2. Needs analysis and commentary 2.1.

Learner profile My learner group are twenty undergraduate students in Industrial and Management Technology Department at Yanbu Industrial College, Saudi Arabia. These are monolingual Arabs aged 22 to 2 !rom a homogeneous cultural bac"ground and ha#e been learning $%& !rom ' to () years now. *e!ore mo#ing on to this course, they ha#e success!ully completed !i#e end+o!+term e,aminations securing a minimum o! -. per cent on each course. That is why the need !or a placement test was not !elt. And as suggested by most o! them, their primary ob/ecti#e is to pass the e,amination. 2.2. Analysis of learners needs All language programmes are designed to meet the goals and ob/ecti#es set in the light o! an analysis o! learner needs 01unan and &amb2 ( -3. Since $A4 speci!ically caters !or the needs o! the learners, a needs assessment will help us in the analysis o! the learning styles, s"ills le#el, and speci!ic learning ob/ecti#es 05arrington2 2..63. I ha#e adhered to these guidelines to conduct needs analysis o! my target group and used the !ollowing tools !or ascertaining and measuring their needs, learning styles and pre!erences, and le#els o! moti#ation2 2.2.1. Questionnaire 1 To recei#e in!ormation on student and group pro!ile which includes their age group, !irst language bac"ground, $nglish language learning e,perience, and pre!erence !or doing this course i.e., Academic 5riting. 2.2.2. Diagnostic Test In order to gauge students7 strengths and wea"ness in writing, I ha#e used a diagnostic test which is based on two tas"s. Tas" ( is a letter o! en8uiry to a !oreign uni#ersity !or admission to an M*A programme. Tas" 2 is a response to this letter o! en8uiry. These tas"s are discipline speci!ic and my target group has been instructed in writing !ormal letters. 2.2.3. Questionnaire 2 I de#eloped a set o! structured 8uestions based on li"ert scale to identi!y students7 language and s"ills needs !or the writing course. This will also help me match it with the results o! the diagnostic test. 2.2.4. Questionnaire 3 I used this !i#e point li"ert scale 8uestionnaire to measure students7 le#els o! moti#ation. The results will help in the course design and preparation o! the instructional materials.

2.2.5. Questionnaire 4 9 This 8uestionnaire is also a !i#e point li"ert scale structured 8uestionnaire 0adapted !rom *owles2 2..: article in Australian ;ournal o! $ducational De#elopmental 4sychology3 to identi!y the learning styles and pre!erence o! the students. 2.2. . !"ser#ation 9 As course teacher and coordinator !or this course, I ha#e also made use o! personal obser#ation and e,periences. 2.3. $esults The data recei#ed !rom learners7 responses ha#e helped me deri#e the !ollowing conclusions as to their academic writing needs, learning styles and pre!erences, and le#els o! moti#ation2 2.3.1. Academic %riting needs The diagnostic test was designed to test grammatical accuracy, le,ical range, te,t organi<ation, and tas" completion while the 8uestionnaire targeted language needs, study s"ills, and discipline speci!ic discourse to ascertain students7 academic writing needs. The diagnostic test showed that students understand the tas", can use suitable #ocabulary to e,press themsel#es but their te,t organi<ation lac"s in both cohesion 0e.g. !aulty use o! cohesi#e de#ices3 and coherence0e.g. abrupt progression o! ideas3, there are slight grammatical errors, and spelling mista"es. =owe#er, the signi!icant aspect was their inability to complete the tas" which implied that they needed both reading and writing practice o! discipline speci!ic content. The results obtained !rom the 8uestionnaire did not !ully collate with that o! the diagnostic test. %or instance, the students thought they could use grammar correctly both !or sentence structuring and communicati#e !unctions. Similarly, their use o! #ocabulary, especially sub/ect speci!ic #ocabulary is 8uite limited despite the !act they con#ey the message. As a teacher on this course I thin" this is because the students ha#e been doing grammar and #ocabulary !or the last !i#e semesters and this !re8uency o! use might ha#e led them thin" that they can use it e!!ecti#ely. =owe#er, some o! the results o! the 8uestionnaire match with those o! the diagnostic test. %or instance, the students wanted to do grammar !or di!!erent language !unctions and this was also e#ident in the diagnostic test. In addition, the students !elt instruction in the de#elopment o! logical argument 0te,t structure>coherence3, sub/ect speci!ic tas"s 0tas" completion3, editing, punctuation, and mechanics 0grammatical accuracy and te,t organi<ation3. 2.3.2. &oti#ation among students Ma/ority o! the students showed instrumental moti#ation !or they want to learn academic writing to do this course or to go abroad !or higher studies. =owe#er, de#eloping academic writing has low priority0 in student pro!ile 8uestionnaire3 !or /ob purposes because $nglish is a !oreign language in Saudi Arabia and there!ore, not the language o! wor"place. *ut, in the 8uestionnaire on moti#ation the students considered $nglish language #ery important !or

success in academic and pro!essional li!e, and !or international communication. They !elt moti#ated when encouraged by the !amily, teachers, and peers. 2.3.3. Learning styles and preferences The data re#ealed that ma/ority o! the students in my group are #isual>spatial learners and there!ore it would be important to include graphic material !or them in their course. The second learning style !ound was linguistic which suggested use o! linguistic content in the course. The third style0(2 responses each3 was musical, interpersonal, and natural and it implied that students would learn and per!orm better in peer groups.