– Students have a more accurate perception of what they can accomplish in a particular subject.

– Students have a clearer understanding of what it means to be a learner, and they become more sensitive to their position as language learners. Learning starts to be regarded as the progressive accumulation of realistic goals.

– Self-analysis becomes much more acute. It is possible to see how classroom activities relate to students’ actual requirements.

– Curriculum design

Curriculum is a fairly broad word that encompasses the complex of intellectual, social, and administrative elements that go into the preparation of an educational program (Allen, 1984). Most people agree that the three key stages of curriculum development are design, implementation, and evaluation (Richards, 2001). According to Brown (1995), developing a curriculum is a methodical procedure that occurs when a «dynamic system of interrelated elements» is developed (p. 9). Needs analysis, goals and objectives, language assessment, material development, language instruction, and monitoring and evaluation are some of the components. He emphasizes the need of meeting the demands of the learner while also taking into account other viewpoints. In addition to linguistic necessities, one ought to pay attention to contextual factors and human requirements. Likely, West (1994) stated that defining objectives is the first stage in creating a language syllabus or course. These will, whenever possible, be determined by an evaluation of the learners’ needs, which will then be stated in terms of the specific sorts of communication that the learner will need to engage in.

– Teachers’ views on needs analysis

Language instructors usually base their instruction on an intuitive or informal analysis of their students’ needs, but the idea of a systematic study of «the requirements which come from the use of that language in the myriad of situations which may arise in the social lives of individuals and adults» (Richterich, 1973: 32) was developed during the early 1970s, partly as a result of the work of those linked with the Council of Europe. Teachers in the study by Kirton et al. (2007) thought that the new pedagogical approaches took a lot of time. Students participating in self- and peer-assessment as well as more discursive and interactive lectures slowed down procedures and raised questions about whether the curriculum was truly discussed.

– Conclusion

There were many limitations found while exploring different articles. Firstly, the most basic issue still isn’t being aware that needs analysis is a tool for course design, along with more specific issues of familiarity and experience. However, little is known about the accuracy or dependability of the methods employed and the outcomes.

References

Allen, J.P.B. (1984). General-purpose language teaching: A variable focus approach. In C. Brumfit (Ed.), General English syllabus design: Curriculum and syllabus design for the general English classroom (pp. 61—74). Oxford: Pergamon Press, in association with the British Council.

Brown, J.D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approach to program development. Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Jordan, R.R. (1997). English for academic purposes: a guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kirton, A., Hallam, S., Peffers, J., Robertson, P., & Stobart, G. (2007). Revolution, evolution or a Trojan horse? Piloting assessment for learning in some Scottish primary schools. British Educational Research Journal, 33 (4), 605—627.