1.

INTRODUCTION
English is the most important part in many areas of modern science and technology. Its leading
to the growing demand form English for specific purposes courses. In order to provide for the
learners specific purpose, it has become urgent to collect information about the learners: their
needs and wants. For so deed, relevant techniques as well as procedures have been developed by
needs analysts. These techniques have been borrowed and adopted from other areas of training,
particularly, those associated with industry and technology.
In this respect, the present paper attempts to shed light on the field of needs analysis as a method
of not only analyzing the needs of given individuals (learners) or communities; but also as a tool
that can help in predicting future decisions about a targeted population. And before indulging in
the hows and whats of needs assessment, a clear and well-rounded definition of the concept
has to be provided.
1.1 Objective of the Report:
The present report has set itself the objective of focusing on the presentation of the wealth of
data which emanated from the students questionnaires, FGD and teacher interviews and provide
rich insights into their perceived needs as learners and as language users. In particular, the basic
objectives of this part of the survey report were:
-to identify the students needs in terms of language skills and tasks;
-to record the students deficiencies concerning language skills;
-to elicit the students preferences with respect to learning styles, methodology and teacher roles;
1.2 Purpose of the report
This report is about need analysis and syllabus design of undergraduate students of BRAC
University. English learning is the most important part of our daily life. Considering the
importance of learning English, this project was designed to assess the learning level of

undergraduate students of BRAC University. It is generally recognized that, the syllabus can
serve as a guide to the instructor as much as a guide to the class.
1.3 Scope of the report
A syllabus is often thought of as that apparently benign document instructors assemble and
distribute to students at the start of the semester. Therefore, it behooves instructors to make the
effort to construct a high-quality syllabus. The results of that effort can benefit the instructor as
well as his or her students. Scope of the study pointed out by followings;
This report will introduce with the Need Analysis and Syllabus Design of BRAC
University.
To understand the learning skills of the students from the course.
It helps to analyze learning difficulty of the students from the course.
It enables to evaluate the expectation of the students from the course.
1.4 Research Design of the Report
The qualitative analysis of the data has yielded several major findings, e.g. that while students
generally assign importance to English, they are, nevertheless, surprisingly highly motivated to
learn the language. At the same time, however, they do not have a very precise idea about their
future in-service needs. That, as mentioned above, is something that can be usefully corrected
with the transferred needs analyses performed among in-service graduates. The report has been
developed basically both on primary and secondary data. In this study need analysis and syllabus
design is described.
1.4.1 Sources of Data
The relevant information is collected from the primary sources and used the secondary sources
data. These are given below;

Primary Data Sources the data have collected from the primary sources are Direct observation
and Face to face conversation.
Secondary Data Sources, The data I have collected from the secondary sources are Annual study,
Websites and Relevant books
We have collected primary data through pretest one questionnaire and finally through a set of
final questionnaire. The pretest questionnaire was open ended and final questionnaire was close
ended. In the pretest questionnaire, we have tried to know the students education background,
learning skills, learning style performance etc. In the final questionnaire, we wanted to know in
which skill they want to improve and how strongly they believe these.

1.5 Limitations of the Report

The sources of the study are collected from undergraduate class. Though we have tried our best
to produce a comprehensive and well-organized study, some limitations are yet present in this
report.

2. Review of Literature
Need means demand and analysis means study of particular situations. Need analysis means to
find out students needs, wants, wishes, desires. Needs analysis survey form includes
questionnaire and FGD (focused group discussion) for students and interview question for
teacher to collect information about students' learning needs, wants, wishes, desires. Need
analysis information help develop syllabus content, materials, and methods.
Syllabus is a plan of work of a particular department in school, collage or organization. It is a
guideline of learning which includes specific textbook, technology resources, course pedagogy,
course objectives, course synopsis, materials and equipment, grade breakdown, and different
activities.
In a word we can say that need analysis is the first step of planning teaching product.

Chart 1: Need Analysis

3. Materials and Methods

5

In performing any applied research, a clear and specific methodology has to be followed where
methodology is a set of methods used in a particular area of research. From the present report is
to measure the students learning level towards the English language course. In this research, a set
of methods such as sample size, sample selection procedure, process of collecting data,
interpreting the data, analyzing the data, other relevant activities and combination of rules and
techniques have been used. The research methodology of the report is discussed as follows:
Sample of data: To conduct the study, we have selected Undergraduate students of BRAC
University. Therefore, the students who are only studying in BRAC University have been
considered as a respondent for the study. The respondents have cited various factors
through the pre-testing and questionnaires.
Sample area: For the convenience of the study and due to time limitation, we have
selected only one batch of students for the study. We have considered ourselves to collect
the data.
Sample size: Sample size is very important factor for getting expected result of research
work. From the mentioned area, teacher interview and FGD have been completed for
pretesting one questionnaire for the students of BRAC University. Finally, 20 respondents
have been selected for final questionnaire from the above mentioned sample area of the
study. The sample units of the study are students.
Sample selection method: Through purposive sampling, we chose BRAC University for
the study and cluster sampling method has been used for the students at first and finally
random sampling method has been used for the study.

4. Findings
The focus of this research is to find out the factors working behind the sustainability of the
students. The analysis is performed on 20 respondent surveys. This portion of the report
introduces and provides a discussion on the data and the research design.
4.1 The Participants
The participants involved in the study were 20 students of BRAC University.
4.1.2 Gender:

Chart 2: Gender
In The chart the blue portion of the pie graph indicates the quantity of male respondent Gender
whereas the green portion indicates the quantity of female respondents. It shows the frequency of
male and female. The frequency of male is 13 (65%) and the frequency of female is 7 which
consist 35% of total portion.

4.1.3 Age of Respondents:

Chart 3: Age of respondent

In the chart the blue portion of the pie graph indicates age of respondent between 18 to 21 and
the green portion indicates the age of respondents between 22 to 25. It shows the age of male
and female respondent. The age of respondent is categorized into 2, one is (18-21) and another is
(22-25). The frequency of (18-21) is 95% and the frequency of (18-21) is 5%.

4.1.4 Education medium:

Chart 4: Education medium

In the chart the blue portion of the pie graph indicates the no. of respondents came from Bangla
medium and the green portion indicates the no. of respondents came from English medium.

It

shows the level of medium of respondent. There are two levels of medium Bangla and English.
The frequency of Bangla medium is 13 consists of 13% whereas the frequency of English
medium is 7(35%).

4.1.4 Education History:

Chart 4: English Learning History

In the chart the blue portion of the pie graph indicates the highest (12 years) English learning
history, the green portion indicates the second highest (13 years) learning history of English and
brown portion shows the least no. of students of learning history of English. shows the history
of English learning of respondent, that means how many years the respondent are studying
English. There are some students who studied 12 years and the frequency is 16(80%). There are
some students who studied 13 years and 15 years. And the respective frequency is 3 (15.0%) and
1(5.0%).

10

4.2 The Focus of the Needs-Based Course

The learners needs were largely influential in establishing the focus of the needs-based course in
terms of skills at the macro- and micro-level.
4.2.1 Listening skill:

watching

Pearson

English

Correlations
watching
listening

watching

English

English

English

listening

channel

music

movies

English audio

.738**

.762**

.789**

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
channel
N
20
20
20
listening
Pearson
.738**
1
.718**
English music Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
.000
N
20
20
20
watching
Pearson
.762**
.718**
1
English
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
.000
movies
N
20
20
20
listening
Pearson
.789**
.817**
.661**
English audio Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
.000
.002
N
20
20
20
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 1: correlation between various listening skills

.000
20
.817**
.000
20
.661**
.002
20
1
20

4.2.2 Speaking skill:

Correlations
with
with
friends
11

with
with parents teacher

community
people

with friends

Pearson

with parents

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

with teacher

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

with

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
community Pearson

-.744**

.942**

.677**

20

.000
20

.000
20

.001
20

-.744**

-.805**

-.642**

.000
20

20

.000
20

.002
20

.942**

-.805**

.706**

.000
20

.000
20

20

.001
20

.677**
-.642**
.706**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.001
.002
.001
N
20
20
20
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 2: correlation between various speaking skills
people

1
20

4.2.3 Reading skill:

Correlations
reading
reading

reading English Pearson

journal

English

English

reading

journal

novel

English text newspaper

.927**

.849**

.837**

.000
20
1

.000
20
.824**

.000
20
.826**

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
20
reading English Pearson
.927**
novel
12

Correlation

reading English

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

.000
N
20
20
20
reading English Pearson
.849**
.824**
1
text
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
.000
N
20
20
20
reading English Pearson
.837**
.826**
.789**
newspaper
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
.000
.000
N
20
20
20
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 3: correlation between various reading skills

.000
20
.789**
.000
20
1
20

4.2.4 Writing skill:

writing lecture

Pearson

writing email

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

writing letter

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

13

Correlations
writing
writing

writing

writing short

lecture

email

letter

note

.886**

.921**

.920**

20

.000
20

.000
20

.000
20

.886**

.964**

.835**

.000
20

20

.000
20

.000
20

.921**

.964**

.871**

.000
20

.000
20

20

.000
20

writing

short Pearson

.920**

note

.835**

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
N
20
20
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 4: correlation between various writing skills

.871**

.000
20

20

4.3 Language Learning Style

In this section of the questionnaire, we basically focused on students individual learning
preferences. They are asked how frequent they use English in their day to day conversation.
4.3.1 Individual:
Individual
Cumulative
Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

Always

14

66.7

70.0

70.0

4
2
20
1

19.0
9.5
95.2
4.8

20.0
10.0
100.0

90.0
100.0

Missing

Sometimes
not at all
Total
System

21

100.0

Total

Table 5: individual language learning style

14

The individual learning style is divided into three levels. The respondent frequency always is 14
and percentage is (66.7) where as 70% valid, the respondent frequency sometimes is 4 (20%) and
the frequency of not at all is 2 (10%).

4.3.2 Pair:
Pair
Valid
Frequency Percent Percent
Valid
always
11
52.4
55.0
sometimes 9
42.9
45.0
Total
20
95.2
100.0
Missing System
1
4.8
Total
21
100.0
Table 6: pair language learning style

Cumulative
Percent
55.0
100.0

The pair learning style has 2 levels. The frequency of always is 11 ((52.4) and sometime is 9
(42.9%). The valid and cumulative percent is 45 and 100 respectively.
4.3.3 Group:
Group
Frequency Percent
15

Valid

Cumulative

Percent

Percent

Valid

always
8
38.1
40.0
sometimes 10
47.6
50.0
not at all
2
9.5
10.0
Total
20
95.2
100.0
Missing System
1
4.8
Total
21
100.0
Table 7: Group language learning style

40.0
90.0
100.0

The group learning style is divided into 3 levels. The frequency of always, sometimes and not at
all is 8 (38.1%) , 10 (47.6) and 10 (47.6) respectively. The valid and cumulative percentage is 40,
50, 10 and 40, 90 and 100 respectively.
4.4.4 Outside the class:
Outside the class room
Valid
Frequency Percent Percent
Valid
always
8
38.1
40.0
sometimes 7
33.3
35.0
not at all
5
23.8
25.0
Total
20
95.2
100.0
Missing System
1
4.8
Total
21
100.0
Table 8: Outside language learning style

Cumulative
Percent
40.0
75.0
100.0

The outside of class room learning style is divided into three level. The frequency of always,
sometimes and not at all is 8(38.1%), 7 (33.3%) and 5(23.8). The valid and cumulative percent is
sequentially 40, 35, 25 and 40, 75, 100 respectively.
4.4 Difficulty with skills:
4.4.1 Reading:
Reading

Valid very often

16

Frequency Percent
1
5.0

Valid

Cumulative

Percent
5.0

Percent
5.0

often
sometimes
rarely
never
Total

5
25.0
25.0
5
25.0
25.0
5
25.0
25.0
4
20.0
20.0
20
100.0
100.0
Table 9: reading difficulty

30.0
55.0
80.0
100.0

The reading difficulty is divided into five levels. The frequency of very often, often, sometimes,
rarely and never is 1(5.0%), 5 (25.0%), 5(25.0%), 5(25.0%) and 4(20%).

4.4.2 Writing:
writing
Valid
Frequency Percent Percent
Valid very often 1
5.0
5.0
often
2
10.0
10.0
sometimes 11
55.0
55.0
rarely
3
15.0
15.0
never
3
15.0
15.0
Total
20
100.0
100.0
Table 9: Writing difficulty

Cumulative
Percent
5.0
15.0
70.0
85.0
100.0

The writing difficulty is divided into five levels. The frequency of very often, often, sometimes,
rarely and never is 1(5.0%), 2 (10.0%), 11(55.0%), 3(15.0%) and 3(15%).
4.4.4 Speaking:
Speaking
Valid
Frequency Percent Percent
Valid very often 3
15.0
15.0
often
2
10.0
10.0
sometimes 4
20.0
20.0
rarely
9
45.0
45.0
never
2
10.0
10.0
Total
20
100.0
100.0
Table 10: Speaking difficulty
17

Cumulative
Percent
15.0
25.0
45.0
90.0
100.0

The speaking difficulty is divided into five levels. The frequency of very often, often, sometimes,
rarely and never is 3 (15.0%), 2 (10.0%), 4 (20.0%), 9 (45.0%) and 2 (10%).
4.4.5 Listening:
Listening
Valid
Frequency Percent Percent
Valid very often 1
5.0
5.0
often
3
15.0
15.0
sometimes 4
20.0
20.0
rearly
8
40.0
40.0
never
4
20.0
20.0
Total
20
100.0
100.0
Table 11: Listening difficulty

Cumulative
Percent
5.0
20.0
40.0
80.0
100.0

The listening difficulty is divided into five levels. The frequency of very often, often, sometimes,
rarely and never is 1(5.0%), 3 (15.0%), 4(20.0%), 8(40.0%) and 4(20%).

4.5 Performance with skill:

4.5.1 Reading:
Reading
Valid
Frequency Percent Percent
Valid excellent
7
35.0
35.0
good
10
50.0
50.0
satisfactory 3
15.0
15.0
Total
20
100.0
100.0
Table 12: Reading performance

Cumulative
Percent
35.0
85.0
100.0

The reading performance is divided into three levels. The frequency of excellent, good, and
satisfactory is 7 (35.0%), 10 (50%) and 3(15%).

4.5.2 Writing:
Writing

18

Valid
Frequency Percent Percent
Valid excellent
5
25.0
25.0
good
9
45.0
45.0
satisfactory 6
30.0
30.0
Total
20
100.0
100.0
Table 13: writing performance

Cumulative
Percent
25.0
70.0
100.0

The writing performance is divided into three levels. The frequency of excellent, good and
satisfactory is 5(25.0%), 9 (45.0%) and 6(30%).
4.5.3 Speaking:
Speaking
Valid
Frequency Percent Percent
Valid excellent
4
20.0
20.0
good
5
25.0
25.0
satisfactory 9
45.0
45.0
fair
2
10.0
10.0
Total
20
100.0
100.0
Table 14: speaking performance

Cumulative
Percent
20.0
45.0
90.0
100.0

The speaking performance is divided into four levels. The frequency of excellent, good,
satisfactory and fair is 4(20.0%), 5 (25.0%), 9(45%) and 2(10%).

4.5.4 Listening:
Listening
Table 20:
Frequency
Valid excellent
6
good
11
satisfactory 3
Total
20

Percent
30.0
55.0
15.0
100.0

Valid

Cumulative

Percent
30.0
55.0
15.0
100.0

Percent
30.0
85.0
100.0

listening

performance
The listening skill performance is divided into three levels. The frequency of excellent, good and
satisfactory is sequentially 6(30.0%), 11 (55.0%) and 3(15%).
19

4.5.5: Pronunciation
Pronunciation
Valid
Frequency Percent Percent
Valid excellent
4
20.0
20.0
good
7
35.0
35.0
satisfactory 9
45.0
45.0
Total
20
100.0
100.0
Table 15: listening performance

Cumulative
Percent
20.0
55.0
100.0

The pronunciation skill performance is divided into three levels. The frequency of excellent,
good and satisfactory is 4(20.0%), 7 (35.0%) and 9(45%).

4.5.6 Vocabulary:
Grammar
Valid
Frequency Percent Percent
Valid excellent
5
25.0
25.0
good
5
25.0
25.0
satisfactory 6
30.0
30.0
fair
4
20.0
20.0
Total
20
100.0
100.0
Table 16: grammar performance

Cumulative
Percent
25.0
50.0
80.0
100.0

The grammar skill performance is divided into four levels. The frequency of excellent, good
satisfactory and fair is 5(25.0%), 6 (30.0%) and 4(20%).

4.5.7 Vocabulary:
Vocabulary
Frequency Percent
20

Valid

Cumulative

Percent

Percent

Valid excellent
good
satisfactory
fair
Total

3
15.0
15.0
6
30.0
30.0
6
30.0
30.0
5
25.0
25.0
20
100.0
100.0
Table 16: vocabulary skill

15.0
45.0
75.0
100.0

The vocabulary skill performance is divided into four levels. The frequency of excellent, good,
satisfactory and fair is 3(15.0%), 6 (30.0%) ,6 (30%) and 5(25%).
4.6 A Need Analysis interview for teacher:
In teacher interview the teacher shows emphasis on grammar. He also shares that not only
teacher but also the students should play vital role in the class. He also tells that teaching should
focus on fluency and accuracy. He also agrees that the center of knowledge transmission and
teacher should be their facilitator. He also says that communicative language is good for students
and ELT syllabus should focus on developing all four skills.
4.7 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with students:
In FGD we have to ask several questions to the respondents. They have taken the decision of
English study because of their parents decision. Their purpose is maximum of them wants to
take teaching as their profession. They never tried to improve their English by using other
sources. They like this course because it will help to increase their level of frequency and highest
study. They have the expectation of the want to focus more on writing and speaking skill.
5. Conclusion and recommendation:
The learners had previous experiences of learning English for about twelve years. Still their level
of proficiency in English was not so good. However, they were better in writing than speaking.
Thereby, focus should be given on both writing business correspondence and speaking skill.
Hence, they should be exposed to extensive writing and speaking practices in and outside
classroom. Accordingly, Task Based Instructions (TBI), problem solution based pair and group
works, mandatory use of target language in class, prompt and preparatory class presentations,

21

dialogues, instructions, telephone conversations, procedures description and viva voce in

addition to writing business correspondence may be introduced.
For selection of course materials an instructor should consult different sources like textbooks,
instruction/ equipment manuals, CDs, DVDs, videotapes, materials used in content courses or to
train people for a job, materials used on a job, such as work forms, charts and samples of
relevant course assignments and student papers; and business communication related websites
which provide business letters, dialogues, instructions, telephone conversations, pod-casts, etc.
Reference:
[1] T. Dudley-Evans and M.J. St. John, Developments in ESP: A Multidisciplinary Approach,
Cambridge: Cambridge U. P., 1998.
[2] W.P. Wall, Needs analysis for effective professional communication in English speaking and
listening proficiency: A case study for Thai University administrators, Language Forum, vol.
35, no. 1, pp. 7-24, Jan-Jun. 2009.
[3] K. Westerfield, An overview of needs assessment in English for specific purposes, Best
Practices in ESP E-Teacher Course, Oregon: University of Oregon, 2010, pp. 1-6.
[4] J. Swales, Language for specific purposes, in International Encyclopedia of Linguistics,
Vol. 2, W. Bright, Ed. Oxford: Oxford U. P., 1992, p. 300.
[5] T. Hutchinson and A. Waters, English for Specific Purposes: A Learning-Centered Approach,
Cambridge: Cambridge U. P., 1987.
[6] P.C. Robinson, An overview of English for specific purposes, in Working with Language:
A Multidisciplinary Consideration of Language Use in Work Contexts, H. Coleman, Ed. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter, 1989, pp. 395-428.
[7] K.Knight, A.E. Lomperis, M. van Naerssen, and K.Westerfield (2010, April). English for
specific purposes: An overview for practitioners and clients (academic and corporate). [Online].
Available www.tesol.org/s_tesol/trc/uploads/.../1564_Knight_ESPPPTforTRC.pdf
[8] J.C. Richards, The Language Teaching Matrix, Cambridge: Cambridge U. P., 1990.
[9] J.D. Brown, The Elements of Language Curriculum: A Systematic Approach to Program
Development, New York: Heinle and Heinle, 1995.
22

[10] M. Ellis and C. Johnson, Teaching Business English, Oxford: Oxford U. P., 1994.
[11] J.C. Richards, The Context of Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge U. P., 1985.
[12] C.J. Brumfit and J.T. Roberts, An Introduction to Language and Language Teaching,
London: Baatsford, 1983.
[13] D.Nunan, Second Language Teaching and Learning, Boston: Heinle and Heinle, 1999.
[14] J. Munby, Communicative Syllabus Design, Cambridge: Cambridge U. P., 1978.

Appendix:

Questionnaires

We are the students of BRAC University. We are seeking out a bit of small-research relating to
the Need Analysis among the students of under graduate student. We would be grateful if you
could answer the questions below as completely as possible. Prompt and vigorous response will
help us to design a more effective syllabus for future English courses. Give tick mark ().
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)

Age:
18-21
22-25
26-29
30+
Sex:
Male/Female
Level of proficiency in English:
beginner/ intermediate/ advanced
How long have you been studying English? __________________years
How much time do you study English in a day? ________________hours
Education medium:
Bangla medium
English medium
School

College

University

Others

1. How do you practice listening skill?

Watching English Channel

Listening English music
Watching English movies
Listening English audio

23

Not yet

A little

A lot

All of the time

2. Who do you speak in English with?

my friends
my parents
my teacher
my community people

Not yet

A little

A lot

All of the time

3. What do you read for developing your reading skill?

Reading English journal

Reading English novel
Reading English text
Reading English newspaper

Not yet

A little

A lot

All of the time

A little

A lot

All of the time

4. What do you write in English?

Writing lecture
Writing emails & fax
Writing Letters
Writing short report

Not yet

5. How do you learn best?

Individual
Pair
Group
Outside the class room

Always

Sometimes

Not at all

6. You are good at

Writing
24

Average

Good

Very good

Excellent

Reading
Speaking
Listening

7. In which skill do you feel difficulty?

Very often
Often
Reading

Writing

Speaking

Listening

8. How is your performance of these skills?

Reading

Excellent

Sometimes

Good

Satisfactory

Never

Fair

Poor

Writing

Speaking

Listening

Pronunciation

Grammar

Vocabulary
9. Which skill do you want to improve for academic purpose?

25

Rarely

10. Do you have additional comments?

26

Focus Group Discussion with Students

1. Why did you decide to study English?

2. In which purpose do you want to use English?

3. Have you tried to improve your English? How?

4. What do you like in this course?

5. What is your expectation from this course?

27

A Need Analysis Interview for Teachers

1. Do you think student should give more emphasis on Grammar? Why? Why not?

2. Do you think teacher should spend a lot of time on role play and student only listen?

3. Do you think teaching should focus on fluency rather than accuracy?

4. Do you think student should be at the center of knowledge transmission and teacher
should be their facilitator?

5. Do you think communicative language is best for your students? ELT syllabus should
focus on developing all four skills.

28