What is up with English: A Needs Analysis for Music Students

Abstract

The use of English throughout the whole world as an international language and English as a lingua franca (ELF) make it a necessity to learn English at a level competent enough to build an effective and appropriate communication. In this respect, this research aims to investigate the needs of Turkish music students in English courses at a state university in Turkey. The study was designed as a descriptive study and the participants were chosen by using convenience sampling. Needs analysis questionnaire was administered to the students and focus group interviews were conducted with both the students and the instructor. The qualitative data from the questionnaire and interview were analyzed by using constant-comparative method derived from grounded theory with coding procedures. The quantitative data in the questionnaires were presented with the frequencies. The findings indicate that the learners seem eager to learn English and need English for communication and academic purposes. Nevertheless, they may not have the necessary qualifications and strategies as a language learner. Some pedagogical suggestions will be presented for language instructors and policy makers.

Keywords

• Needs analysis
• EFL learners
• Music students

References

1. Benson, P. (2013). Learner autonomy. TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 839-843.
2. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second LanguageWriting, 19(4), 207-217.
3. Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York: Longman. Cakir, A. (1999). Musical activities for young learners of EFL. The Internet TESL Journal, 5(11). Retrieved July 14, 2019 from http://iteslj.org/Lessons/Cakir-MusicalActivities.html.
4. Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q. (2016). EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: A case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(1), 1-5.
5. Council of Europe (CoE). (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.
6. Council of Higher Education (CoHE). (1991). Higher education law. Retrieved August 28, 2019 from www.mevzuat.gov.tr › MevzuatMetin › 1.5.2547.doc.
7. Dai, Y., Wu, Z., & Dai, L. (2015). The relationships among motivation, learning styles and English proficiency in EFL music students. International Journal of English Linguistics, 5(6), 75-83.
8. Darling-Hammond, L., Banks, J., Zumwalt, K., Gomez, L., Sherin, M. G., Griesdorn, J., & Finn, L. (2005). Educational goals and purposes: Developing a curricular vision for teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond, & J. Bransford, (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 169-200). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

9. Dewi, R. R. (2017). Developing a task-based ESP learning materials for music department of SMM Yogyakarta (a research and development at the eleventh grade students of SMK N2 Kasihan Bantul in the academic year of 2016/2017) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia.
10. Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31(3), 117-135.
11. Dörnyei, Z. (2008). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. USA: Cambridge.
12. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University.
13. Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching: Motivation. Great Britain: Pearson.
14. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
15. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine.
16. Hapsari, P. D. (2015). The need analysis of music department students to learn English by using the project-based approach with song lyrics writing as supporting technique. Promusika, 3(2), 137-148.
17. Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. United Kingdom: Pearson Longman.
18. Harris, D. P. (1969). Testing English as a second language. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.
19. Holec, H. (1979). Autonomy and foreign language learning. England: Pergamon.
20. Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer World Englishes circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
21. Kachru, B. (2008). World Englishes. In M. Berns (Ed.), Concise encyclopaedia of applied linguistics (pp. 521-528). United Kingdom: Elsevier.
22. Kara, M. (2009). Games in the teaching of foreign languages. Retrieved July 14, 2019 from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/be06/e74eb4810112789c27d2b8ba0f75cedd21a6.pdf.
23. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. UK: Pergamon.
24. Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. De Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
25. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie& T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego,CA: Academic.
26. Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.
27. Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University.
28. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
29. Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. USA: Cambridge University. Rogers, C. (1983). Freedom to learn for the eighties. Colombus: Charles E. Merrill.
30. Salcedo, C. S. (2010). The effects of songs in the foreign language classroom on text recall, delayed text recall and involuntary mental rehearsal. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 7(6), 19-30.
31. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensive output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
32. Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). Corrective feedback makes a difference: A metaanalysisof the research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research onlanguage learning and teaching (pp. 133-164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
33. Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptionsconcerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback:US“‐Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
34. Wakeland, L. (2013). Development of an English-for-specific-academic-purposes course for music students. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 45-59.
35. Ward, G., & Overall, T. (2013, March). Technology Integration for Preservice Mathematics Teacher: A Time-Series Study. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Retrieved November 18, 2019 from https://goo.gl/pBS2Ug.
36. Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational process. Review of Educational Research, 42(2), 203-215.
37. West, R. (1997). Needs analysis: State of the art. In R. Howard & G. Brown (Eds.), Teacher education for LSP (pp. 68-79). Great Britain: WBC Book Manufacturers.
38. Wolfe, J. (2006). A musician's English: The challenge awaiting international students in tertiary music programs in Australia. TESOL in Context, 16(1), 1-16.