future ………. 146

Graph 4.14 Importance of Oral Accuracy ……….. 148

Graph 4.15 Frequency of Writing Tasks ……….. 148

Graph 4.16 Students’ Immediate Future Needs ……….. 149

Graph 4.17 Students’ Learning Places Preference ……….. 150

Graph 4.18 Students’ Learning Styles Preference ………

151

Graph 4.19 Students’ Learning Activities Preference ……….. 152

Graph 4.20 Students’ Preference of Instructors ………

153

Graph 4.21 Students’ Language Skills Preference ……… 154

Graph 4.22 Students’ Correction Preference ………

154

Graph 4.23 Students’ Learning Media Preference ………..

155

Graph 4.24 Learning Media Accessibility ……….. 156

Graph 4.25 Students’ Learning Time ……….. 156

Graph 4.26 Students’ Use of Supplementary Materials ……… 157

Graph 4.27 Students’ Learning Difficulties ……….. 159 Graph 4.28 Students’ Needs for Practice ……….. 160

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the background of the research, the research questions, the research purposes, and the research significance.

1.1Background

The background includes the status and functions of English in Indonesia, the teaching of English in all levels of education, and the reasons for choosing the research topic.

English is one of the languages widely spoken in the world. Graddol (1997: 10) mentions that there are three levels of English-speakers: (a) the first-language speakers to the number of 320-380 million, (b) the second-language speakers to the number of 150- 300 million, and (c) the foreign-language speakers to the number of 1 billion. Tonkin (2003: 16) assumes that the only people who think that one can conduct all of one‟s affairs in this world through the medium of a single language are speakers of English. They feel as they do because of the notable spread of the English language in modern times to almost all corners of the globe and almost all domains of human endeavor. English is also the world‟s most studied language: there are hundreds of millions of people across the world who are studying or have studied the language.

In Indonesia during the Dutch colonization, English was the language of commerce and one of the compulsory subjects in secondary education (Nasution, 1995). In 1955 after the Indonesian independence, Frits Wachendrofff, the First Chief of Center Inspectorate, announced that English was the first foreign language in Indonesia (Kartono, 1975). Since then, English has been a foreign language in Indonesia. The status of English as a foreign

language has not, however, been officially stated by a decree although the 1993 State Policy Guidelines explicitly asks for the improvement of foreign language mastery to meet the needs of globalization.

Determining the standing of a language in a community refers to status planning which is part of language planning. Status planning refers to the allocation of languages or language varieties to given functions, e.g. medium of instruction, official language, vehicle of mass communication (Cooper, 1989: 32). Language allocation is “authoritative decisions to maintain, extend, or restrict the range of uses (functional range) of a language in particular settings” (Gorman, 1973: 73). Stewart (1968) provides a list of language functions as targets of status planning: official language, provincial language, national language, international language, capital language, ethnic/group language, educational language, school subject, literary language, and religious language. The Indonesian Center for Language Cultivation and Development (Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa), however, differentiates language status from language function. Language status refers to the relative status of language as a system of cultural value symbols formulated on the basis of social values related to the language; language function refers to the role of language in the community of language users (Alwi & Sugono, 2000: 219).

Foreign languages refer to all the languages used in Indonesia, apart from the Indonesian language, vernacular languages, and the Malayan language family (Alwi & Sugono, 2000: 218). In terms of the intensity of use, there are three kinds of foreign languages in Indonesia: (a) English as the primary foreign language which affects all aspects of life, (b) Arabic as the language of Islamic religion and culture since more than

90% of the Indonesian people are Moslems, and (c) Japanese, German, French, Chinese, etc. which influence certain aspects of life, such as commerce and communication.

As the primary foreign language, English has the following functions in Indonesia (Alwi & Sugono, 2000: 221):

(1) English is a language for wider communication (among nations) in all aspects of life. The decision to choose English to become the language for wider communication is based on the following reasons (Huda, 2000: 68): (a) English has a very good internal linguistic weight, (b) there is a large number of speakers of English as the first, second and foreign language, (c) English has the widest geographic distribution, (d) English is widely used in the fields of science, technology, culture, and politics, (e) English-speaking countries dominate in the world‟s economy, politics, and culture.

(2) English is a tool for making use of science and technology development to accelerate the national development. Since most of the scientific books are written in English, Indonesian people who know English could absorb, transfer, make use of, and distribute science and technology progress to improve the quality of the nation. English mastery will subsequently improve the quality of human resources. English competence, once attained, becomes a highly effective tool of intellectual discourse and learning of the world‟s knowledge (Gonzales, 2003).

(3) English is used as a source to develop the Indonesian language. English is an international language spoken by many people in the world because it is, among others, a standardized language. A standardized language is “a language which has a single, widely accepted norm which is felt to be appropriate with only minor modifications or variations for all purposes for which language is used” (Ferguson, 1962 in Cooper,

1989: 134). English will help develop Indonesian to become a standardized and modern language in terms of not only lexis but also grammar. Incorrect word formation, double subordinating conjunctions, dangling structure, etc. can be avoided.

Considering the functions of English in Indonesia, the government has emphasized the importance of English language teaching in the country. The Department of National Education with regard to the Competence-Based English Curriculum states the rationale of the curriculum as follows (Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, 2001, translated into Indonesian in Emilia, 2005: 3):

As a language which is used by more than half of the world‟s population, English is ready to carry out the role as the global language. Apart from being the language for science, technology and arts, this language can become a tool to achieve the goals of economy and trade, relationship among countries, socio-cultural purposes, education and career development for people. The mastery of English can be considered as a main requirement for the success of individuals, the society and the nation of Indonesia in answering the challenges of the time in the global level. The mastery of English can be acquired through various programs, but the program of English teaching at schools seems to be the main facility for Indonesian students.

The Indonesian Language Congress VII/1998 in Jakarta also stresses the prominence of English as a foreign language, and considers that the skills of English cannot be separated from the development of human resources in facing the globalization era. The decisions of the congress, regarding English as a foreign language, are as follows (Erdina, 2001 in Emilia, 2005: 3): (1) The improvement of English skills is an inseparable part of the development of human resources in facing the globalization era; therefore, the availability and the use of the facilities as well as educational technology which can support the

acquisition of the target language (English) need to be accorded a special importance, and (2) The facilities and human resources for the teaching of English in tertiary education need to be developed to strengthen the position of the language as an effective tool in the international constellation.

English as a foreign language in Indonesia is taught at all levels of education. The department in charge of teaching or education is the Ministry of National Education and Culture. The following are some of the English language acquisition policies in primary, secondary, and tertiary education

In primary education, on the basis of the Decree of the Ministry of Education and Culture No. 060/U/1993, from 1994 to 2006 English was taught as a local-content subject starting from the fourth-grade of primary-school. Local-content subjects are complementary subjects chosen by schools in accordance with the local needs and conditions. Since 2007 the Ministry of National Education has indicated that English as a local-content subject may be taught from the first-grade to the sixth-grade of primary school. The Regulation of the Ministry of National Education No 23/2006 specifies the standard competencies of primary-school pupils who learn English, as follows: (a) the pupils understand very simple oral instructions, information, and stories about their school and environment, (b) the pupils orally give very simple instructions and information about their school and environment, (c) the pupils read aloud and understand very simple written instructions, information, pictorial texts about their school and environment, and (d) the pupils write very simple words, expressions and texts with correct spelling and punctuation. These competencies include the four language skills.

In secondary education, on the basis of the Decree of the Ministry of Education and Culture No. 096/1967, since 1968 English has been taught as a compulsory subject in junior and senior high schools. As stated in the decree on the functions and objectives of English language teaching at secondary schools under the Ministry of Education and Culture (in Halim, 1976), the objective of teaching English at secondary schools is to equip the students with a working knowledge of English which includes reading, listening, writing, and speaking abilities. The Regulation of the Ministry of National Education No 23/2006 specifies the standard competencies of junior-high-school students who learn English, as follows: (a) the students understand simple oral interpersonal and transactional, formal and informal, discourses in the forms of recount, narrative, procedure, descriptive, and report, in everyday life contexts; (b) the students express simple oral interpersonal and transactional, formal and informal, discourses in the forms of recount, narrative, procedure, descriptive, and report, in everyday life contexts; (c) the students understand simple written interpersonal and transactional, formal and informal, discourses in the forms of recount, narrative, procedure, descriptive, and report, in everyday life contexts; and (d) the students express simple written interpersonal and transactional, formal and informal, discourses in the forms of recount, narrative, procedure, descriptive, and report, in everyday life contexts. Besides, the Regulation of the Ministry of National Education No 23/2006 specifies the standard competencies of senior-high-school students who learn English, as follows: (a) the students understand oral interpersonal and transactional, formal and informal, discourses in the forms of recount, narrative, procedure, descriptive, news item, report, analytical exposition, hortatory exposition, spoof, explanation, discussion, and review, in everyday life contexts; (b) the students express oral interpersonal and

transactional, formal and informal, discourses in the forms of recount, narrative, procedure, descriptive, news item, report, analytical exposition, hortatory exposition, spoof, explanation, discussion, and review, in everyday life contexts; (c) the students understand written interpersonal and transactional, formal and informal, discourses in the forms of recount, narrative, procedure, descriptive, news item, report, analytical exposition, hortatory exposition, spoof, explanation, discussion, and review, in everyday life contexts; and (d) the students express written interpersonal and transactional, formal and informal, discourses in the forms of recount, narrative, procedure, descriptive, news item, report, analytical exposition, hortatory exposition, spoof, explanation, discussion, and review, in everyday life contexts.

In tertiary education, Paragraph 1 Article 7 of the Decree of the Ministry of National Education No. 232/U/2000 on the guideline for tertiary education curriculum and students‟ learning assessment states that the curriculum for tertiary education which becomes the basis for the organization of a study program consists of a core curriculum and an institutional curriculum. Paragraph 2 Article 10 of the decree further states that institutional curriculum could include Indonesian, English, Basic Social Sciences, Basic Cultural Sciences, Basic Natural Sciences, Philosophy of Science, Physical Education, etc. Besides, Paragraph 2 Article 37 of the National Education Law No. 20/2003 states that the curriculum of tertiary education should include religious education, civics education, and languages. Languages in this case include the Indonesian language, local languages, and foreign languages, especially English, as English is an international language used in global communication. Furthermore, Paragraph 2 Article 9 of the Government Regulation No. 19/2005 on national standards of education states that the curriculum in higher

education for undergraduate students should include such subjects as religious education, civics education, Indonesian, and English. Therefore, English is one of the subjects taught in tertiary education.

English language teaching in tertiary education is not promising (Alwasilah, 2007: 58). Given that English at secondary schools is designed to equip students with basic knowledge and skills, college English should aim at building academic or study skills which can help students to digest textbooks and references as an integral part of developing professionalism and specialization of their choice. In other words, college English should be taught as English for Specific Purposes (ESP) or English for Academic Purposes (EAP), not English for General Purposes (EGP). From a survey, Alwasilah (2004 & 2007) found some weaknesses of the English course at the college level: (1) No needs analysis is conducted so that the course does not meet students‟ expectations, (2) The class is relatively big and heterogeneous, (3) The course is taught by young inexperienced instructors, (4) There is a repetition of what has been taught at secondary schools, (5) There is no selection and classification based on competencies and students‟ needs, (6) There is no coordination among intra- and inter-institutions. Kusni‟s (2004) study also found the following: (1) some ESP courses in three universities in Indonesia were actually general English courses, (2) The instructors were mostly untrained subject-matter lecturers, and (3) There was no collaboration among the stakeholders in designing an ESP course. Based on the researcher‟s observation when he was once an English language instructor at a state university in South-Sumatra, the conditions of the English course at the institution were not far from those described by Alwasilah (2004 & 2007) and Kusni (2004). English is a compulsory course at the university. At the Faculty of Teacher

Training and Education, it is a compulsory 2-credit course for the freshmen in the first or second semester. This discouraging practice motivated the researcher to explore and improve the conditions. Therefore, he proposed to conduct a qualitative study of the English language teaching at the faculty in order to describe the conditions of the English course, to find out the students‟ needs, and ultimately to design a better course.

1.2 Research Questions

There has been a growing trend in course design with the focus shifting from teacher-centered to learner-teacher-centered activities in recent years. In this regard, a lot of attention is being given to need-based language courses. The emergence of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) contributes to this trend. ESP is “an approach to language teaching which aims to meet the needs of particular learners” (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987: 21). Since ESP is driven by learner needs, the first step for ESP curriculum design is to identify the specific needs of learners. Needs analysis, therefore, comes into the picture.

Needs analysis is a device to identify the learner needs in order to develop a course with a reasonable content for exploitation in the classroom. Needs analysis is therefore a process for identifying and defining a valid curriculum in order to facilitate learning in an environment that is closely related to the real-life situations of the student (Fatihi, 2003: 39). According to Iwai et al. (1999), the term „needs analysis‟ generally refers to the activities involved in collecting information that will serve as the basis for developing a curriculum that will meet the needs of a particular group of students. Christison & Krahnke (1986: 78) state that sound curriculum design in ESL programs for academic preparation should be based on empirical data that reflect what is really useful to students and not only

on the intuitions and experience of the teaching personnel. Atai (2000: 30) believes that curriculum development should not take “a one-way top-down approach”.

To help design a better language course, this research which took place at the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of a state university in South Sumatra did a needs analysis through the implementation of questionnaire, interview, observation, and review of documents. In this respect, the problems of the research could be formulated into the following questions:

(1) How is the present practice of English language teaching at the institution in terms of such aspects as institutional goals, class management, instructional materials, instructors, teaching methodology, and evaluation?

(2) What are the students‟ needs and the faculty‟s expectations of the English course? (3) What course design can be proposed for the English language teaching at the institution

on the basis of the expected goals?

1.3 Research Purposes

The goals of the research were consequential, which means that the achievement of the previous purpose would be the basis of reaching the next purpose.

The results of the interview, along with the observation in the classroom and the review of documents, would give a portrait of the present English course at the faculty. The portrait would depict the existing conditions of the course in terms of such aspects as institutional goals, class management, instructional materials, instructors, teaching methodology, and evaluation.

The second purpose of the research was to find out the students‟ needs and the faculty‟s expectations of the English course through needs analysis. The needs analysis for the students by using a questionnaire included target situation analysis, present situation analysis, strategy analysis, means analysis, and deficiency analysis. The interview with the instructors and the faculty‟s management provided the information about the importance of the English course, the objectives of the course, the educational backgrounds of the instructors, the instructional materials, the evaluation system, and the facilitating and inhibiting factors in the implementation level.

The findings from the questionnaire and those from the interview, observation, and review of documents would become the basis of designing a better course for the students.

1.4 Research Significance

Since the institution has never evaluated the English course before, this research would be the first empirical study carried out in that course. This research would therefore contribute to the professional sources in English language teaching at the institution in particular and English language teaching in higher education in general. Several variables should be put into consideration in the language teaching, such as the status of the course, the number of credits allocated, the class size, the students‟ English proficiency levels at present, the students‟ interests, the course objectives, the instructional materials, the evaluation system, and the instructors.

Besides, this research would address some of the problems of English language teaching at the faculty. This empirical study became one effort to improve the quality of the English course at the faculty in particular and at the university in general. Other studies

on other faculties in the university are recommended as the conditions at other faculties may be quite different.

This research would also show the importance of needs analysis in the process of designing a language course. There was never before a formal needs analysis conducted by the university‟s language institute as the coordinator of the English course. The course was designed on the basis of the intuitions and experience of the teaching staff. Language courses or programs developed by taking into account learner needs tend to achieve better instructional outcomes.

In relation to the needs analysis, this research would indicate the involvement of stakeholders of the English course. Besides the students and the university‟s language institute, the stakeholders include the instructors, the heads of study programs, the heads of departments, the associate dean for academic affairs, and the dean of the faculty. The participation of the faculty‟s management (i.e. in determining the direction of the course and providing good facilities) would prove important and useful to improve the quality of the course, which would subsequently improve the English proficiency of the students.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the research methodology which includes the research design, the data collection, the data analysis, and the limitations of the present study. The research design provides the theoretical framework on which the research is based on, the purposes of the research, and the research site and participants.

3.1 Research Design

This present study is in the domain of applied linguistics, especially in ESP. ESP is an approach to language teaching which aims to meet the needs of particular learners. Some experts, including McDonough (1984), Hutchinson and Waters (1987), Robinson (1980 & 1991), Jordan (1997), Dudley-Evans and St John (1998), agree that the key stages in ESP are needs analysis, course (and syllabus) design, materials selection (and production), teaching and learning, and evaluation. The five stages can actually be contracted into three phases: needs analysis, course design, and application. ESP therefore begins with

identifying learners‟ needs, and then designing a course on the basis of the needs, and

finally the practical application of the course design. Learners‟ needs may include objective and subjective needs (Brindley, 1989; Robinson, 1991) or perceived and felt needs (Berwick, 1989; Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998). Course design is the process by

which the raw data about learners‟ needs are interpreted in order to produce an integrated

series of teaching-learning experiences, whose ultimate aim is to lead the learners to a particular state of knowledge. This entails the use of the theoretical and empirical information available to produce a syllabus, to select, adapt or write materials in

accordance with the syllabus, to develop a methodology for teaching those materials and to establish evaluation procedures by which progress towards the specified goals will be measured. The course design is based on the principles suggested, among others, by Taba (1962), Dubin & Olshtain (1986), Hutchinson & Waters (1987), Robinson (1991), Graves (1996, 2000), Jordan (1997), Diamond (2008), and Nation & Macalister (2010).

The ultimate aim of this present study is to propose a design for the English course at the university level. To achieve the intended aim, the researcher would do three main sets of activities. First, this present study began with library research to find out the concept of ESP and to review literature on ESP and previous related studies. Second, on the basis of the theory, needs analysis was conducted in order to identify the needs of the students and other concerned parties including the language instructors, the heads of departments and study programs, the heads of the faculty, and the head of university‟s language institute. Third, the results of needs analysis would be analyzed and interpreted to produce a course design appropriate for the students.

This present study used questionnaire, interviewing, observation, and review of documents as the data collection methods, as suggested by Patton (1990), Brannen (1992), Marshall & Rossman (1995), Maxwell (1996), Bogdan & Biklen (1998), Wray et al. (1998), Glesne (1999), and Silverman (2005). The data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Descriptive statistics were used to present the data quantitatively in the form of percentage.

The study was conducted at a state university in South Sumatra, Indonesia. The university has ten faculties and the school of postgraduate studies. The faculties include Faculty of Economics, Faculty of Law, Faculty of Engineering, Faculty of Medicine,

Faculty of Agriculture, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Faculty of Computer Science, and Faculty of Public Health.

Due to easy accessibility and institutional support, the researcher focused the study on the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education. The faculty has three departments with twelve study programs: Department of Language and Arts Education with two study programs (Indonesian Language and Literature Education Study Program, and English Education Study Program), Department of Social Sciences Education with three study programs (Civics Education Study Program, History Education Study Program, and Economics/Accounting Education Study Program), Department of Mathematics and Natural Sciences Education with four study programs (Mathematics Education Study Program, Physics Education Study Program, Chemistry Education Study Program, and Biology Education Study Program), and three other separate study programs (Health and Physical Education Study Program, Guidance & Counseling Education Study Program, and Mechanical Engineering Education Study Program.

There are two campuses where the students of the faculty can study: Indralaya main campus and Palembang campus. Indralaya main campus is located in Ogan Ilir, about 38 kilometers to the southern part of the city of Palembang. Palembang campus is located in Bukit Besar, Palembang. There are two locations of Palembang campus: Bukit Besar and Ogan. Bukit Besar location holds classes for the students of English Education Study Program, Indonesian Language and Literature Education Study Program, Guidance & Counseling Education Study Program, and Health & Physical Education Study Program; while Ogan location accommodates the students of other than the four study programs. The

faculty opens student enrollment for both campuses; therefore, each study program may have one class of students on Indralaya main campus and one or more parallel classes on Palembang campus.

At the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, English is a compulsory 2-credit course for the freshmen in the first or second semester, except for the students of English

Education Study Program; and the course is coordinated by the university‟s Language

Institute. On Indralaya campus, the students have English classes at the language institute, while the students in Palembang have English classes on their respective locations. Due to the constraint of time, the researcher took the study programs which offer the course in the second semester, namely Mathematics Education, Biology Education, History Education, Economics/Accounting Education, Civics Education, Guidance & Counseling Education, and Health & Physical Education Study Programs. In terms of study program, there were 7 classes in Indralaya and 8 classes in Palembang. Table 3.1 shows the number of classes and students. The number of students here indicates the actual number of second-semester students who were present at the time when they filled out the questionnaire in class. Some classes had sixth-semester and eighth-semester students who re-took the English course. In Indralaya, one class of Economics/Accounting Education had 17 sixth-semester students; and one class of Guidance & Counseling Education had 2 eighth-semester students. In Palembang, the class of Biology Education had 6 sixth-semester students; one class of Health & Physical Education had 4 sixth-semester students and 1 eighth-semester student; the other class of Health & Physical Education had 5 sixth-semester students. All the sixth and eighth semester students were allowed to fill out the questionnaire; however, for the sake of data homogeneity, they were excluded from the data analysis.

Table 3.1 Number of Classes and Students

Campus Study Program Number of

Classes

Number of Students Indralaya Mathematics Education

History Education

Economics/Accounting Education Guidance & Counseling Education Health & Physical Education

1 1 2 2 1 36 38 15, 30 17, 28 31 Palembang Mathematics Education

Biology Education History Education

Economics/Accounting Education Civics Education

Guidance & Counseling Education Health & Physical Education

1 1 1 1 1 1 2 33 12 8 34 8 20 33, 35 Total Number 15 378

The students participating in this study were 378 second-semester students of 7 study programs in 15 classes. Besides the students, some stakeholders involved in the English course were included as the research participants. There were 10 language instructors, 7 heads of study programs, 2 heads of departments, 2 faculty‟s heads, and the head of the

university‟s language institute.

Although there were altogether 15 classes, only 10 language instructors taught the classes. Five instructors taught one class each whether in Indralaya or in Palembang. Five other instructors taught 2 classes each, whether two Indralaya classes or two Palembang classes or one Indralaya class and one Palembang class. Table 3.2 shows the distribution of

Table 3.2 Distribution of Instructor‟s Teaching Load

No Instructor’s

Initials Sex (M/F) Number of Classes Classes (Study Programs) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AS HWA RH YV ZAN Al Er Ev MY Zu F F F F M M F F M F 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2

Health & Physical Education (Indralaya) Guidance & Counseling Education (Indralaya) Guidance & Counseling Education (Palembang) Mathematics Education (Indralaya)

Biology Education (Palembang) Civics Education (Palembang)

Health & Physical Education (Palembang) Economics/Accounting Education (Indralaya) Health & Physical Education (Palembang) History Education (Indralaya)

Guidance & Counseling Education (Indralaya) History Education (Palembang)

Mathematics Education (Palembang)

Economics/Accounting Education (Indralaya) Economics/Accounting Education (Palembang)

Total 15

Besides the students and the instructors, the parties who should also be responsible for determining the objectives and designing the courses conceptually at the faculty are the

faculty‟s head, the heads of departments, the head of study programs, and the head of

language institute (in case of language courses). The persons in the faculty‟s management

included in this study as the participants are as follows:

- Dean of the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education - Associate Dean for Academic Affairs

- Head of the University‟s Language Institute - Head of Social Sciences Education Department

- Secretary of Mathematics & Natural Sciences Education Department - Head of Mathematics Education Study Program

- Head of History Education Study Program

- Head of Economics/Accounting Education Study Program - Head of Civics Education Study Program

- Head of Guidance & Counseling Education Study Program - Head of Health & Physical Education Study Program

3.2 Methods of Data Collection

Qualitative research method was selected for this study. Questionnaire, interviewing, observation, and review of documents were the research tools for data collection, as suggested by Johnson (1992), Nunan (1992), Marshall & Rossman (1995), Maxwell (1996), McDonough & McDonough (1997), Bogdan & Biklen (1998), Creswell (1998), Wray et al. (1998).

Triangulation refers to collecting information from a diverse range of individuals and settings, using a variety of methods to corroborate each other (Denzin, 1978; Patton, 1990; Glense & Peshkin, 1992; Cohen & Manion (1994); Marshall & Rossman, 1995; Mason, 1996; Bogdan & Biklen (1998). The term which originally comes from the application of trigonometry to navigation and surveying was first borrowed in the social sciences to convey the idea that to establish a fact you need more than one source of information. Typically, this process involves corroborating evidence from different sources to shed light on a theme or perspective (Creswell, 1998: 202). Many sources of data are better in a study than a single source because multiple sources lead to a fuller understanding of the phenomena being studied. According to Alwasilah (2006), triangulation of interview and observation is needed to provide a complete and accurate account of an event. Furthermore, Maxwell (1996: 76) states:

Observation often enables you to draw inferences about someone‟s meaning

data. This is particularly true of getting at tacit understandings and

theory-in-use, as well as aspects of the participants‟ perspective that they are

reluctant to state directly in interviews. … Conversely, interviewing can be a valuable way (the only way, for events that took place in the past or ones to which you cannot gain observational access) of gaining a description of actions and events. These can provide additional information that was missed in observation and can be used to check the accuracy of the observation.

In this research, the triangulation of different data-collection techniques (questionnaire, interviewing, observation, and review of documents) was used to mutually corroborate or verify the data obtained from the different instruments in order to answer the research questions. Denzin (1978) calls this type of triangulation as methodological triangulation, the use of different methods on the same object of study.

With regard to the first research question, the techniques of data collection were questionnaire, interviewing, non-participant observation, and review of documents. The questionnaire was used to collect some data of the present conditions of the English course. The participants, including the head of the language institute, the course coordinator, the dean of the faculty, the associate dean for academic affairs, the heads of departments, the heads of study programs, and the course instructors, were interviewed individually to find out further necessary information of the present English course in terms of such aspects as institutional goals, class management, instructional materials, instructors, teaching methodology, and evaluation. Furthermore, he observed the teaching and learning process in the classroom to obtain additional information and/or to verify the data obtained from the questionnaire and interview. The researcher also reviewed some documents, such as the course syllabi, course books, and tests, in order to support the data obtained from the other instruments.

With regard to the second research question, the techniques of data collection were questionnaire and interviewing. The questionnaire was used to collect the data related to

the students‟ needs analysis which includes target situation analysis, present situation

analysis, strategy analysis, and deficiency analysis. The participants (the head of the language institute, the course coordinator, the dean of the faculty, the associate dean for academic affairs, the heads of departments, the heads of study programs, and the course instructors) were interviewed individually to find out their expectations of the course. In sum, the data were collected through (a) a questionnaire given to 378 students in 15 classes, (b) interviews with the instructors, the heads of departments/study programs, the

faculty‟s heads, the language institute head, (c) observations in the classroom, and (d)

review of the documents. The following subsections describe the research instruments in detail

3.2.1 Questionnaire

Questionnaires are any written instruments that present respondents with a series of questions or statements to which they are to react either by writing out their answers or selecting from among existing answers (Brown, 2001: 6). Questionnaire is used to learn about the distribution of characteristics, behaviors, attitudes, or beliefs (Marshall & Rossman, 1995; Dörnyei, 2003). Questionnaire typically entails several questions that have structured response categories and may include some that are open-ended (Marshall & Rossman, 1995: 96). The questionnaire used in this present study has closed-ended questions in which the respondent is provided with ready-made response options to choose from, normally by encircling or ticking one of them or by putting an X in the appropriate

slot/box. The answers from the fixed-choice questions may lend themselves to simple tabulation. The present questionnaire is a modification from the one designed by Papageorgiou (2007) for the respondents of Hellenic Air Force Officers at the School of Foreign Languages, in the Hellenic Air Force Academy, Greece, in order to find out their English language needs. Some items in the previous questionnaire were deleted, added, and/or modified to suit the conditions of the present study. For example, the items in the previous questionnaire on nationality, English language certification, mastery of other foreign languages, social relations within occupational contexts, and briefing/debriefing of flights, were deleted in the present questionnaire. The items on the present English course were added in the present questionnaire. In some items, promotion was changed into examination requirement, understanding foreign pilots on the radio into understanding English broadcasting in the present questionnaire.

The present questionnaire (Appendix 3.1) has 4 main parts and consists of 8 pages of A4 size paper. The main parts of the questionnaire are as follows:

• General Instruction, which gives the title of the study, the purposes of the questionnaire, and the request to give brief but clear answers

• Time and Venue, which asks the respondents to fill in the day/date, time and venue, when

and where they are asked to fill out the questionnaire

• Questions, which consist of six categories: respondent‟s profile, English course, target

situation analysis, present situation analysis, learning needs analysis, deficiency analysis

• Final „thank you‟, which thanks the respondents for their time and information, and

requests the respondents to spare their time for further information if needed.

There are altogether 49 questions in the questionnaire: 9 items for the respondent‟s profile, 15 items about the English course, 5 items for the target situation analysis, 8 items for the present situation analysis, 10 items for the learning needs analysis, and 2 items for

the deficiency analysis. The respondent‟s profile includes the name, age, sex, study program, department, semester, senior high school, TOEFL prediction score, and interest to learn English. The English course subsection includes 5 items about what the instructor did at the beginning of the course, 5 items about the instructional materials, and 5 items about the teaching and learning activities. All the questions on the English course are true-false items. The target situation analysis subsection has 3 rating-scale items and 2 checklist

items, asking about the students‟ reasons to study English for the future, their perception of

the importance of English, the importance of oral accuracy, how often they need to write reports/technical documents/papers in English, and their immediate future needs. The present situation analysis subsection has 2 true-false items, 1 multiple-choice item, 3 rating-scale items, 1 checklist item, and 1 rank-order item, asking about the students‟ assessment of their language skills, language aspects, reading skills, their perception of important language skills, how they like to participate in the English course, whether the English course gives them some new knowledge, how they like the instructional materials, their reasons to study English at present. The learning needs analysis subsection has 1 true-false item, 2 multiple-choice items, 3 rating-scale items, 2 checklist items, and 2 rank-order items, asking about the students‟ learning preferences of place, activity, instructor, language skills, feedback, media, and time. The deficiency analysis subsection has 1 rating-scale item and 1 checklist item, asking about the students; learning difficulties and their needs for practice.

The respondent‟s profile, target situation analysis, present situation analysis, learning needs analysis, and deficiency analysis subsections aim at finding out the students‟ language needs in order to answer the second research question, while the English course

subsection aims at partly finding out the present practice of the course in order to answer the first research question. Table 3.3 shows the structure of the questionnaire.

Table 3.3 Structure of the Questionnaire

No Main Parts

1 General Instruction

2 Time and Venue

3 Questions Subsections Item Types Number of

Items

Respondent s Profile Fill-in 9

English Course True-False 15

Target Situation Analysis Rating-Scale Checklist 3 2 Present Situation Analysis True-False Multiple-Choice Rating-Scale Checklist Rank-Order 2 1 3 1 1 Learning Needs Analysis True-False

Multiple-Choice Rating-Scale Checklist Rank-Order 1 2 3 2 2 Deficiency Analysis Rating-Scale

Checklist

1 1 Total Items 49

4 Final thank you

The questionnaire and the interview guides (in Subsection 3.2.2) had been consulted to and verified by the academic supervisors and the advisor Kathleen A. Romstedt, Ph.D. of the Ohio State University during the Doctoral Sandwich-Like Program funded by the Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE), the Ministry of National Education, the Republic of Indonesia through a financial scheme of the National Development Budget and the Department of National Education. She is a clinical educator and M.Ed. program

manager at the School of Teaching and Learning, College of Education and Human Ecology, the Ohio State University, Columbus, U.S.A.

The students filled out the questionnaire in the classroom during the class. Some instructors allowed this data collection at the beginning of the class and continued the teaching and learning activities afterwards, while the other instructors preferred to have class first and then allocated some time for this activity towards the end of the class. The time needed for the students to fill out the questionnaire was 30 minutes on the average.

3.2.2 Interview

An interview is a purposeful conversation, usually between two people but sometimes involving more, that is directed by one in order to get information from the other (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998: 93). The interview used in this study is the structured interview. In this type of interview, “the agenda is totally predetermined by the researcher, who works through a list of set questions in a predetermined order” (Nunan, 1992: 149). The data collection through questionnaire and interview was administered with a high degree of explicitness which involved the use of formal and structured types of questions formulated in advance (Seliger & Shohamy, 1989; Sommer & Sommer, 1991). Although an interview guide is employed, the interviewer has considerable latitude to pursue a range of topics and offer the subject a chance to shape the content of the interview.

There are 2 forms of interview guides, one for the instructors of the English course (Appendix 3.2) and the other for the faculty‟s management (the dean, associate dean for academic affairs, head of university‟s language institute, heads of departments and study programs) (Appendix 3.3). These interview guides are a modification from those designed

by Kusni (2004) for his study. For example, the items in the previous interview guide for the instructors on technical vocabulary, language-skills focus, and instructor‟s professionalism, were deleted in the present interview guide. The items in the previous

interview guide for the faculty‟s management on syllabus preparation and student

assessment, were deleted; however, the item on whether the course should be ESP or EAP was added in the present interview guide.

The interview guide for the instructors has 4 main parts and consists of 4 pages of A4 size paper. The main parts of the interview guide for the instructors are as follows:

• Introduction, which gives the title of the study, the purpose of interview, and the request

to give clear answers

• Time and Venue, which provides the day/date, time and venue, when and where the

interview is taking place

• Questions, which consists of ten categories: respondent‟s profile, importance of the

English course, students‟ proficiency, course objectives, needs analysis, course preparation, instructional materials, teaching and learning activities, evaluation, and facilitating/inhibiting factors and suggestions

• Final „thank you‟, which thanks the respondent for the time and information, and requests

the respondent to spare his/her time for further information if needed.

The questions on several topics in the interview guide provide some information about the respondents and their knowledge and opinions of the English course. The respondent‟s profile gives the name, sex, age, field of study, educational background (undergraduate/master/doctor, place and year of graduation), experience in teaching the course, and special training. The importance of the English course includes the process and the parties in deciding the course as compulsory, and the importance of the course for the students in terms of language skills and aspects. The students‟ proficiency includes the

and aspects. The topic of course objectives provides the information of what the course objectives are, who determines the objectives, and whether 2 credit-hours is enough. The needs analysis includes, if there was one, who and how to conduct it, and what the results were. The course preparation includes who prepared the syllabus, whether the students had the syllabus at the beginning of the course, and whether the instructor reviewed or evaluated the syllabus. The topic of instructional materials includes the kinds of materials and the focus of the materials on certain language skills or aspects. The topic of teaching and learning activities gives the information of types of activities and assignments, and the

students‟ participation. The evaluation includes the students‟ assessment and course

evaluation (what aspects to evaluate, who evaluates, how to design the course). Finally, in the facilitating/inhibiting factors and suggestions, the instructors give their personal opinions and suggestions for the course at the implementation level.

The interview guide for the faculty‟s management has a similar format as that for the instructors. Similarly, the interview guide for the faculty‟s management has four main parts (Introduction, Time and Venue, Questions, and Final „thank you‟); however, some

topics and questions in the section „Questions‟ are different. The questions in the interview

guide for the faculty‟s management include nine categories: respondent‟s profile, importance of the English course, students‟ proficiency, course objectives, needs analysis,

instructors, instructional materials, evaluation, and facilitating/inhibiting factors and

suggestions. Apart from the importance of the English course, students‟ proficiency,

instructional materials, and facilitating/inhibiting factors and suggestions (which have the same questions as those for the instructors), the course objectives and the needs analysis have additional questions. In the course objectives, the possibility of ESP or EAP course is

also included; and the needs analysis also includes who should design the course and why.

In the respondent‟s profile, teaching experience and special training are excluded, but

employee‟s rank and position are included. In the evaluation, the students‟ assessment is

excluded as it is within the discretion of the instructors. The topic of instructors gives the information on the types and choice of instructors and the possibility of team teaching. Apart from the respondent‟s profile, there are 32 questions altogether in the interview guide for the instructors, and 30 questions in the interview guide for the faculty‟s management. However, it should be noted that not all the questions might be asked in the actual interview. For example, in some instances, when asked whether a needs analysis had been conducted for the course and the respondent answered „No‟, then the next questions

(„How was it conducted? What were the results?) would not be asked. When the

respondent answered „No‟ to the question „Has the course ever been evaluated before?‟,

then he/she would not be probed more deeply with the questions „What aspects were being

evaluated? Who were involved in the evaluation?‟. In other instances, another respondent

might answer a question at great length so that he/she would actually answer the next questions that would be asked to him/her.

The individual interviews with the respondents were usually based on an appointment. The interviews with the instructors took place outside the class in the lecturer room in

Indralaya and/or Palembang, and the interviews with the faculty‟s management took place

in their respective offices during the office hours. As the researcher knows the respondents, we generally got right down to business when we met. During the interview, the respondent also had the interview guide to look at so that he/she knew the topics of interview. No video/audio recorder was present during the interviews, intending to put the

respondents at their ease to express themselves. The researcher took notes during the interview and completed the notes after the session. The time needed for the interview was 30 minutes on the average.

3.2.3 Observation

Observation refers to the collection of data without manipulating it; “the aim is to gather first-hand information about social processes in a naturally occurring context” (Silverman, 1993: 11); “the researcher simply observes ongoing activities, without making any attempt to control or determine them” (Wray et al., 1998: 186). Observation entails the systematic noting and recording of events, behaviors, and artifacts (objects) in the social setting chosen for study (Marshall & Rossman, 1995: 79). The observation used in this study is the non-participant observation in which the researcher makes no effort to have a

particular role, or the researcher is to be tolerated as an unobstrusive observer, „invisible‟

to the subjects. In this respect, the researcher is expected to observe or gather data without interfering in the ongoing flow of everyday events.

There were 10 observations in this study as there were 10 instructors of the English course. The researcher observed the classroom activities one time for each instructor. Each class usually lasted 100 minutes as it is a 2-credit course. The observation procedure is as follows. First, the researcher asked permission to and made an appointment with each instructor to have an observation in his/her class. At the appointed time, the researcher waited for the instructor and we entered the class together. Some instructors might re-introduce the researcher to the students, but some other directly asked the researcher to have a seat. There was actually no need to have re-introduction as the students had known

the researcher in the questionnaire session. All the observations took place within weeks after the students filled out the questionnaire. The researcher usually sat at the back of the classroom in a theatre-seating arrangement or at one corner in a u-shaped seating

arrangement. The researcher tried to be „invisible‟ to the instructor and students. During

the observation, the researcher took notes of what happened in the class. After the class, the researcher thanked the instructor and students, and completed the fieldnotes outside the class if necessary.

The results of observation are fieldnotes. Fieldnotes refer to the written account of what the researcher hears, sees, experiences, and thinks in the course of collecting and reflecting on the data in a qualitative study (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998: 107-108). Fieldnotes consist of two kinds of materials: descriptive and reflective. (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Creswell, 1998). The descriptive part of fieldnotes provides a word-picture of the setting, people, actions, and conversations as observed; the reflective part gives a more personal account of

the course of the inquiry, which captures the observer‟s frame of mind, ideas, and

concerns. The reflective part of fieldnotes is designated by the notation of “O.C.”, which stands for observer’s comment.

The fieldnotes in this study are in narrative form. The researcher focused on the description of classroom activities, which consists of the activity type, the participant organization, the content, the student modality, the materials, and the physical setting. The first five aspects are the principal features of Part A of the COLT (Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching) observation scheme developed by Long (1980), Chaudron (1988), Spada & Fröhlich (1995). The COLT consists of two parts: Part A which focuses on classroom activities and Part B which relates to classroom language. The

communicative features in Part B include the use of target language, information gap, sustained speech, reaction to code or message, incorporation of preceding utterance, discourse initiation, and relative restriction to linguistic form.

The fieldnotes, therefore, include the information about what the activity type was (lecture, discussion, roleplay, etc.), whether the teacher was working with the whole class and/or whether the students worked individually or in groups, whether the focus was on language form/function and who selected the topic, whether the students were involved in a certain language skill or a combination of skills, what types of materials were used, and what the seating arrangement was. The fieldnotes would partly answer the first research question on the present practice of the English course, especially on the aspects of teaching methodology, class management, and instructional materials. As the focus of the inquiry had been determined, the researcher would not seek to report „everything‟ in the fieldnotes. Wolcott (1990: 35) states that “the critical task in qualitative research is not to accumulate

all the data you can, but to „can‟ (get rid of) most of the data you accumulate. This requires

constant winnowing”. Winnowing the data refers to reducing the data to a small manageable set of themes to write into the final narrative.

3.2.4 Review of Documents

Review of documents is “an unobstrusive method, one rich in portraying the values and beliefs of participants in the setting” (Marshall & Rossman, 1995: 85). Documents may include minutes of meetings, formal policy statements, letters, archival records, logs, syllabi, lesson plans, textbooks, etc. Silverman (2005: 160) states that, in qualitative research, researchers use documents or texts to depict „reality‟ and small numbers of texts

and documents may be analyzed to understand the participants‟ categories and to see how

these are used in concrete activities.

The documents collected in the present study include policy documents, syllabi and lesson plans, instructional materials, and tests and student test records. The documents

were obtained from the university‟s language institute as the coordinator of the English

course. All these documents could be classified as official institutional documents. There were no personal documents and popular culture documents.

Bogdan & Biklen (1998) classify documents into three main types: personal documents, official documents, and popular culture documents. Personal documents are those produced by individuals for private purposes and limited use, such as letters, diaries, autobiographies, family photo albums and other audio/visual recordings. Official documents are produced by an organization for record-keeping and dissemination purposes, such as memos, minutes of meetings, newsletters, policy documents, proposals,

students‟ records, brochures and the like. Popular culture documents are those produced for

commercial purposes to entertain, persuade, and enlighten the public, such as commercials, TV programs, news reports and audio/visual recordings.

The official institutional documents collected are as follows:

(a) the decree of the rector of the university on the organization and working hierarchy of University‟s Language Institute

(b) the decree of the rector of the university on the minimal TOEFL scores which should be achieved by the students at the faculties/programs of the university

(c) the syllabus for the students of natural sciences and the syllabus for the students of social sciences

(d) lesson plans for reading materials

(e) the two coursebooks used in the classroom

(f) the TOEFL-like results of the students of the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education in the academic year 2009/2010, dated on September 4, 2009 (g) the English mid-semester and semester tests in the even semester 2009/2010

(h) the students‟ final grades for the English course in the even semester 2009/2010

3.3 Methods of Data Analysis

Data analysis is the process of bringing order, structure, and meaning to the mass of collected data (Marshall & Rossman (1995: 111). Analysis involves working with data, organizing them, breaking them into manageable units, synthesizing them, searching for patterns, discovering what is important and what is to be learned, and deciding what you will tell others (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998: 157). In general, the data of this present study were analyzed in three phases of data transformation advanced by Wolcott (1994): description, analysis, and interpretation. Wolcott (1990: 28) believes that a good starting point for writing a qualitative report is to describe the setting:

Description is the foundation upon which qualitative research is built ….

Here you become the storyteller, inviting the reader to see through your

eyes what you have seen…. Start by presenting a straightforward description of the setting and events. No footnotes, no intrusive analysis ─

just the facts, carefully presented and interestingly related at an appropriate level of detail.

The analysis procedure is the search for patterned regularities in the data. Analysis involves highlighting specific material introduced in the descriptive phase or displaying findings through tables, charts, diagrams, and figures. In the interpretation, the researcher goes beyond the database and probes “what is to be made of them” (Wolcott, 1994: 36),

and “draws inferences from the data or turns to theory to provide structure for his or her

interpretations” (Creswell, 1998: 153). Interpretive act is a process of bringing meaning to

meaning to those data and displays that meaning to the reader through the written report (Marshall & Rossman, 1995: 113).

The data analysis in this study was predominantly inductive and eclectic in nature. Inductive data analysis involves arguing from particular facts or data to a general theme or conclusion. The data analysis is eclectic in which the researcher analyzing the data employs an electric mix of the available analytical tools that best fit the data set under considerations. Teddie & Taskhakkori (2009: 252) state that researchers frequently gather information from a variety of sources; therefore, they often have to employ more than one type of analysis to accommodate the differences among the sources. Denzin & Lincoln (2005: 4) refer to qualitative researchers as bricoleurs, who employ a wide range of available data collection methodologies and analysis strategies.

The data obtained from the questionnaire were presented in tabulations. Dörnyei (2003: 14) states that the typical questionnaire, with most items either asking about very specific pieces of information or giving various response options for the respondent to choose from, will produce the data particularly suited for quantitative, statistical analysis. In this case, graphic formats such as frequency tables and graphs were used to display the descriptive statistics, as suggested by Strauss (1987), Miles & Huberman (1993 & 1994), and Creswell (1998). Marshall & Rossman (1995: 128) believe that data display could promote analysis and could also summarize the results of analysis.

To answer the first research question on the present practice of the English course, the researcher categorized the data in terms of such aspects as the institutional goals, class management, instructional materials, instructors, teaching methodology, and evaluation. The questionnaire data on the English course, the interview data, the classroom

observation data, and the data from documents were mutually corroborate to give a portrait of the present English course. Tables and graphs might be generated to display the data; however, the analysis would mostly be in descriptive narrative form. In the analysis, the researcher would also draw connections between the data and the theoretical framework. As for the data collected to answer the second research question on the students‟ needs, the questionnaire data were described in terms of the subcategories of needs analysis, namely the target situation analysis, the present situation analysis, the learning needs analysis, and the deficiency analysis. The needs analysis would include the interview data

from the instructors and faculty‟s management in order to find out the faculty‟s

expectations of the English course. As the interviews were structured with a list of set questions in a predetermined order, the data obtained might be presented quantitatively in numbers and/or qualitatively in narrative form.

The results of analysis and interpretation would be used as the basis of a course design proposed for the English language teaching at the faculty. The course design was based on the principles suggested, among others, by Taba (1962), Dubin & Olshtain (1986), Hutchinson & Waters (1987), Robinson (1991), Brown (1995), Graves (1996, 2000), Jordan (1997), Diamond (2008), and Nation & Macalister (2010).

3.4 Limitations of the Study

The present study has several limitations in some aspects. In terms of the student participants, this study did not include all the undergraduate students from all the study programs at the faculty. Out of 11 study programs (excluding the English Education Study Program) which have the compulsory English course in their curricula, this researcher took

Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1993). “Task-based syllabus design: Selecting grading and sequencing tasks”. In S.M. Gass & G. Crookes (Eds.), Tasks in a Pedagogical Context (pp. 55-66). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Nunan, D. (2000). Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Paltridge, B. (2001). “Linguistic research and EAP pedagogy”. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes (pp. 55– 70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Paltridge, B. (2002). “Thesis and dissertation writing: An examination of published advice and actual practice”. English for Specific Purposes, 21 (2), 125–144.

Papageorgiou, A. (2007). “Teaching English for specific purposes to military officers: Utopia or reality within the classroom environment?” A paper presented at the 20th Annual BESIG (Business English Special Interest Group) Conference in Berlin, Germany, on November 16th – 18th, 2007. Available at http://www.besig.org/ events/conf2007/downloads/Papageorgiou.doc [March 15th, 2009].

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. London: SAGE Publications.

Pennington, M. C. (1995). “The teacher change cycle”. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 705–731. Phillips, M.K. (1981). “Toward a theory of LSP methodology”. In R. Mackay and J.D.

Palmer (Eds.), Languages for Specific Purposes: Program Design and Evaluation (pp. 92-105). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Phillips, M.K., and Shettlesworth, C.C. (1975). “Problems in syllabus design for a course in industrial English”. ESPMENA Bulletin 2, Autumn 1975.

Piotrowski, M.V. (1982). “Business as usual: Using the case method to teach ESL to executives”. TESOL Quarterly, 16 (2), 229-238.

Posner, G.J. and Rudnitsky, A.N. (1986). Course Design: A Guide to Curriculum

Development for Teachers (3rd Edition). New York: Longman.

Rea-Dickens, P. (1994). “Evaluation and English language teaching (state of the art article)”. Language Teaching, 27 (2), 71-91.

Reece, I., and Walker, S. (2003). Teaching, Training and Learning: A Practical Guide

Incorporating FENTO Standards (5th Edition). Sunderland: Business Education Publishers Limited.

Richards, J.C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J.C., Platt, J., and Weber, H. (1985). Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Harlow, Essex: Longman.

Richterich, R. (1973/1980). “Definition of language needs and types of adults”. In J. Trimm; R. Richterich; J. Van Ek; D. Wilkins (Eds.), Systems Development in Adult

Language Learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe/Oxford: Pergamon.

Richterich, R., and Chancerel, J.L. (1977). Identifying the Needs of Adults Learning a

Foreign Language. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Robinson, P.C. (1980). ESP (English for Specific Purposes): The present position. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Robinson, P.C. (1991). ESP Today: A Practitioner’s Guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.

Robinson, P.C. et al. (2001). “The development of EAP oral discussion ability”. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research Perspectives on English for Academic

Purposes (pp. 347–359). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rodgers, T. (1989). “Syllabus design, curriculum development and policy determination”. In R.K. Johnson (Ed.), The Second Language Curriculum (pp. 24-34). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rossner, R. (1988). “Materials for communicative language teaching and learning”.

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 8, 140-163.

Sadtono, E. (1997). “ELT development in Indonesia: A smorgasbord”. In E. Sadtono (Ed),

The Development of TEFL in Indonesia. Malang: The English Department of IKIP

Malang and Bina Budaya Foundation.

Sanders, J.R. (1992). Evaluating School Programs: An educator’s guide. Newbury Park, C.A.: Corwin Press.

Savage, W., and Storer, G. (2001). “An emergent language program framework: Actively involving learners in needs analysis”. System, 20, 187–200.

Seliger, H.W., and Shohamy, E. (1989). Second Language Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and

Interaction. London: SAGE Publications.

Silverman, D. (2005). Doing Qualitative Research (2nd Edition). London: SAGE Publications.

Sofendi. (Ed.). (2009a). English for General Purposes for the Students of Natural Sciences. Palembang: Language Institute, Sriwijaya University.

Sofendi. (Ed.). (2009b). English for General Purposes for the Students of Social Sciences. Palembang: Language Institute, Sriwijaya University

Sommer, B., and Sommer, R. (1991). A Practical Guide to Behavioral Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Souillard, A., and Kerr, A. (1987). “Practicing presentations with science and technology students”. Forum, XXV, 3, 29-31.

Spada, N., and Fröhlich, M. (1995). Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching

(COLT) Observation Scheme: Coding conventions and applications. Sydney,

Australia: Macquarie University, National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.

Starfield, S. (2001). “„I‟ll go with the group‟: Rethinking „discourse community‟ in EAP”. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research Perspectives on English for

Academic Purposes (pp. 132–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann.

Stevens, V. (1991). “Classroom concordancing: Vocabulary materials derived from relevant, authentic text”. English for Specific Purposes, 10, 35–46.

Stewart, W. (1968). “A sociolinguistic typology for describing national multilingualism”. In J.A. Fishman (Ed.), Readings in the Sociology of Language (pp. 531-545). The Hague: Mouton.

Strauss, A. M. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Strevens, P. (1988). “ESP after twenty years: A re-appraisal”. In M. Tickoo (Ed.), ESP:

State of the Art (pp. 1-13). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Strevens, T. (1980). “Functional Englishes (ESP)”. In P. Strevens, Teaching English as an

International Language: From Practice to Principle (pp. 105-121). Oxford: Pergamon

Stuart, W., and Lee, E. (1972/1980). The Non-Specialist Use of Foreign Languages in

Industry and Commerce. Sidcup: London Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Examinations Board.

Swales, J.M. (1988). Episodes in ESP. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International. Swan, J. (1986). “ESP course evaluation: What can we learn from our „master‟?”. An

unpublished paper given at the CULI International Conference on Trends in Language Programme Evaluation, Bangkok, Thailand, December 1986.

Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

Teddie, C., and Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research:

Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Thousand Oaks, C.A.: SAGE Publications.

Tessmer, M. (1990). “Environment analysis: A neglected stage of instructional design”.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 38, 1, 55-64.

Todd, R.W. (2001). “Induction from self-selected concordances and self-correction”.

System, 29, 91–102.

Todd, R.W. (2003). “EAP or TEAP?”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2 (2), 147-156.

Tomlinson, B. (1998). Materials Developments in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tonkin, H. (2003). “Language and Society”. An Occasional Paper No. 178/2003 from the

American Forum for Global Education [Online], New York. Available at http://www.

globaled. org/ issues/178F.pdf [December 5th, 2007].

Trim, J. et al. (1975). Systems Development in Adult Language Learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe/Oxford: Pergamon.

Universitas Sriwijaya. (2007). Buku Pedoman Universitas Sriwijaya. Indralaya: Universitas Sriwijaya.

Van Ek, J.A., and Trim, J.L.M. (1998). Threshold Level English. Oxford: Pergamon. Wajnryb, R. (1992). Classroom Observation Tasks: A Resource Book for Language

Teachers and Trainers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Warschauer, M. (2002). “Networking into academic discourse”. Journal of English for

Webb, J. (1977). “Reflections of practical experience in designing and mounting ESP courses at the Colchester English Study Centre”. IUT Bulletin Pedagogique, May 1977.

Weir, C., and Roberts, J. (1994). Evaluation in ELT. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wesche, M. (1987). “Second language performance testing: The Ontario Test of ESL as an example”. Language Testing, 4 (2), 28-47.

West, R. (1994). “Needs analysis in language teaching”. Language Teaching, 27 (1), 1-19. West, R. (1997). “Needs analysis: State of the art”. In R. Howard & G. Brown (Eds.),

Teacher Education for LSP (pp. 68-48). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

White, R.V. (1988). The ELT Curriculum: Design, Innovation and Management. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Widdowson, H.G. (1976). “The authenticity of language data”. In J.F. Fanselow and R.H. Grymes (Eds.), on TESOL ‟76 TESOL, Washington, D.C.

Widdowson, H.G. (1979). Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Widdowson, H.G. (1983). Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wilkins, D.A. (1976). Notional Syllabuses: A Taxonomy and its Relevance to Foreign

Language Curriculum Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wilson, J. (1986). “Task-based language learning”. Harper 11, 105-121.

Wolcott, H. (1990). Writing Up Qualitative Research. Qualitative Research Methods Series No. 20. Newbury Park, C.A.: SAGE Publications.

Wolcott, H.F. (1994). Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, Analysis, and

Interpretation. Thousand Oaks, C.A.: SAGE Publications.

Woods, D. (1996). Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching: Beliefs, Decision-making

and Classroom Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wray, A., Trott, K., and Bloomer, A. (1998). Projects in Linguistics: A Practical Guide to

Xenodohidis, T.H. (2002). “An ESP curriculum for Greek EFL students of computing: A new approach”. English for Specific Purposes World [Online]. Available at http:// www.esp-world.info/Articles_2/ESP Curriculum.html [June 2nd, 2010].

Yalden, J. (1983). The Communicative Syllabus: Evolution, Design and Implementation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.