What do learners really want from
their E F L course?
Alun Davies
Introduction
Despite the best of intentions, it seems that teacher intuition (Tarone and
Yule 1989, cited in West 1994) often plays a greater role in planning and
teaching decisions than informed assessment of learners’ actual needs
and wishes. The resulting divergence of teacher and learner beliefs and
expectations can spell trouble for language courses as the teacher–learner
gap widens and becomes increasingly difficult to close as the course
progresses. Over a period of time, it became apparent that my university
classes were suffering from this problem. This article discusses one way
that helped me greatly to improve my teaching situation, based on
the idea of using short, teacher-designed, class-specific questionnaire
surveys to obtain course evaluation data from learners for use in
ongoing course planning.
Why class-specific?
The use of class-specific questionnaires is central to the course planning
goal because they facilitate local plans for action and intervention that
more globally oriented institution-wide surveys often do not make
possible. The importance of collecting learner feedback via questionnaire
data has long been recognized as a general educational principle,
particularly at the tertiary level (see Conrad 1999; Long 1997; Spratt
1999), where questionnaire surveys are routinely conducted. However,
for the most part, these tend to be global questionnaire surveys
ELT Journal Volume 60/1 January 2006; doi:10.1093/elt/cci076
ª The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
3
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/60/1/3/357145 by skotsoni@eap.gr user on 11 April 2023
The literature suggests that teachers may rely more often on intuition when
making course planning decisions than on informed assessment of learners’
needs (Barkhuizen 1998; Spratt 1999). This article proposes a more principled
alternative to the intuitive approach, based on the use of teacher-designed
class-specific questionnaires intended to obtain context-relevant data from
learners as an aid to better course provision. The focus is firmly on the local
level, on individual teachers and their classes, rather than on institution-wide
surveys, since this is where success or failure of courses is ultimately
determined, and where plans for action derived from questionnaire data will
be acted upon. The article describes four important benefits of course-specific
questionnaires: more cohesive long-term course development; increased
learner-centredness; more effective materials selection and design; and teacher
self-development. The rationale behind the use of class-specific questionnaire
surveys is discussed with reference to university-level learners in Japan.
Rationale
Course
development
Class-specific questionnaire survey data contribute greatly to the aim of
achieving more cohesive long-term course development. Over a period
of time, data revealing learners’ responses to a variety of tasks, content,
materials, and so forth, will naturally reveal patterns of commonality
between learners taking the same or similar courses, and contribute
considerably to the goal of making the kinds of informed planning
decisions needed to close any gaps that may exist between teacher and
learner expectations of a course. In addition, the growing body of
data, comprising a ‘common core’ of learner perceptions of particular
courses, helps ensure a smoother transition between similar course
types and course levels.
Better materials
design and selection
Hutchinson reminds us that, ‘... the selection of materials probably
represents the single most important decision that the language
teacher has to make’ (1987: 37). However, decisions regarding materials
are often based on either administrative convenience or teacher
intuition (Spratt 1999) rather than on a principled analysis of the needs
of the teaching/learning situation. And yet, as Vincent observes, ‘... we
need to find topics and tasks that will engage learners physically,
emotionally, socially and intellectually in learning the new language’
(1984: 40). If this is the case, then logic suggests that we first of all need
to discover far more about our learners than we might assume we
already know and to set about actively involving them in decisions
regarding the materials, content and tasks that are selected or designed
for them. Class-specific questionnaires elicit learners’ views on in-class
materials that later, following teacher mediation (Spratt 1999), lead to
the formulation of useful criteria for future selection of published
materials and design of teacher-made materials for that class or for
similar classes.
4
Alun Davies
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/60/1/3/357145 by skotsoni@eap.gr user on 11 April 2023
conducted across all of an institution’s classes, and they therefore suffer
from two main drawbacks. First, the results are not always made available
to learners or teachers. Second, whilst institution-wide surveys
undoubtedly provide essential information regarding the bigger picture
of an institution’s language programme, they often reveal little about the
teaching/learning context where it matters most—in individual
classrooms. Global data obtained across the range of an institution’s
programmes cannot easily be matched to the individual classrooms that
provided the data, thus reducing the possibility of targeting intervention
strategies where they would be most productive. Class-specific
questionnaire surveys, on the other hand, with their narrower focus on
the individual teacher and his or her classes, comprise items that are
designed to reflect and recall local classroom content and events, and
thus provide data that can be acted upon much more effectively. They are
more reliable and more relevant to the context in question, and are
essential to the goal of reducing the kinds of learner misinterpretations of
teacher intentions (Kumaravadivelu 1991) that can occur on language
courses. In this way, personalized, class-specific questionnaire surveys
have a unique ability to capture the essence of particular courses in
ways that institution-wide surveys cannot do.
Class-specific questionnaires are a tangible reminder for learners that
they are regarded as valued participants in the classroom. They give
learners a voice and a considerable measure of influence in shaping
current and future courses, but they also point to where certain beliefs
about language and learning may need to be channelled or challenged
with suitable teacher intervention strategies (Cotterall 1999;
Kumaravadivelu 1991).
Teacher selfdevelopment
Block’s (1991) observation that teacher self-development is a natural and
desirable result of engagement in the process of designing and
developing teaching materials seems to be equally applicable to the
process of designing class-specific questionnaires. Moreover, once the
questionnaire has been created, its content can serve as a point of focus
for the teacher and a stimulus to observe more consciously during
courses those categories identified as important by inclusion as
questionnaire items.
Questionnaire
design and
procedure
Keeping it short
and simple
The overriding consideration when deciding which categories and items
to include in questionnaires intended for my university classes is
simplicity of use and ease of administration. The purpose of class-specific
questionnaires is to provide accessible, personally relevant data that can
be collected, collated and analysed easily by busy teachers. For this
reason, the number of items is deliberately restricted to around fourteen
key points so that administration can be done fairly quickly during
regular class periods. Most items are of the 5-point Likert scale type, but
open and closed questions and a limited number of ‘Yes/No’ question
types are also included (for example, item B6 in the Appendix). Items
such as B6 are not expected to elicit detailed data, but rather to determine
whether my general assumptions regarding learners’ preferred skills
weighting (predominantly oral and listening skills) remain valid class by
class and thus confirm the overall direction of a course.
Questionnaire items
selection criteria
Criteria for the selection of questionnaire items are, following Long
(1997), derived from teacher beliefs about language and learning,
experience of previous (similar) courses, previous questionnaire data and
a review of the literature. From this pool of possible categories (with some
variation according to ongoing changes in my teaching context) usually
around 14 items grouped into three categories are selected as most
appropriate for the courses I generally teach. It is important to emphasize
that decisions concerning items selection are a matter for individual
teachers to decide according to their own teaching contexts. No particular
claims of originality or creativity are made regarding the items selected
for my surveys, which naturally reflect my potential or actual course
content. Some items, such as those dealing with lexical chunks (item B5)
and preferences for teacher-made or published materials (item B4),
reflect my personal teaching focus, whilst item B2 will usually detail
specific tasks completed during a course, rather than the more broadly
framed item shown by way of example in the Appendix. However, for the
most part, questionnaire items cover general but key course elements that
will be relevant to most teaching contexts. What matters more than
originality of items selection is the extent to which the data relating to
What do learners really want from their E F L course?
5
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/60/1/3/357145 by skotsoni@eap.gr user on 11 April 2023
More learnercentredness
these key elements can be successfully interpreted and then translated
into context-specific plans for action. Crucial to this process of attempting
to interpret learners’ perceptions as accurately as possible is the need to
elicit from them extensive written comments and suggestions in support
of their questionnaire raw scores. Only when such comments are
combined with data obtained from Likert scale scores and open/closed
questions and examined as a whole can the process of constructing
a reliable impression of learners’ perceptions of a course begin.
Piloting of earlier forms of the questionnaire highlighted two main
issues. First, pilot group feedback showed that learners could cope with
a short survey written in the L2 provided each item was discussed briefly
beforehand in order to clarify possible misunderstandings. Second,
questionnaire items intended to achieve precision by distinguishing
between closely related meanings, i.e. ‘the textbook was enjoyable/
interesting/fun’, proved to be too complex and added nothing significant
to the analysis of the data. A broader approach was thus adopted to the
formulation of items, based on Spratt’s (1999) notion that learners
should be free to interpret key words in the item stem in their own way,
e.g. ‘the textbook was enjoyable/interesting/fun is recorded as simply
‘positive response’, and further clarification made via ‘Comments’
sections. (For reasons of space, the Comments sections in the
Appendix sample questionnaire are reduced.)
When to administer
the survey
Specific decisions about when to do the surveys will depend on the
teaching context. In my case, surveys will usually be administered toward
the end of a course. This is to allow time for the data to be analysed
and the results summarized and returned to learners (see next section)
before the end of the course. The questionnaires may also be completed
earlier in the course in order to provide more immediate feedback
from learners (for example, to assess initial reactions to tasks, content,
materials, and so on). In this way, the surveys can serve both summative
(encompassing decisions such as whether certain tasks and materials
are to be continued or discontinued and learners’ judgements on the
effectiveness of the teacher and course elements) and formative purposes
(materials and teacher development, present and future course
improvements). Taken together, the combination of summative and
formative evaluation plays an important role in the process of achieving
a smoother transition between courses and more cohesive long-term
course development, characterized by occasional fine tuning rather
than huge shifts of methodological direction.
Survey results and
what happens next
The first (and perhaps the most important) step after survey data have
been compiled is to ensure that learners have the opportunity to receive
summarized copies of the results. Results are converted into percentage
points representing learners’ positive responses to an item, and then
comments are grouped into categories. The next step is to act on the
information by synthesizing the main points for action and identifying
possible constraints (Long 1997) and how these might be circumvented.
Finally, learners need to be informed of any proposed changes to the
course resulting from the feedback and comments they have provided.
6
Alun Davies
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/60/1/3/357145 by skotsoni@eap.gr user on 11 April 2023
Interpretation of
item meanings
This will be done during the course if data relate to that particular group
of learners, or at the start of the next course, where data from one group
inform changes that will affect subsequent courses.
Examples of changes introduced to my teaching situation as a result of
survey data are categorized below as outcomes (Tables 1–4) linked to the
four benefits of course-specific questionnaires referred to earlier, and
then discussed in terms of learners’ responses and teacher action taken.
Outcomes
Action taken
Opportunities for self-expression
Tasks as main organizing principle
Interactional, not transactional
task types
Emphasize interactional tasks
More listening and vocabulary practice Include more listening and vocabularybuilding tasks
Discussion: Learners’ responses to survey items have led to significant
changes in key elements of my courses, such as syllabus type, skills focus
and task types. In addition, as more and more survey data has become
available it has been possible to identify sufficient commonalities
between learners’ needs and wishes on similar courses to allow quite
accurate generalizations about core content to be made. This allows
course development to proceed much more smoothly now, with small
adjustments here and there, rather than the radical shifts in direction I
often felt obliged to make when relying too much on teacher intuition
as a factor in course design.
In specific terms, from a sociocultural point of view most learners have
experienced a fairly traditional, form-focused L2 education with little
opportunity to use English for communicative purposes. They therefore
appreciate opportunities to practise English in ways that allow them
considerable freedom to express their own meanings during
communication activities. With this in mind, I decided to adopt
a syllabus based on tasks as the main organizing principle, since
a task-oriented approach emphasizes meaningful use of L2 and
stresses the importance of encouraging learners to draw on their own
resources to achieve successful communication, rather than depending
on teacher-led pre-determined language input.
Learners also expressed a dislike for transactional task types. This is not
surprising perhaps given the EFL setting, so the solution here was to
focus the majority of tasks in the desired direction whilst pointing out the
benefits and rationale of those transactional tasks I felt it important for
learners to practise.
Finally, learners have overwhelmingly requested more listening and
vocabulary input and this is now well represented on current courses.
Learners’ enthusiasm for vocabulary development coincides with my
interest in this area and particularly in the importance of lexical chunks,
so that all courses now include systematic work on this aspect of lexis.
What do learners really want from their E F L course?
7
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/60/1/3/357145 by skotsoni@eap.gr user on 11 April 2023
table 1
More cohesive long-term
course development
Learners’ responses
table 2
Increased learnercentredness
Learners’ responses
Action taken
More choice
Negotiate course content and encourage student
participation
Group style is preferred
Prioritize selection of classrooms that can be
arranged for group style classes
Teacher–student roles and
relationship
Do not undervalue time spent on building rapport
and value non-linguistic outcomes, too
Lecture-style teaching in large classes that preclude student participation
is still prevalent in Japan, but my learners invariably express a dislike
for the lecture-style class structure. Because of this, I attempt to make
all of my classes group-style and communicatively based, regardless of
size (up to 55 learners in some classes). This entails little more than
prioritizing the selection of suitable classrooms (movable desks for
group work) and advanced planning to reserve the best classroom
options. The result in terms of group and class cohesion is hard to
exaggerate and learners respond very positively to this small but
significant classroom management routine.
Before the introduction of class-specific questionnaires, I tended to
view the first and early classes as opportunities to give learners a taste of
what the course had to offer. Content was the main focus and my hope
was that interesting and stimulating content alone would be sufficient to
persuade learners about the benefits of the course. In fact, what I was
actually doing was overlooking the crucial role that affect plays in the
classroom, particularly in the early days of a course. The data showed me
that more important for my learners was the building of a good
relationship with their teacher and classmates. As a result, I began to
regard early classes with a more affective eye and throughout the
course attempted to balance the need to achieve educational outcomes
with the need to actively promote affective factors such as good
classroom participant relations.
table 3
More effective task/
materials selection
and design
8
Learners’ responses
Action taken
Teacher-made tasks/materials
are preferred
Teacher-designed tasks/materials as
primary input
More variety of semi-free to
free task types
Increase type, variety and level of challenge
of tasks and materials
Alun Davies
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/60/1/3/357145 by skotsoni@eap.gr user on 11 April 2023
Discussion: Survey results confirm that learners do want and appreciate
the opportunity to express their views about their course and wish to
exercise some degree of control over the way the course proceeds. I try
therefore to be open and honest with learners about classroom events and
to share with them the rationale behind materials and tasks they are
asked to work with. I also attempt to elicit feedback and suggestions for
future materials and task development. They have responded with
enthusiasm to the process of completing the questionnaires and
enjoy having the opportunity to discover via the summarized results
how their class as a whole has viewed the course.
table 4
Teacher selfdevelopment
Learners’ responses
Action taken
Teacher-made materials are
popular
Develop knowledge and skills related to materials
design
Discussion: It was my learners’ initial negative reactions to one general
English textbook after another that prompted me to consider developing
my own materials and tasks. Now, when I look back over my teaching
career it is hard to find anything that has been as invaluable to my
professional self-development as the complex process of designing
materials and tasks for a wide range of teaching situations. Materials
development is a multi-faceted and multi-skilled process that requires
a wide understanding of all aspects of teaching and learning and it is
a process that has guided me towards a far greater understanding of my
teaching.
Problems
Several problems came to light as a result of the class-specific survey
process. First, as the number of classes assigned to me has increased over
time, I feel myself occasionally under considerable additional time
pressure at my busiest periods. One solution would be to make greater
use than I have to date of computer software programs to record and
collate survey data. Another solution might be to limit the number of
courses surveyed to representative samples of my teaching load, rather
than all of my classes, as at present. A more important problem concerns
the issue of prioritizing and balancing the needs and preferences that
learners express via the data. In my situation, for example, dichotomies
in respect of learners’ preferences for the following have emerged:
learner-talking time versus teacher-talking time; form-focused tasks
versus communicative tasks; use of textbook; balance of skills. My
solution has been to rationalize my intervention strategies by framing
them in terms of the whole-class learner data which prompted the need for
action in the first place. In this way, learners are explicitly encouraged to
assess their individual needs and wishes in light of the wider group
consensus.
Class-specific
questionnaire
surveys in other
teaching contexts
Referring to textbook selection and use, O’Neill points out that however
unique learners may be, almost always suitable core content can be
found somewhere in ‘the immense variety of text-books to draw upon’
(1982: 106). O’Neill’s reference to matching textbook core language to
What do learners really want from their E F L course?
9
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/60/1/3/357145 by skotsoni@eap.gr user on 11 April 2023
Discussion: Survey data consistently reveal that general English
textbooks do not inspire my learners, who often find topics, activities, and
level do not match their needs or expectations. Primary input comes
therefore from tasks and materials designed by the teacher with the
needs of particular groups in mind. This implies a personalization of
content that is not possible with general English textbooks and creates in
learners a level of interest, involvement, and investment that would not
be possible to achieve with textbook-driven courses. Learners’
questionnaire comments will often suggest new types of tasks they would
like to try during a course and as a result, the variety, range and level of
task challenge are constantly developing.
Conclusion
It is impossible to overestimate the value of what learners can teach us
about themselves via class-specific questionnaire surveys. Of course,
questionnaires are not infallible instruments and the potential for
teacher bias in item creation (Block 1998) and learner misinterpretation
of the intended meaning of items (Christison and Krahnke 1986) clearly
exists. In addition, class-specific questionnaires, despite the best efforts
of the designer, are clearly more time-consuming than questionnaires
administered at institution level by other staff members or teachers
sharing the responsibility for creating and developing the instrument. In
the end, it might prove more fruitful to regard the global and local
information obtained from institution-wide and classroom-level
questionnaires as complementary rather than conflicting, taking account
of key data from each source according to the needs of particular
teaching/learning contexts. But the fact remains that what is gained from
the use of class-specific questionnaire surveys is what is generally most
often sought by teachers in their classrooms—a greater and more
uniquely personal understanding of our learners, and an additional and
reliable means of assessing and effecting change where it is needed most.
Final revised version received September 2004
References
Barkhuizen, G. P. 1998. ‘Discovering learners’
perceptions of E S L . Classroom teaching/learning
activities in a South African context’. T E SO L
Quarterly 32/1: 85–108.
Block, D. 1991. ‘Some thoughts on D I Y materials
design’. ELT Journal 45/3: 211–17.
10
Alun Davies
Block, D. 1998. ‘Exploring interpretations of
questionnaire items’. System 26: 403–25.
Christison, M. A. and K. J. Krahnke. 1986. ‘Student
perceptions of academic language study’. T ESOL
Quarterly 20/1: 61–81.
Conrad, D. 1999. ‘The student view on effective
practices in the college elementary and
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/60/1/3/357145 by skotsoni@eap.gr user on 11 April 2023
apparently unique learner needs suggests that however diverse the
teaching/learning context a ‘core’ content is available somewhere that
will be suitable to some degree. O’Neill’s textbook core constitutes an
external source of ideas for syllabus content, but I believe that these ideas
can be more useful and relevant if derived internally, from sources closer
to the context of use—via the data obtained from class-specific
questionnaire surveys. Naturally, this would not be the sole means of
determining the shape of a course, but if O’Neill’s assumption of
sufficient commonalities within unique learner groups is correct, then
class-specific data collection and analysis across similar courses may offer
a reliable and insightful means to assess the kinds of core content likely
to be consistently successful and thus serve as a foundation on which to
develop courses over the longer term. My teaching context is
characterized by monolingual university-level learners and my
application of class-specific surveys is unique to this context of use.
However, the issue of how far class-specific questionnaire surveys are
a valid tool for use in other teaching/learning contexts, such as multinational classrooms, seems to be not so much a question of
whether commonalities between learners can be identified, but to what
extent they can be identified. It is a matter of degree, rather than all or
nothing and whatever the context, important insights into key elements
of course design can be gained.
Appendix: Sample
questionnaire
Vincent, M. 1984. ‘Motivation and its importance
in ELT ’ in S. Holden (ed.). Focus on the Learner.
Modern English Publications.
West, R. 1994. ‘Needs analysis in language
teaching’. Language Teaching 27/1: 1–19.
The author
Alun Davies graduated from the University of
Bradford (UK ) many years ago with a B A degree
in Modern Languages (Russian and French) and
then went on to obtain postgraduate diplomas in
T E SO L , and more recently an M A in TES OL
from the University of Edinburgh. He is now
working on his PhD in TES O L (materials
development) with Leeds Metropolitan University
(UK). Alun has lived in Japan for the past eight
years and is currently a Part-time Lecturer in EFL
at Aichi Shukutoku University, Nagoya. His main
ELT interests include materials development,
course design, and lexical development.
Email: alun1917@yahoo.co.jp
_____________________ University – Questionnaire
Date ________________________________________
A The course
Please circle one of the numbers or words in the boxes on the right side.
1 = very negative / 5 = very positive
A1
Did you enjoy the course?
1
2
3
4
5
A2
Classroom atmosphere
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
A 3 How was the teacher?
A4
What did you like best about this English course? (English or
Japanese OK)
————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————
A 5 What did you not like about this English course?
————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————
What do learners really want from their E F L course?
11
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/60/1/3/357145 by skotsoni@eap.gr user on 11 April 2023
intermediate foreign language classroom’. Foreign
Language Annals 32/4: 494–512.
Cotterall, S. 2001. ‘Key variables in language
learning: what do learners believe about them?’
Personal communication, originally published in
System 27/4: 1999.
Hutchinson, T. 1987. ‘What’s underneath?: an
interactive view of materials evaluation’ in L. E.
Sheldon (ed.) ELT Documents: 126: ELT Textbooks
and Materials: Problems in Evaluation and
Development. Modern English Publications.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 1991. ‘Language-learning
tasks: teacher intention and learner
interpretation’. ELT Journal 45/2: 98–107.
Long, R. W. lll. 1997. ‘Investigating and
responding to student attitudes and suggestions
for course improvements’. The Language Teacher
21/10: 23–39.
O’Neill, R. 1982. ‘Why use textbooks?’ ELT Journal
36/2: 104–11.
Spratt, M. 1999. ‘How good are we at knowing
what learners like?’ System 27/2: 141–55.
A6
How can the teacher make this English class better for
future students?
Please give some advice. (English or Japanese OK)
————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————
B Content and
materials
The course book
1
2
3
4
5
B2
The teacher-made materials
(cards, pictures, games)
1
2
3
4
5
B3
The level of classroom tasks (circle one):
Too easy
B4
OK
Good
Too difficult
Show how you want to use the course book or teacher-made
materials in future classes:
Teacher-made materials: —— %
Course book:
—— %
B5
B6
Chunks:
Learning about chunks was interesting
1
2
3
4
5
I understand chunks
1
2
3
4
5
I will continue to find and learn chunks
after this class
1 2
Would you like to spend more time practising (circle one or
more answers):
Reading?
Writing?
Listening?
Vocabulary?
Grammar?
C Self-evaluation
12
3 4 5
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
C1
How do you rate your attitude to study
on this course?
1
2
3
4
5
C2
Did you study English outside of class time?
1
2
3
4
5
C3
Did you participate actively in classes?
1 2
Alun Davies
3 4 5
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/60/1/3/357145 by skotsoni@eap.gr user on 11 April 2023
B1