Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research

KASDI MERBAH UNIVERSITY –OUARGLA -

Faculty of Letters and Languages

Department of Foreign Languages
English Section

Dissertation
ACADEMIC MASTER
Domain: Letters and Foreign Languages
Field: Applied Linguistics and ESP

Submitted by: Ms. SIRADJ, Zineb

Theme:

English for the Oil Industry: From the Teaching

Ritual to the Tailored Teaching
The Case of Petroleum Geology Program (1st Year MA)

Publicly defended
On: 17/06/2013

Before the Jury:

Mr. Mohamed Seghir HALIMI…………………………………………... President UKM

Mr. Ahmed Noureddine BELARBI…………………………….. Examiner UKM
Mrs. Baya BENSALAH………………………………………..Supervisor UKM

Academic Year: 2012-2013

To all those who believed in me:

My parents

My brother and my sisters

Asma Bettahar

H. A. Kacem

i
 Acknowledgement

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Mrs. BENSALAH for

the useful comments, remarks and commitment through every step in the process of this
master thesis. I have to admit that she was there for me at every moment I felt it was not
possible to continue. Furthermore I would also like to acknowledge with much appreciation
the crucial role of Mr. KECHICHED, R. who gave me the permission to use all the required
information and the necessary materials to complete my work within the interview and
beyond. Also, I like to thank the participants in my interview, questionnaire and test, namely
the MAPG learners and Mr. MEDJANI who have willingly shared their precious time during
the process of the evaluation. Last but not least, many thanks go to the teachers at the
department of KMUO who have helped me since my first steps at the university by their
ideas, comments, and critics.

ii
 List of Abbreviations

OI: Oil industry

GP: Géologie Petrolières
EFL: English as a Foreign Language
EGP: English for General Purposes
ESL: English as a Second Language
ESP: English for Specific Purposes
EOI: English for the Oil industry
EOP: English for Occupational Purposes
IAP: Algerian Petroleum Institute
MAPG: Master Petroleum Geology
SMART: Specific, measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time bound
UKMO: Kasdi Merbah University of Ouargla

iii
 List of Figures

Figure (1) Graves’ perception of Curriculum, Course, and Syllabus …...................................8

Figure (2) Aims and Objectives in the Learning Spectrum ..................................................... 9
Figure (3) The Classification of Needs According to Hutchinson and Waters (1987)………11
Figure (4) ESP Classification by Area According to Dudley-Evans and St John (1998: 06).14
Figure (5) The Factors Influencing ESP Course Design……………..…………………….....16
Figure (6) The Language-centered Approach According to Hutchinson and Waters (1987:
66)…………………………………………………………………………….…...…………20
Figure (7) The Learning-centered Approach to Course Design from Hutchinson & Waters
(1987: 74)……………………………………………………………………………………..22
Figure (8) Purposes of Evaluation …………………………………………..……………….23
Figure (9) The Need for EOI to MAPG Learners……………………………..…….………..38
Figure (10) The Physical Contexts of the Learners’ Future Language Use………………..…38
Figure (11) The Human Contexts of The Learners’ Future Language Use...………………...39
Figure (12) With Whom Will the Learners Use English…………………………...……..….39
Figure (13) The Channel of The Language Use…………..………….……………………....40
Figure (14) The Frequency of The Language Use…………………………...…………….…40
Figure (15) The Skill Mostly Needed in the OI field…………...…………………………….42
Figure (16) The Skill in the First Position…………………………………...…………….....43
Figure (17) The Skill in the Second Position………………...…………………………….....44
Figure (18) The Skill in the Third Position……………………...………………………........44
Figure (19) The Skill in the Fourth Position…………………………...…………………......44
Figure (20) The Skill the Learners are Deficient in…………………………...……….…..…45
Figure (21) The Activities The Learners will need in the OI field………………...…….…...45
Figure (22) The Need for the General Features of English………………..…………….....…46
Figure (23) The Features the Learners Feel Proficient in ................................................…....47
Figure (24) The Feature in the First Position………………………...…………………….…48
Figure (25) The Feature in the Second Position…………………..……………………….…48
Figure (26) The Feature in the Third Position………………………….………………….…48
Figure (27) The Feature in the Fourth Position………………………...…………………..…49
Figure (28) The Activities Improving the Skills’ Mastery…………………...……...……….50
Figure (29) The Available Pedagogical Facilities……………………..……………………...50
Figure (30) The Usefulness of Visual Aids According to The Learners………...…………...51
Figure (31) The Course Objectives According to the Materials……………………………...61
Figure (32) The Course Objectives According to the Materials’ Analysis…………………...61
Figure (33) The Comparison Between the Learners’ Needs and the Materials’ Objectives…64

iv
 List of Tables

Table (1) The Time The Learners need EOI per-week………………………..………..........41

Table (2) The Learners’ Ranking Schemes of the Skills….………………....……………….43
Table (3) The Teachers’ Replies to the interview questions..…………………….…..............54
Table (4) The Learners’ Scores……………………………...……………………...………...58
Table (5) The Reading Comprehension Scores……………………………………………....59
Table (6) The Grammar Section Scores…………………………...……………………….…59
Table (7) The Writing Section Scores………………………………………………………...60
Table (8) The Learners’ Needs Summary………………………………………………...62-63

v
 Content
Dedication………………..…………………………………………………………………….I
Acknowledgements………………...………………………………………………………….II
List of Abbreviations………...………………………………………………………..……...III
List of Figures ……………………...………………………………………………………...IV
List of Tables …………………...…………………………………………………………......V
Table of Contents……………..………………………………………………………………VI

General Introduction……...……………………………………………………………………1
Chapter One: Literature Review
I English for Specific Purposes
1.1. Introduction………….……...……………………………..……………………...7
1.2. Definition of Terms…………………………………………….…..…..…….…...7
1.2.1. Curriculum, Course, Syllabus, and Program……………...……....……7
1.2.2. Aims, Goals, and Objectives…. …………………...………………….9
1.2.3. The Needs …….…………………..………………...…..……………10
1.2.4. Evaluation and Assessment…………………………………………...11
1.3. English for Specific Purposes (ESP)………………………………..…………...12
1.4. English for Oil Industry (EOI)…………………………….………………..……14
1.5. Course Design in ESP………………...…………..………………………….….15
1.6. Principles and Parameters of Course Design in ESP…………….………..……..15
1.6.1. Needs Analysis………………………………………………………..16
1.6.2. Language Descriptions……………………………………………..…18
1.6.3. Theories of Learning…..………………………...……...…………….18
1.7. Approaches to Course Design in ESP………………...…………………………19
1.7.1. Language-centered Course Design…………………......…….………20
1.7.2. Skills-centered Course Design……………………....………………..20
1.7.3. Learning-centered Course Design…………………………………….21
II Program Evaluation
2.1. Why Evaluate Programs? ………………………...………………………………...22
2.2. What to Evaluate in Programs? ………………………...…………………………..24
2.3. When to Evaluate Programs? ....................................................................................25
2.4. Who Should Evaluate Programs? ……………………………..……………………27
2.5. How to Evaluate Programs? ......................................................................................28
2.5.1 Tools of Program Evaluation ……………………...…………..………..30
2.6. Conclusion………...………………………………………………………………..31

Chapter Two: Application

1.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………34
1.2. The Materials Document Analysis ………………………………...…………………….35
1.3. The Analysis of the Questionnaire ………………………………………………………37
1.4. The Analysis of the Teachers’ Structured interview …………………..………………...53
1.4.1. The Interview Results……………………………………………………………..53
1.4.2. Interpretation of the Results……………………………………………………....54
1.5. The Test Analysis …………………………..……………………………………………58
1.5.1. The Reading Comprehension Section…………………………………………….58
1.5.2. The Grammar Section ……………………………………………………………59
1.5.3. The Writing Section ……………………………………………………………...60
1.6. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………61

vi
General Conclusion…………...…………...………………………………………………….66
Bibliography………………………………..…………………………………………………70
Appendices…………...……….………………………………………………...…………….73
Appendix I: The Learners’ Questionnaire…...……………………………………………….73
Appendix II: The Teachers’ Structured Interview Questions……………………………...…75
Appendix III: The Learners’ Test………..…………………………………………………...78
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….80

vii
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
 General Introduction

Many years ago, learning languages was a prestigious activity performed only by the
aristocratic ‘cream of the crop’ for the sheer pleasure of belonging to the elite multilingual
community. However, the Second World War brought some radical alterations as the world
started to merge into a single large village enriched by the great smorgasbord of cultures. The
inhabitants of this world-village had to go beyond their differences for the purpose of coping
with the modern world whose technology and commerce were highly monopolized by The
United States of America. Consequently, English has become the language of the
international exchange.

People started to look at English instruction from a different angle, it was no more
prestige which drove people to learn English but the need to get their job transactions, studies,
and even social relations achieved. This new view has accordingly and inexorably had its
implications on the classroom. Learners complained about the general education and insisted
that their specific needs should be primordially considered. Teachers then were urged to
design teaching experiences tailored to the immediate and urgent needs of the learners, and
that was the point when English for specific purposes (henceforth ESP) made its entry into the
stage of English education.

ESP, soon after its emergence in the 1960’s, proved efficient and effective in
meeting the learners’ expectations. Countries from all over the world, aware of its success and
betterment of the teaching–learning situation, had to implement it in their educational
systems. ESP ranked under either ESL (English as a Second Language) or EFL (English as a
Foreign Language) instruction.

Algeria, not very different from the world, did not miss noticing the importance of
ESP, especially that the international exchange implies the use of English as the medium
bridging any business relation, and that the country is mostly known for its Geological
richness enhancing foreign industrial investments. For these reasons and others, ESP courses
were designed to enable specialists manipulate the English of their subject matter. Meanwhile,
these courses were subject to painstaking evaluations in order to maximize the benefits of the

1
learning experience and to ascertain they cope with the learners’ demands in the changing
challenging world.

As a matter of fact, this endeavor sets the background for the present research whose
main concern is the situation of English for Oil industry (Henceforth EOI) in Algeria. Oil
industry is the field chosen by many university learners as a promising career. They have to
build along with their subject matter knowledge a mastery of English that enables them speak,
read, and write competently. They learn English from the very first level at the university till
the Master degree. The ESP teaching experiences take place most of the time in classrooms
and teachers usually are not EFL teachers but subject specialists who had some education in
English. The privilege of these teachers is that they are acquainted with the field of Oil
Industry (Henceforth OI) in contrast with EFL teachers.

The EOI course used at Kasdi Merbah University in Ouargla (henceforth UKMO) is
specifically the course which this research intends to investigate. We are concerned with its
efficiency and effectiveness in meeting the learners’ needs especially that the initial research
revealed that the process of needs analysis which is central in ESP course design has not been
taken into consideration. Another aftermath is that the learners are having some problems
with the formal properties of the language for which the teachers do not have time to remedy.
Teachers believe that technical English proficiency is essential and that the learners are in a
stage where they can work on their grammar failings on their own (It is taken for granted that
the learners have a good mastery of the language formal properties at this level).

These primary findings provided an overriding boost in our decision to evaluate the
aforementioned course. We wish to explore its weaknesses and strengths and try to suggest
some remedial work (in case needed) to amplify its benefits regarding the designers’
objectives, the learners’ needs, and the learning outcomes. Therefore, our study aims at
finding answers to the following research questions:

1. Does the EOI course designed for first year Master Petroleum Geology (MAPG)
learners achieve the designers’ objectives?
2. Does the EOI course designed for first year MAPG meet the needs of the learners?
3. What are the strengths of the course?
4. What are the weaknesses of the course?
5. How could the weaknesses be overcome?

Firstly, we hypothesize that the course of EOI designed for first year MAPG learners
at KMUO does not meet their needs because the needs analysis stage was disregarded. If the

2
needs were not identified first, then the learning experience may only emphasize what the
learners already know or be in mismatch to their true needs. Needs analysis is the core of ESP
effectiveness and efficiency. If it were disregarded then there could be no difference between
ESP and EGP.

Secondly, we believe that the course does not meet even the designers’ objectives
because they have created the course only on the basis of the target situation, not on the basis
of the real situation of the learners and the learning context. They may have taken the
learners’ abilities for granted which may result in undesirable results related to the drawn
objectives.

Thirdly, we think that the course may have some weaknesses. These may be the
direct consequences of neglecting the importance of needs analysis. However, we also believe
that it has the strength of focusing on the technical vocabulary that the learners are mostly
concerned with in their future language use. But ESP is not merely acquiring the technical
register of the field, it is this and more. The focus on the vocabulary may be justified by the
fact that ESP within this case is still looked at from the same angle it was seen in its
beginnings: the angle that limits ESP instruction to the teaching of vocabulary items.

A clear solution to the weaknesses according to us may be the investigation of the

learners’ true needs using the quantitative and qualitative tools of needs analysis. The
investigation may possibly raise the learners’ awareness of their needs, build a common
background between the learners and the designers’ opinions, and bring about an updated and
informed course that guarantees to a certain degree the learners’ involvement and ideally their
motivation and future success.

The departing point of our methodology is the selection of thirty-four (34) MAPG
learners studying at KMUO. These learners are adults who have been learning English for
four years and who will need it in their future job positions. The procedures of data collection
that we opt for can be summarized as follows:

To evaluate the EOI course, we will first collect data about the designers’ objectives
and the learners’ needs in two forms: a questionnaire that will provide us with the learners’
perceptions about their wants, lacks and necessities and within the same purpose, an interview
that will divulge the teachers’ well-informed views and beliefs.

3
 After analyzing the needs, we will use the test to compare the findings with the real
situation of the course. This test will help us perceive how much the learners grasp from the
learning experience and the results will be submitted in quantitative terms to generate answers
to the aforementioned research questions.

The estimated constraints that may face the study involve the percentage of
subjectivity found in every research from the concerned participants’ part in the given
questionnaire and interview. They are also related to the critical eye with which evaluation is
seen: Evaluation is the process that results in bringing change, and change is always faced
with reluctance especially when it is related to methodology and content of the teaching-
learning experience.

Expectantly and hopefully, the findings of this research might highlight the
significance of needs analysis as a corner stone of ESP courses. They are supposed to provide
a record, modest might it be, for EOI course designers to test out before creating new courses.
We also believe that our findings might increase the importance of learners’ involvement in
course design.

The arrangement of chapters followed in this dissertation is: Chapter one gives a
review of different definitions and conceptions of Curriculum, Course, syllabus, and Program.
Then, it tackles those aspects which are pertinent to the description of any course: Aims,
Goals, and Objectives and links these to the concepts of Evaluation and Assessment. This is
followed by a literature review of ESP wherein we will introduce the basic notion of course
design in ESP in the light of the different principles, parameters and approaches. This will
expectedly provide the required analytical instruments for our EOI investigation.

Chapter two is devoted to the corpora analysis. It will offer a detailed inquiry into the
EOI course which will enable us to identify and delineate its weaknesses and strengths.
Consequently, this will encapsulate our findings, suggested solutions and research
recommendations in the general conclusion.

4
 CHAPTER ONE

LITERATURE REVIEW
I English for Specific Purposes
1.1.Introduction………….…………………………………..……………………………...7
1.2. Definition of Terms………………………………………………….…..…..…….…...7
1.2.1. Curriculum, Course, syllabus, and Program……………...…….....…..…...…7
1.2.2. Aims, Goals, and Objectives…..…………………...……………...…...…….9
1.2.3. The Needs …….…………………..………………………………….…..…10
1.2.4. Evaluation and Assessment………………………………………...………..11
1.3. English for Specific Purposes (ESP)………………………………..………………...12
1.4. English for Oil Industry (EOI)…………………………….…………………….……14
1.5. Course Design in ESP………………...…………..……………………………….….15
1.6. Principles and Parameters of Course Design in ESP…………….…………….……..15
1.6.1. Needs Analysis…………………………………………………………..…..16
1.6.2. Language Descriptions…………………………………………………....…18
1.6.3. Theories of Learning…..………………………...……...……………..…….18
1.7. Approaches to Course Design in ESP………………...........…………………………19
1.7.1. Language-centered Course Design…………………................……..…...…20
1.7.2. Skills-centered Course Design…………………….......…………..………...20
1.7.3. Learning-centered Course Design………………………………………..….21
II Program Evaluation
2.1. Why Evaluate Programs? ………………………...………………………………...22
2.2. What to Evaluate in Programs? ………………………...…………………………..24
2.3. When to Evaluate Programs? ....................................................................................25
2.4. Who Should Evaluate Programs? ……………………………..……………………27
2.5. How to Evaluate Programs? ......................................................................................28
2.5.1 Tools of Program Evaluation ……………………...…………..……..……..30
2.6. Conclusion………...……………………………………….………………………..31
 1.1. Introduction

For many researchers, ESP is still a mysterious field where little is known about its
subject matter, its methodology, and its significance in the first place within language teaching.
Some researchers even believe it has only reinvented the teaching wheel. These prefer to follow
the old theory and practice of teaching, since they do not see why they have to change.

Within the purpose of justifying the significance of change, we prefer in this first
chapter to deal with ESP and everything related to it including its definition of scope and its
course design principles, parameters, and approaches. These points, we believe, are expected to
clear the way between ESP and EGP. But before this, we think an explanation of some concepts
(e.g. course, syllabus, curriculum, aims, goals, and objectives) is very appropriate for a good
beginning of our journey within the field of ESP and further within the purposes of our study.

Speaking about the purposes of our study brings us to the notion of Evaluation. This
latter is the point of further investigation that we prefer to deal with in the second section of our
literature review. On this section, we go through the wh- words of evaluation to discover the
controversy related to them and its roots in the controversy of what should count as data. So let
us begin this exciting trip.

1.2. Definition of Terms

1.2.1. Curriculum, Course, syllabus, and Program

Curriculum, program, course, and syllabus refer to the planning and decision-making
that specialists carry on to answer the what, why, and how questions of an educational
experience [White (1988), Nunan (1989), Nunan (2004), Finney (2002), Richards & Schmidt
(2010)]. They help to develop a framework that guides the process of teaching and learning to go
smoothly and orderly. The controversy associated with these terms relates to their meaning and
use by different researchers.

Brown (2006: 341) in his article on the second language curriculum considers a course
as «the regular meetings of a relatively small group of language students usually over a defined
period of time with a particular teacher». His definition classifies it in the same rank as a lecture.
He also defines a language program as «a collection of such classes or courses in a single

7
institution» (Ibid), and a curriculum as: «the selection and structure of the content and learning
processes of a language course or program» (Ibid).

Dubin and Olshtain (1986: 03) use program and curriculum interchangeably to refer to
«the broadest contexts in which planning for language instruction takes place». They believe
that a syllabus is narrower in the idea that it «is a more circumscribed document, usually one
which has been prepared for a particular group of learners» (ibid). Nunan (2004) and Frendo
(2005) agree with this view as they believe that syllabus answers only the what-question of the
curriculum.

Graves adds that the curriculum plan may not be what actually goes in the classroom
because «a teacher may still make decisions about what to emphasize, leave out, augment, and
review and how to practice, how much, with whom, and when» (Graves 1996: 04). She believes
that curricula are designed by specialists, courses and syllabi by teachers. Teachers cannot design
curricula because there are «some areas of concern» which «may be out of [their] hands» (Ibid).
She exemplifies these areas by «societal needs analysis, testing for placement purposes or
program wide evaluation» (ibid: 03). Her view is related to second language teaching which
restricts the role of the teacher in comparison with specific language teaching which holds that
teachers can perform in all these areas. The following figure summarizes Graves’ idea about
syllabus, course, and Curriculum design.

Course
Curriculum Syllabus
Design
Design Design

Figure (1) Graves’ Perception of Curriculum, Course, and Syllabus

Graves (1996) sees the syllabus design as part of the course design which in turn makes
the curriculum design. However, she comments on this classification as strict and not practical
given the researchers’ divergent views [.e.g. Nunan (1989), Finney (2002), and Richards &

8
Schmidt (2010)]. These researchers look at curriculum from two angles: a wide angle that
includes the planning of syllabus, materials, methodology, assessment, and course evaluation,
and a narrow one that includes only the content of the learning experiences, that is, the syllabus.

What we find most convenient as an understanding to these terms within this research is
that they share the idea of planning and decision making. We consider curriculum, program, or
course as synonymous to the global process of deciding what to choose about the syllabus,
materials, methodology, assessment, and evaluation of an educational experience.

1.2.2. Aims, Goals, and Objectives

Aims, goals, and objectives are statements that course designers set before putting a
course under application. They indicate why a specific course has been established, and the
outcomes it has been designed to achieve. Objectives are more precise than aims [Widdowson
(1983), Dubin & Olshtain (1986), Ellis & Johnson (1994), Brown (1995), Graves (1996), Hyland
(2006), Frendo (2005), Richards & Schmidt (2010)]. They transform the aims into «smaller units
of learning» (Frendo, 2005: 32 -33). That is, if aims are the end of the learning spectrum,
objectives are its milestones. The following figure explains this:

Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 3 Aims

Figure (2) Aims and Objectives in the Learning Spectrum

Frendo (ibid) believes that objectives should be: «specific, measurable, achievable,
relevant, and time bound» i.e. SMART. As he classifies them, they could be either: performance
or training objectives. Performance (or behavioral) objectives state the task that the learner
should perform, the conditions, and the standards that decide success or failure (Nunan 2004);
whereas training (or teaching) objectives provide the same information but with a more technical
way that only the teacher is familiar with and can understand. This means that performance
objectives are directed to the learners and sponsors of the course.

9
 Widdowson (1983: 07) believes that objectives are the purposes of the course «within
the period» of its implementation, whereas aims are «the purposes to which learning will be put
after the end of the course». This means that objectives are immediate and aims delayed.
Objectives in his view are the criteria on basis of which the course can be evaluated. They are the
framework teachers return to whenever they want to see how much they have achieved and
where they are heading to in the teaching experience.

1.2.3. The Needs

The learners’ needs are most of the time the objectives courses are established to
achieve. They can be categorized according to Hutchinson and Waters (1987) into two groups:
The Target Needs and The Learning Needs. The target needs are broadly the language needs that
help the learners perform satisfactorily in the target situation they are of three types: the
necessities, the lacks, and the wants.

Necessities, in Hutchinson and waters’ view (ibid: 55- 56), constitute «what the
learners have to know in order to function effectively in the target situation». They are different
from the lacks which make the language gaps that the learners should fulfill to reach the target
situation (taking into consideration that the learners do not come to the course as a tabula rasa).
The analysis of lacks reveals what the learners already know as well as what they do not. The
third type of needs under the target needs is the wants. These constitute what the learners believe
they need from the course, since they also may have their own perceptions about what they need.

The analysis of the target needs does not serve the course designer on its own according
to Hutchinson and waters (Ibid). It shows only the destination of the course not the process by
which the destination is arrived at. Analyzing the learning needs is no less important than the
target needs, because they are the facilities available for the course to be implemented and
carried. They influence the course and consequently the target situation. The following figure
summarizes the needs classification according to Hutchinson and Waters (Ibid):

10
 The Needs

The Target The Learning

Needs Needs

Necessities Lacks Wants

Figure (3) The Classification of Needs According to Hutchinson and Waters (1987)

Within the same point, Widdowson (1984: 192) believes that defining needs by the end
product is a «goal-oriented-approach», whereas defining them by «the means» necessary to
achieve the learning outcomes is a «process-oriented-approach».

All in all, we deduce that aims, objectives, and needs are the driving force of any course
design. They draw the map by which the learning experience finds its way to the purposes of
learning. However, in order to achieve their purposes, courses should be put under scrutiny of
evaluation.

1.2.4. Evaluation and Assessment

Evaluation in the majority of the views [Hutchinson & Waters (1987), Rea-dickens &
Germaine (1992), Brown (1995), Graves (1996), Nunan (2004), Nation & Macalister (2010)]
takes the broader sense in comparison with assessment. It is the process of gathering information
about a course or program effectiveness. By effectiveness we mean how much it serves the
learners’ needs, and the objectives of the course designers. Assessment, on the other hand, is
always collocated with the learners. It seeks to gather data on the learners’ performance to see
how much they grasp from the course. The information gathered from assessment may also help

11
the larger purpose of course evaluation. That is, it provides another source of data that evaluators
use to evaluate the course. However some views believe it is more quantitative than qualitative.

There are researchers like Graves (1996) and Frendo (2005) for instance who
differentiate testing from assessment. They believe that testing is more formal than assessment.
Because testing for them decides whether a learner has passed or failed a course, whereas
assessment is informal and takes the form of the small daily quizzes that a teacher may establish
in his class.

Reviewing the literature on the meaning of evaluation, we can deduce that evaluation is
larger than assessment and assessment means the same thing as testing, but testing is formal in
comparison with assessment. So whenever we use these terms in this research we mean this
classification.

1.3. English for Specific Purposes (ESP)

Defining ESP has been the endeavor of many researchers [Hutchinson & Waters
(1987), Dudley-Evans (Nov 08, 1997-2001), Dudley-Evans & John (1998), Smoak (2003), Kim
(2008), Paltridge & Starfield (2013)] since the sixties when this term first emerged. Most of them
agree on the needs-oriented view with which it sees English instruction. Some of them, because
of the controversy over its nature, choose instead not to define what it is but what it is not
(Hutchinson & Waters: Ibid). So why the controversy over ESP definition?

The controversy could be better justified if we look into the characteristics of ESP. It
has emerged from a learner-centered approach which made major changes on the teaching
methodology, the syllabus content, the materials, and even the role of the teacher. Everything in
the course is to fit the learners’ characteristics. Learners of ESP are different in their needs and
specialties. Some of them are students at university studying subjects in English; others are
workers struggling to survive in their English-speaking companies. The variability in the
learners, the needs, and the specialties has made the constituents of the course change. Therefore,
little can be absolute in ESP and that is why researchers agree on the needs orientation of ESP
but disagree on what it constitutes of.

12
 Dudley-Evans (Nov 8, 1997: 05) insisted that a comprehensive definition of ESP
«requires much more than an acknowledgement of the importance of needs analysis». Therefore
he and St John (1998: 4-5) provided the constants and variables of ESP definition, which are as
follows:

1. Absolute characteristics:

 ESP is designed to meet specific needs of the learner;

 ESP makes use of the underlying methodology and activities of the discipline it serves;
 ESP is centered on the language (grammar, lexis, register), skills, discourse and genres
appropriate to these activities.

2. Variable characteristics:

 ESP may be related to or designed for specific disciplines;

 ESP may use, in specific teaching situations, a different methodology from that of general
English;
 ESP is likely to be designed for adult learners, either at tertiary level institution or in a
professional work situation. It could, however, be used for learners at secondary school
level;
 ESP is generally designed for intermediate or advanced students. Most ESP courses
assume basic knowledge of the language system, but it can be used with beginners.

This definition gives a clearer image of what ESP constitutes of. The absolute
characteristics, on the one hand, describe the scope and methodology of ESP. That is, ESP
manages to meet the needs of the learners following the methodologies they are most familiar
with in the disciplines they come from. The variable characteristics, on the other hand, describe
the variability of the learners’ characteristics and their specialties.

Perhaps this definition remains the most convenient in the literature about the meaning
of this revolutionary term. Even the most recent definition of Paltridge and Starfield (2013: 02)
does not satisfy the keen researcher who needs to know more about ESP. They see it as: «the
teaching and learning of English as a second or foreign language where the goal of the learner
is to use English in a particular domain». Considering their view, it could be understood that
ESP is not different from second or foreign language teaching which may complicate things
much more than it clarifies them.

What one deduces from the literature about ESP is not just that it is still controversial
but that this controversy is understandable looking at the term being defined. ESP has changed

13
rapidly from what it was like at its beginnings. All the changes stem from a better consideration
of the learner and the learning process. It could be seen from the variety of its branches that exist
nowadays and the large amount of books on the particular domains it has invaded.

1.4. English for Oil Industry

EOI is a sub-branch of ESP. The following figure provided by Dudley-Evans and St

John (1998: 06) classifies the major branches of ESP that are English for Academic and
Occupational purposes.

EOI appears in the category of English for Occupational purposes, because the learners
of Oil Industry do not use English in their studies but in their work carrier. The sub categories of
EOP are as indicated on the figure: Professional and Vocational English. EOI is placed in the
Vocational category, but since the course takes place before the learners take their job positions,
the convenient category must be pre-vocational EOI.

English for Specific Purposes

English for Academic Purposes English for Occupational Purposes

English for English for

English for English for English for English for
(Academic) Vocational purposes
(Academic) (Academic) (Academic) professional purposes
Science and
Medical Legal Management,
Technology
purposes purposes Finance and
Economics English Pre- Vocational
English
for Vocationa English
for
business l English
Medical
purposes purposes
Figure (4) ESP Classification by Professional Area

14
 1.5. Course Design in ESP

The process of course design in ESP is similar to any general course design in the idea
that it makes decisions as to the syllabus content, methodology, materials, and assessment of the
teaching and learning experience. However, ESP courses start from the identification of the
learners’ immediate needs [Widdowson (1983), Hutchinson and Waters (1987), Dudley-Evans
(1997), Dudley-Evans (2001), Basturkmen (2006), Basturkmen (2010)]. They are different from
general courses which start from an abstract supposition of what the learners may need in the
future. The focus on the needs makes ESP teaching more effective in filling the language gaps of
the learners, in contrast to general courses which may only extend already existing knowledge or
be recursive in emphasizing what is already known (Hyland 2009). Widdowson (1983) believes
that ESP courses are more like training because they are tailored to solve the language problems
identified before the learning experience. He contrasts them to general courses which he believes
are more like education.

Other characteristics of ESP course design include the following points:

a. ESP courses depend on the investigation of the target language use analysis
[Basturkmen (2010), Widdowson (1984)]

b. They tend to be intensive and time limited [Basturkmen( 2006), Nortland & Pruett-said
(2006)]

c. They use authentic materials [johns (2010), Nortland & Pruett-said (2006)]

d. They are based on cooperative work between teachers and subject-specialists (Dudley-
Evans & St John: 1998)

1.6. Principles and Parameters of Course Design in ESP

Designing a course in ESP as we stated before involves the identification of the

learners’ needs first, however, this is not enough to decide upon the content of the course.
According to Hutchinson and Waters (1987), we have also to investigate how language is
described and learnt. The way language is described, on the one hand, makes the basis of our
syllabus, and the way it is learnt, on the other, makes the basis of our teaching methodology and
assessment procedures. The following figure (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987: 22) summarizes the
factors that influence course design in ESP which will be the subject matter afterwards.

15
 WHAT? ESP HOW?
syllabus methodology
Language course Learning
description theories
s
Nature of
particular
target and
learning situation

WHO? WHY?
WHERE?
WHEN? Needs

Figure (5) The Factors Influencing ESP Course Design

1.6.1. Needs Analysis

Hutchinson and Waters (1987) define ESP as an approach to language teaching which is
based on the identification of the learners’ needs. However, even English for general Purposes’
(henceforth EGP) courses are based on a guess of what the learners may need the language for in
the future. So, the difference between EGP and ESP is not in the idea of whether needs exist;
instead, it is the amount of «awareness of the needs» found in ESP and not in EGP (Ibid: 53).
That is why Hutchinson and Waters believe that the difference between ESP and EGP is not in
theory but in practice. EGP and ESP may have the same theoretical stances when it comes to
methodology but ESP identifies first what the actual needs of the learners are before conducting
the course design, whereas EGP starts from the designers’ intuition which may be different from
the real needs.

From this we understand that needs analysis is a fundamental part of ESP course design.
We intend now to shed light on the elements involved in needs analysis and the tools by which
data can be gathered in the same process.

16
 Dudley-Evans and St John (1998: 125) provide a useful scheme that describes the
elements involved in needs analysis. Their scheme summarizes most of the approaches relevant
to needs analysis. It involves gathering information about the following features:

A. professional information about the learners: the tasks and activities learners are/will
be using English for — target situation analysis and objective needs
B. personal information about the learners: factors which may affect the way they learn
such previous learning experiences, cultural information, reasons for attending the
course and expectations of it, attitude to English—wants, means, subjective needs
C. English language information about the learners: what their current skills and
language use are—present situation Analysis—which allows us to assess (D)
D. The learners’ lacks: the gaps between (C) and (A)— lacks
E. language learning information: effective ways of learning the skills and language in
(D)— learning needs
F. professional communication information about (A): knowledge of how language and
skills are used in the target situation—linguistic analysis, discourse analysis, genre
analysis
G. what is wanted from the course
H. information about the environment in which the course will be run— means analysis

This concept of needs analysis is a current one which is a lot different from what needs
analysis was like at the time of Hutchinson and Waters (1987), when the focus was limited only
to the target and learning needs.

Needs analysis has got sources and instruments for data gathering. Dudley-Evans and St
John (1998:132) provide the following two lists that constitute theses sources and tools.

For needs analysis, the main sources are:

 The learners
 People working or studying in the field
 Ex-students
 Documents relevant to the field
 Clients
 Employers
 Colleagues
 ESP research in the field

The main data collection methods for needs analysis are:

 Questionnaires
 Analysis of authentic spoken and written texts
 Discussions
 Structured interviews

17
  Observations
 Assessment

1.6.2. Language Descriptions

Having used the sources and tools available to draw the target situation process and
product picture, the ESP course designer has now to investigate the theories of language
description (Hutchinson & Waters 1987). The nature of language affects directly the
organization of the syllabus. If we were to examine the approaches available for syllabus design,
we would always notice their relation to a specific theory of language description. There is for
instance a structural syllabus model, a functional-notional syllabus model, and a communicative
model, all of which relate to a theory of language description that was popular at a specific point
in time. The description of language has got the role of breaking its system into teachable units
which the course designer chooses from, depending on the goals he wants the course to achieve.

1.6.3. Learning Theories

The way language is learnt is of the same importance as needs analysis in ESP course
design. It is the vehicle by which needs are achieved and objectives are met. However, ESP at its
beginnings paid little attention to the process of learning, because its focus was directed more
toward its product.

A direct example of the effect that learning theories had on ESP is the audio-lingual
method of teaching. This method was inspired by the behaviorist thinking that dominated the
world of teaching when ESP first emerged in the fifties and sixties. Its tools and techniques
according to Hutchinson and Waters (1987) still have their effects on the teaching of ESP.
However, this psychological theory backing the audio-lingual method was soon criticized by
pioneers of the mental school.

Researchers within the mental school rejected the way the behaviorist view considered
human beings. They insisted on the cognitive aspects that human beings possess in contrast to
animals. This cognitive thinking has also affected teaching in ESP. It resulted in the problem-
solving activities which were implemented according to Hutchinson and waters in ESP courses.

18
The methodology of teaching during within Mentalism focused more on developing the
cognitive processes of the learners.

Another important aspect that has influenced ESP teaching is the element of motivation
triggered by the theory of the Affective Factor. This theory has also risen against behaviorism
which did not consider learners as human beings with likes and dislikes. Hutchinson and Waters
(Ibid) believe that ESP teaching in its first steps took motivation for granted. That is, if learners
were learning something they need, they must be motivated. But this was not the situation as
they explain because even ESP learners may lose motivation toward their field.

More developments on learning theories resulted in changes of ESP teaching

methodology. What has been mentioned from the theories is only the example that Hutchinson
and Waters (1987) included in their work. It emphasizes one point, that is, the way language is
learnt affects the teaching methodology of ESP.

1.7. Approaches to Course Design in ESP

Among the numerous approaches to course design, Hutchinson and Waters (ibid)
included only three which are: the language-centered, the skills-centered, and the learning-
centered approach. We have chosen to include the element of course design approaches in order
to classify the course that we intend to evaluate on the basis of the approach it follows.

19
 1.7.1. The Language-centered Approach

Identify learners’ Select theoretical

target situation views of language

Identify linguistic features

of target situation

Create syllabus

Design materials to
exemplify syllabus items

Establish evaluation procedures to test

acquisition of syllabus items

Figure (6) The Language-centered Approach According to Hutchinson & Waters (1987:
66)

This approach, as Hutchinson and Waters (ibid) describe it, tries to mirror as much as
possible the target situation in the course. It has the weakness of considering the learners solely
at the stage of needs analysis as the only determining source of data on the target situation. The
needs analysis is also a once-for-all process which is not representative given the changing needs
of the learners. Other weaknesses include the approach’s idea of the systematic nature of
learning which may not be the case according to Hutchinson and Waters. The approach also
ignores the motivational factors of the learners.

1.7.2. The Skills-centered Approach

The skills-centered approach is based on the assumption that learners possess some
skills and strategies that enable them understand and respond to the language input they receive.
This approach focuses more on the cognitive abilities of the learners. Its aim is «not to provide a
specified corpus of linguistic knowledge but to make the learners into better processors of

20
information» (Ibid: 70). In fact, it has risen against the mistaken belief of ESP as an approach
that concentrates on register variation.

The skills-centered approach considers the learners more than the language-centered. It
makes use of the data provided by the learners to identify their needs and abilities. However, its
weakness according to Hutchinson and Waters (1987) relates to its focus on the processes of
language use instead of language learning.

1.7.3. The Learning-centered Approach

This approach (Ibid: 74) builds its strengths on the weaknesses of the preceding
approaches to course design. It does not focus on the well target situation performance or the
competences behind this performance; instead it focuses on what is behind competences that
help the learners acquire the language. It considers course design as dynamic and negotiated
process, the content of which is not determined by a one-sided-view (that of the learners). The
following figure (3) summarizes the scheme of the approach.

21
 Identify learners

Theoretical Analyse Analyse Theoretical

views of learning target views of
learning situation situation language

Identify attitudes/wants/
potential of learners Identify skills and
knowledge needed to
_______________
function in the
Identify needs/ potential/ target situation
constraints of learning/
teaching situation

Write syllabus/ materials to

exploit the potential of the
Evaluation learning situation in the Evaluation
acquisition of the skills and
knowledge required by the
target situation

Figure (7) The Learning-centered Approach to Course Design according

to Hutchinson and Waters (1987:74)

The processes of syllabus, materials, methodology, and evaluation designs, as we can

see from this figure, do not happen in a fixed sequence but in a way that each process may
inform the others and in the same time be ready to be informed by the rest. The learning
centered-approach is a flexible approach to course design because it considers needs analysis a
continuous procedure that keeps the course up-to-date with learners’ changing needs.

2.1. Why Evaluate Programs?

The purpose of evaluation is the prime driving force behind any program evaluation.
Without this purpose, the evaluator cannot limit the features to evaluate, nor can he finish his

22
evaluation report. According to Lynch (1996), the general reasons that drive program evaluation
usually relate to either accountability or improvement. By «accountability», on the one hand, we
mean the degree of match between the course outcomes and the intended objectives it was
designed to meet, and by «improvement»; on the other hand, we mean the purpose of doing some
refinements so that the course outcomes can be better achieved. For the majority of researchers
[Rea-Dickins & Germaine (1992), Weir & Roberts (1994), Graves (1996-2000), Genesee
(2001)], reasons of evaluation relate to these two purposes as shown in Figure (8).

Accountability
Purposes of
Evaluation
Improvement

Figure (8) Purposes of Evaluation

But Alderson and Beretta (1992: 276) add to these purposes the following:

- to identify what effect a programme has had

- to determine whether a programme has provided value for money
- to vindicate decision
- to justify future courses of action
- to compare approaches/ methodologies/ textbooks/ etc.
- to show the positive achievements of teachers and pupils
- to motivate teachers
- [and] to ally suspicions among parents or sponsors

Evaluation purposes provide both the plan and limits of the evaluation process. They
indicate the content, the timing, and the tools of evaluation.

23
 2.2. What to Evaluate in Programs?

Program evaluation is all about taking decisions and following the results of these
decisions. Having decided on the purposes of evaluation, the evaluator has got now to select
from the content of the course what reflects his purposes. According to Dudley-Evans and St
John (1998), evaluating everything in the course is «unrealistic» or in other words: impossible.
The evaluator, in order to reach an informative report has got to limit himself to the purposes,
time, and environment facilities available for him. Therefore, decision making is the quality of
every step in evaluation.

Graves (1996: 31) believes that each element related to the course planning and
implementation can be evaluated. She gives the instances of program evaluation content in the
following quotation:

“Any part of the process of course development can be evaluated,

including the assumptions about and analysis of students’ needs or
backgrounds, goals and objectives, materials and activities, means
of assessing students’ progress, student participation, student roles,
and the teacher’s role. Thus each element of the framework is itself
subject to evaluation. Was the needs assessment effective? Did I
seek the right input, and did it enable me to make appropriate
decisions about the course? If not, why not? Were the goals and
objectives appropriate and achievable? Should they be changed?
Did students find the material appropriately challenging, or was it
too easy or too difficult? Were the activities appropriate? Did all
students participate easily? Did I find suitable ways to evaluate
students’ progress? Did the tests test what had been learned?”

All these instances can result in course evaluation designs. The list can be unlimited
regarding the numerous features included in the course, starting from its design to its evaluation.

In the field of ESP, according to Dudley-Evans and St John (1998), the common
evaluative features relate to effectiveness and efficiency of the course. These features are
checked most of the time by assessing the degree of correspondence between the objectives and
the outcomes. If the objectives match with the outcomes, the course is said to be a success. But if
there is little match, modification or innovation is to take place (Ibid: 129-130).

24
 2.3. When to Evaluate Programs?

As we aforementioned, the timing is also important to consider before conducting an

evaluation design. When to evaluate a course and how long the evaluation should take place is
also related to the key feature of why this evaluation is happening.

On the basis of the timing, there are two types of evaluation: «Formative» and
«Summative». The terms formative and summative according to Lynch (1996) were coined by
Scriven (1967). Formative evaluation, on the one hand, investigates the course during its
implementation time to see what positive and negative aspects it has. It investigates these aspects
to improve the course, so that it goes in line with the changing features of the learners. The
formative type is chosen by evaluators when modification or innovation is targeted [Alderson &
Beretta (1992), Graves (1996), Dudley- Evans & St John (1998)].

The common type of questions that formative evaluation seeks to answer according to
Richards (2001: 288) is as follows:

 How well is the textbook being received?

 Is the methodology teachers are using appropriate?
 Are teachers or students having difficulties with any aspect of the course?
 Are students enjoying the program? If not, what can be done to improve their
motivation?
 Are students getting sufficient practice work? Should the workload be increased or
decreased?
 Is the pacing of the material adequate?

Summative evaluation, on the other hand, is the type of evaluation that takes place after
the course’s end. It does not alter the course but provides an idea of its worth and success or
failure [Alderson & Beretta (1992), Genesee (2001)]. The findings of this type tend to result in:
either carrying the implementation of the course for future learners or abandoning it all-together.
The following quotation (in Richards 2001: 292) reports the typical questions answered by this
model:

 How effective was the course? Did it achieve its aims?

 What did the students learn?
 How well was the course received by students and teachers?
 Did the materials work well?
 Were the objectives adequate or do they need to be revised?
 Were the placement and achievement tests adequate?

25
  Was the amount of time spent on each unit sufficient?
 How appropriate were the teaching methods?
 What problems were encountered during the course?

Summative and formative evaluations made the subject of debate for many years in the
field of evaluation. We will return to this point in the brief history of evaluation that we are
going to deal with after discussing the point of Who Should Evaluate Programs, but now we will
only refer to the controversy and mention the limitations observed by some views on summative
evaluation.

The controversy over these two types relates to the preference that some researchers
show toward the formative type. The formative type of evaluation is favored by some authors
[Rea-Dickins & Germaine (1992), Weir & Roberts (1994), Hounsell (2009)] because of the
informed view it presents about the course under investigation. Formative evaluations (according
to the aforementioned authors) are on-going; they collect data on the course in a larger period of
time and from multiple sources. They do not just signal the success or failure of the course, but
also tell why the outcomes are in the way they appear. The findings of formative evaluations
help also in implementing change during the running of the course, in contrast to summative
evaluations which may not locate areas of problems and even if they do, it will be too late for
changes to be made, because the course is already over.

The controversy also relates to the tools of evaluation used by each type to collect and
analyze data: Summative evaluations rely on quantitative data; whereas the formative type,
qualitative. The need for a compromise makes also the view of Weir and Roberts (1994) and
Lynch (1996). These authors see that each type of data has got its benefits that should not be
neglected or avoided by the evaluator. These issues will be elaborated farther, we shall now
consider another type of evaluation that some researchers add to the formative and summative
types.

Richards (2001) adds the type of «illuminative» evaluation. The illuminative type has
got the role of shedding the light on the happenings of the teaching and learning experience. Its
aim is not to apply changes to the course, nor does it aim to make judgments on its worth. Its aim
instead is purely exploratory, that is, just discover how learning and teaching are carried for a

26
better understanding. We report the following questions from Richards (2001: 289-290) as the
common questions that the evaluator asks within this type:

 How do students carry out group work tasks? Do all students participate equally in
them?
 What type of error correction strategies do teachers use?
 What kind of decisions do teachers employ while teaching?
 How do teachers use lesson plans when teaching?
 What type of teacher-student interaction patterns typically occur in classes?
 What reading strategies do students use with different kinds of texts?
 How do students understand the teacher’s intentions during a lesson?
 Which students in class are most or least active?

The question of how long an evaluation should take place is not discussed satisfactorily
in the literature, but Alderson and Beretta (1992: 288) say: «the longer the period that an
evaluation covers, the better». This is also the view of Weir and Roberts (1994: 17) who believe
generally that the period or periods of evaluation should be «representative».

From the literature, we could deduce that the type of evaluation a researcher chooses to
use depends to a great deal on the purpose and the environmental facilities available for the
evaluation to occur. And sometimes it depends also on the audiences of the evaluation. What we
see as most adequate for our research evaluation purposes is a compromise between both types
of evaluation. Our purpose is twofold: to investigate the significance of the course and its the
strengths and weaknesses, therefore the best method would be to eclectically combine these
types.

We now turn to another controversial and contentious issue in evaluation: Who should
evaluate courses?

2.4. Who Should Evaluate Programs?

Who should evaluate courses is the question many authors have asked and tried to
answer without making preference between insiders and outsiders. Both types of evaluators can
perform program evaluation, but each of them has got weaknesses as well as strengths. Beretta
(1990), Alderson and Beretta (1992), Weir and Roberts (1994), and Dudley-Evans and St John
(1998) believe that insiders of a course have got the weaknesses of subjectivity and lack of
expertise in evaluation. Since they are close to the course, they cannot distance themselves from

27
it to see the constraints it has. Their lack of expertise in evaluation creates also another problem
which is not the case with outsiders. Outsiders know how to conduct evaluations since they are
used to such activities, they also know how to look at the course objectively. Their strength
seems to be also their weakness. They may not be able to see the meaning of some aspects
implemented in the course because they may not have expertise with teaching. Therefore, they
may misjudge the value of things that have been done on the basis of years of teaching
experience. So to conclude here, we find that insiders are experienced in teaching but
inexperienced in evaluation; whereas, outsiders are the vice versa.

Weir and Roberts (1994) believe that involving both insiders and outsiders can help in
achieving a better evaluation, because it will benefit from the expertise they both possess on
inside and outside knowledge of the course. However, Alderson and Beretta (1992) believe that
achieving objectivity within a process based on decision making in every step cannot be
guaranteed, even with all the precautions taken, because the evaluators are human beings whose
subjectivity will always find its way to their reports.

2.5. How to Evaluate Programs?

The first ideas on systematic curriculum evaluation, according to Rea-Dickins and Kiely
(2005), can be linked to Ralph Tyler’s model in 1949. The Tylerian model had the intention to
indicate that evaluation can help achieving the learning objectives. His ideas were transformed
into an experimental research design which seeks to check the degree of objectives achievement.

Within the era of the experimental approach dominance, the purpose of evaluation was
to test the effectiveness of teaching methods and learning materials (See Lynch (1996) and Ross
(2009)). The evaluation design according to Rea-Dickins and Kiely (2005: 23) was based on
«comparing two groups: an experimental group which experience the strategy or intervention;
and a control group which have the normal educational experience». At the end of the course,
both groups receive tests to see which group was more successful, and on the basis of the test
results, the evaluator claims either success or failure of the strategy or intervention evaluated.
Among the first evaluations Lynch (1996) includes: Keating (1960), Scherer and Wertheimer
(1962), Chastain and Woerdehoff (1968), Smith (1970), and Levin (1972).

28
 The persistence and dominance of the numerical approach to evaluation lasted for an
considerable period of time due to the external and internal validity characterizing the research
design. Evaluations within this era did not have any purpose other than reporting the degree of
accountability, until some researchers started thinking of evaluation as a means of innovation.
This category of researchers commented on the weaknesses of the research design claiming that
experiments do not depict the natural happenings of the learning experience and that gathering
test results is one instance incapable of standing on its own to reflect a whole course experience.
Their view was that the test results should be enhanced with an observation on the natural
classroom happenings so that findings can be contextualized. The controversy here was related to
two issues: what should count as data (quantitative or qualitative) and how this data should be
collected (the tools). This controversy is referred to according to Lynch (1996) by «The
Paradigm Dialog».

The qualitative design supporters started to emerge by the end of 1970’s and beginnings
of 1980’s. Among those, Lynch (ibid) names: Jacobson (1982), long (1983), and Beretta (1986a).
He also exemplifies some of the studies based on the naturalistic (qualitative) paradigm with the
works of: Guthrie (1982), and Ullman & Geva (1983). These studies were seeking to identify the
aspects that heighten effectiveness and efficiency. Their focus was directed toward the discrete
elements that influence the process of the course implementation. Therefore, their orientation
was process-based in contrast to the positivistic studies whose orientation was more product-
based.

A better solution seems to be the combination of both process and product approaches
to evaluation. This solution is what Lynch (1996) believes to be most adequate. He claims that
research in evaluation should not make preference between process and product evaluation if it
aims to achieve informed and eclectic views on a specific program.

The conclusion we could draw from the paradigm dialog as far as the literature we
reviewed could tell is that research on evaluation has moved from a highly controlled
experimental design to a design that depicts more naturalistic real-like facts about the process by
which results are attained. The more recent approaches to evaluation nowadays are concerned
with what to do with the evaluation findings. Among these approaches, Rea-Dickins and Kiely

29
(2005) mention: Utilization-focused (Patton 1997) and Realistic (Pawson & Tilley 1997)
evaluation approaches.

2.5.1. Tools of Program Evaluation

Choosing the appropriate tools of evaluation as we mentioned in different areas of this

paper relates to the purpose of the evaluation, the time available, and the approach the evaluator
has chosen. Here, we need to go back to the concept of evaluation perceived as decision taking.

The approaches we mentioned as the qualitative and quantitative research designs have
got tools that collect different types of data. Before we list the types of tools that these
approaches use, we will first present a definition for qualitative and quantitative data according
to Brown (1995: 230-231):

- Quantitative data «are those bits of information that are countable and are gathered
using measures that produce results in the form of numbers»
- Qualitative data are «information that is more holistic than quantitative data. Such data
are often based on observations that do not readily lend themselves to conversion into
quantities or numbers»

Quantitative data according to Brown’s view seems to be factual and does not accept
opinions. In the context of program evaluation, for instance, the data are about the how many
learners are taking the course, or how many learners succeeded the course last year. But
qualitative data seems to be the type where views can be different, like for instance the data
about how a group of learners perceive the course, or how they regard their teacher.

To gather both types of data, different tools can be used. The elements we include in the
following list are collected from different authors as the common tools of program evaluation.

Tools of data collection [according to Hutchinson & Waters (1987), Rea-Dickins &
Germaine (1992), Dudley-Evans & St John (1998), Richards (2001)]

 Tests
 Questionnaires
 Discussions
 Interviews (structured/ unstructured)
 Observation

30
  Checklists
 Teachers’ written evaluation (diaries, journals)
 Audio-video recording

2.6. Conclusion

Our endeavor in this chapter is double-layered. Firstly, we considered ESP definition,

its course design, it parameters and approaches. These items are decidedly necessary since they
explain how ESP courses are designed and how different they are from EGP courses. Secondly,
we drew a literature review of Program Evaluation relevant to our research.

Within this section, we provided the essential features that any evaluator should be
aware of and consider in his plans before getting engaged with this complex process. This latter
demands careful questions to raise, and careful responses to provide, because each of these
shapes the scheme and findings of the evaluation.

Therefore, these features are incontrovertibly going to function as a springboard to our

analysis undertaken in the following chapter within which we process the course under
investigation. This analysis will tackle the course qualitatively in the form of a materials analysis
and quantitatively in the form of a questionnaire, a test and an interview.

31
Chapter Two:

Application
Chapter Two: Application
1.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………34
1.2. The Materials Document Analysis ………………………………...…………………….35
1.3. The Analysis of the Questionnaire ………………………………………………………37
1.4. The Analysis of the Teachers’ Structured interview …………………..………………...53
1.4.1. The Interview Results……………………………………………………………..53
1.4.2. Interpretation of the Results……………………………………………………....54
1.5. The Test Analysis …………………………..……………………………………………58
1.5.1. The Reading Comprehension Section…………………………………………….58
1.5.2. The Grammar Section ……………………………………………………………59
1.5.3. The Writing Section ……………………………………………………………...60
1.6. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………61
General Conclusion…………...………………………………………………………...…….66
Bibliography………………………………..…………………………………………………70
Appendices…………...……….………………………………………………...……………73
Appendix I: The Learners’ Questionnaire…...……………………………………………….73
Appendix II: The Teachers’ Structured Interview Questions……………………………...…75
Appendix III: The Learners’ Test………..…………………………………………………...78
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….80
 1.1. Introduction

The theoretical framework discussed in the preceding chapter not only will serve as a
springboard to make a well thought-out move from theory to practice but also will ascertain
the justification of the decisions we took and the choices we made in relation to sources and
research tools. This will indubitably pave the way to the analysis and interpretation of the
results which will be right away followed by a comprehensive synthesis.

The first source that we considered within our investigation is the materials’
document. It is entitled English for The Oil Industry and was published in 2009 by the
Algerian Petroleum Institute (IAP). It consists of 16 topics related to the processes of
petroleum drilling, extraction, and production. The topics as the authors advance in their
introduction provide the basic descriptive language that the learners need in their field.

This document is chosen on the basis of the requirements of Program Evaluation (see
chapter I, section 2.2.). The involvement of everything available about the course or program
under enquiry must be considered to render a full-fledged description and analysis. Besides,
we had to submit to the fact that the materials mirror the teaching methodology and give the
evaluator a live profile of the learners’ doings in the classroom. Even beyond this, the
materials’ document was the only document where we could find a written statement
describing the course objectives.

This statement about the objectives revealed to us the challenges the course is to face
and the tasks to accomplish. Then, we deduced that it was highly judicious and appropriate to
verify the degree of agreement between these objectives and the learner’s needs. That is why
we administered a learners’ questionnaire.

We have chosen the questionnaire as a tool of data collection because of two facts.
Firstly, it is the preeminent tool when it comes to surveying the subjects’ attitudes. Secondly,
needs analysis depends to a great extent on asking questions (Hutchinson and Waters 1987)
that seek attitudinal answers from those involved in the teaching-learning process.

We have taken into consideration the learners’ views as they are the mostly
concerned with the course, and supposedly the most acknowledged about what they will do
with English once they start their career, which makes them a ‘first-rate’ source of data.

34
 The reasons we just mentioned were only the general ones, we will explain now the
other reasons of our specific group selection.

The 34 MAPG learners studying at KMU are adults who have been learning English
for four years. Their being adults and pre-experienced with specific English courses gives
them the ability to know what a course should achieve and also to discern their lacks, wants,
and necessities. These characteristics do not apply to the other samples we could select since
they were in their first years. Therefore, they are quite unexpected to be aware of the need for
the course.

Another point that was in the favor of this sample relates to the teachers of EOI.
They have been teaching English for two years, and they are experienced in the field of Oil
Industry, which transformed them at once into ‘the ideal’ that rarely happens in ESP contexts,
that is, the teacher is both a subject specialist and an ESP teacher. Their experience in both
sides provided us with the privilege of removing the limited-teaching experience from the list
of limitations we expected.

To collect the teachers’ views as well, we administered a structured interview. Our

choice for the interview as a tool comes from its efficiency in such a case where the sample of
teachers is small. We consulted only two teachers; one of them still teaches the MAPG
learners but the other used to teach them in the previous four years of the learning experience.

The forth source of our data collection was the test. The test is a very useful source
because it does not collect attitudes but facts about the learners lacks. In the test, we included
seven (7) activities. These Activities were classified into three sections: the reading
comprehension, the grammar, and the writing sections. The test was given to the learners in
their usual EOI class at 14: 45, for an hour and a half. They were not previously informed
about the test timing. The presence records showed that only 24 learners out of 34 attended
the session. From the 24 learners’ test copies, we eliminated 10 copies because of cheating.

Sources, tools and reasons being stated, we will in what follows analyze the data
collected.

1.2. The Materials’ Document Analysis

Concerning the overall organization of the texts included in the course, we were able
to notice that usually every text is accompanied by a graph to which the learners refer from

35
time to time to understand the specific procedure the text tries to explain. Every text is also
followed by four sections: Vocabulary, Reading comprehension, Grammar, and the Writing
section. In these sections the learners practice the content and form of the text presented to
them.

Further analysis of the text patterns reveals that most of them consist of a four
paragraphs passage with a mean of a hundred words per paragraph. The extracted text below
is an example of the format and content of these texts.

Traps and Geology

Petroleum was formed by nature in ancient times. Most of the

petroleum that oilmen drill for was formed between 30 and 500 million years
ago. Outside of the petroleum industry, many people believe that oil and gas are
contained in large underground lakes or caves. This belief is, of course false.
Petroleum is contained in pores of reservoir rocks. Rather in the same way
that water is contained in the pores of a sponge. The most common reservoir
rocks are sandstone, limestone and dolomite. These are sedimentary rocks.
Sedimentary rocks may be porous and permeable to oil, gas and water. They
can therefore act as reservoir rocks
Places where oil has reached the surface are called “seeps” or “shows”.
In Trinidad in the west Indies there are a number of active seeps. The first well
in Trinidad was drilled in 1866. The method of drilling that first well was not the
rotary method. In 1866, cable tool drilling was used. Today very few cable tool
rigs exist.
Most underground is contained in traps as those in the diagrams.
A trap is an underground formation which prevents the escape of oil contained
in it. Notice the cap rock at the top of each trap. Cap rock is non porous and
impermeable to the fluids below. Therefore, underground pressure cannot force
the reservoir fluids through the cap rock and up to the surface.
How oilmen know where to drill? That’s the job, generally of the
petroleum geologist. He can use the results of arial and seismic surveys to get
information about rock features beneath the surface. Rocks at the surface also
supply information, and fossils can help him to calculate the age of the rocks.

(Hachemi, January 2009: 05)

36
 The text above is lexically dense, it contains 283 words, among which 168 are
lexical and 115 grammatical. The dominant pattern of the sentences’ voice is active (16
sentences from the sum total of 24) which signals that the texts may have been modified to
cope with the learners of a limited level. Also most of the sentences are very simplistic.

The information we were able to collect from the text above is however different
from the rest of the texts included in the document, since we noticed by moving from one text
to the other a slight difference of difficulty, that is, the more the learners move from one unit
to another, the more challenging the texts become.

Moving to the activities given to the learners at the end of each text, we noticed that
the focus of the materials falls on understanding Technical Vocabulary. This appears in the
section of vocabulary at the bottom of every text; the learners are given a list of Vocabulary
items important to understanding and memorization. The Reading comprehension section
includes a number of questions that test the learners’ ability to recall details from the text.

Concerning the Grammar section, the dominant features of focus here fall on the
manipulation of the items below:

1. Writing well organized sentences in active as well as passive voice

2. Writing well organized interrogative sentences
3. Using prepositions, adjectives and adverbs of frequency, prefixes and suffixes for
word formation
4. And conjugating verbs in the right tenses

The Writing tasks demand from the learners an ability to write well organized
paragraphs. The focus of the materials generally appears to fall on four aspects: Technical
Vocabulary, Reading, Grammar and Writing.

1.3. The Analysis of the Learners’ Questionnaire

While preparing the questions, we have been inspired by the frameworks of

Hutchinson and Waters (1987: 59-61) related to the target situation and the learning needs
identification.

The first question which we did not mention in the analysis of this questionnaire asks
the learners to identify their level, which does not help in the data collection but functions as
an introductory question that makes the learners at ease.

37
 a. Do you think you need to study English for Oil industry course?

94%

6%

yes no

Figure (9) The Need for EOI According to MAPG Learners

Our purpose in asking this question was to see whether the learners feel it is
important for them to learn English. As the figure above shows, it appears that the majority of
the learners think they need the course, which means that the awareness of the need (Ibid: 53)
is there in the learners’ minds. Dubin and Olshtain (1986:14) believe that the «positive
attitudes towards the acquisition process will reflect high personal motivation for learning the
language, a feeling of self fulfillment and success and an overall enthusiasm about the
language course». Related to the percentage of the learners who expressed their disinterest in
the course, Dubin and Olshtain (ibid) claim that their answers may be linked to «their
negative experience with the [learning] process such as classroom anxiety, feelings of
discrimination, and the like».

b. Where will you use English?

By asking the learners about the physical and human contexts of their language use,
we try to understand what these contexts demand from them. We have given the learners the
ability to choose more than one answer to develop a view that draws the majority of the views
closer. Figure (10) reports the following results:

Office 15
Physical 43% 29%
Workshops 22 27%
Context
Conference Physical context
14
rooms Workshop Office Conference rooms

Figure (10) The Physical Contexts of the Learners’ Future Language Use

38
 As we can see from the graph, the context of workshops appears to get the highest
number of votes in comparison with the other contexts, which makes us believe that the
learners will need English in workshops more frequently than in the other contexts. Here the
idea of use exists in all the contexts but has a higher possibility in workshops.

Colleagues 13
37%
Human 34% 29%
Meetings 11
Context
Public
Conferences 14 Human context
Public Conferences Colleagues Meetings
No Answer 4

Figure (11) The Human Contexts of the Learners’ Future Language Use

Within the human contexts, 37% of the voters said that they will use English in
public conferences mostly, but the difference of percentages appears to be slight which also
signals that all of these contexts are relevant for the learners use.

c. Who will you use English with?

Whether the learners will use English with native speakers (henceforth NS) or non-
native-speakers (henceforth NNS) is very important, because it completes our data about the
contexts of English use, the following are the results of the replies:

NS 13 38%
35%
20%
NNS 07

Both 12
English native Non-native Both
No Answer 2
speakers speakers

Figure (12) With Whom Will the Learners Use English

The learners’ votes to the question show that they generally use English with both
native speakers and non-native-speakers. But highest chances are allotted to the native
speakers. A possible interpretation of the learners’ views that they will use English only with
non-native-speakers is that they discard the possibility of working in foreign companies where
English is the official means of communication.

39
 d. What is the channel of your language use?

Communication does not depend only on the code, the participants, and the context;
it also depends on the channel of the communicators’ exchange. For this reason we asked the
learners to describe how they will use English with the members of their field, and the
following are the replies we recorded:

42%
Face to face conversations 18 28% 30
%
Oral Presentation 12

Written reports and Articles 13 Face to face Oral Written

conversations Presentation reports and
No Answer 4
articles

Figure (13) The Channel of the Language Use

The learners’ votes show that most of their exchanges will be in face to face
conversations with fewer chances of written or oral presentations. The focus on face to face
conversations as a more relevant activity shows the relevance of the Speaking skill in the
learners’ field.

e. How often will you use English?

Rarely 08 38%
Seldom 07 23% 21%
12%
Often 13

Very Often 4 Rarely Seldom Often Very Often

No answer 2

Figure (14) The Frequency of the Language Use

The answers to this question show that the use of English in the field of the learners
appears to be often. Some learners chose rarely or seldom for an answer. These may be
influenced by the idea that they may not work in foreign companies (with English as the
official means of communication) which also backs our interpretation in question number (c).

40
 f. How many hours per-week do you think you need to study EOI?

1 hour 3

3 hours 2

4 hours 6

5 hours 4

6 hours 4

8 hours 1

10 hours 4

14 hours 1

15 hours 1

1 day 2

Every day 1

No answer 4

Table (1) The Time the Learners Need EOI Per-week

To quantify the mean number of hours per-week that makes a compromise between
all the learners’ views, we divided the sum of the hours by the number of learners, the result
was 6 hours. This means that the time provided to the course (one hour and a half) is not
enough to satisfy the learners’ needs. It shows also the learners’ readiness to take extensive
courses.

Within the analysis of the learners’ answers to this question, we observed the
answers of the learners who said that they do not need to learn EOI. The 2 learners who
present 6 % of the votes answered this question by saying that the time they need is 1 and 3
hours per-week. Their answers here do not go with their choices at the introductory question
of this questionnaire, which means that they either: answered without concentration or
understanding, or else, they do not want to have the course. Hutchinson and Waters (1987:
60) explain this by saying: «the students, on the other hand, may give a much lower indication
of the need for English, because they know (or would prefer to believe) that it is not really
necessary». In fact, we believe that the first possibility is the most probable one; our view

41
became stronger when we noticed the-no-answer issue in the learners’ replies. We will deal
with this issue later.

g. Which skill do you think you need most in your future language use?

Listening 10
44%
Speaking 28 22%
19% 16%
Reading 12

Writing 14
Speaking Writing Reading Listening
No Answer 2

Figure (15) The Skill Mostly Needed in the OI Field

The learners’ votes show that they will need Speaking mostly then Writing, Reading
and Listening. This choice here backs the answers to question number (d) to which the
learners as we mentioned earlier voted mostly for face to face conversations. These two
important answers that we collected give us a live profile of the learners’ doings in the work
context. We know now that the learners will use English often in carrying conversations
within workshops or public conferences.

h. Rank the skills from 1 to 4 according to their importance in your field?

This question tries to emphasize the learners’ choice of the previous question (g). On
the next page are the answers we recorded:

Listening (L), Speaking (S), Reading (R), Writing (W)

42
 SWLR 3

RSWL 3

SRWL 3

LRWS 2

SLWR 3

LSRW 2

SRLW 2

RSWL 1

RLWS 2

SWRL 1

SLRW 1

RWSL 1

Inappropriate 10

Table (2) The Learners’ Ranking Schemes of the Skills

The table above shows the learners’ ranking schemes. The highest ranking
possibilities appear to be SWLR, SRWL, SLWR, and RSLW. In the majority of these
sequences, the Speaking skill seems to be the skill with the highest possibility to be in the first
position. We did a further analysis in the following tables by counting the frequency of each
skill’s position. This helps us see the scheme that the majority of votes try to draw.

First position Rank

54%
Listening 4
29%
Speaking 13 17%
0%
Reading 7

Writing 0 Speaking Reading Listening Writing

Figure (16) The Skill in the First position

43
 Second position Rank

Listening 6
29% 25% 25%
Speaking 6 21%

Reading 7

Writing 5 Reading Listening Speaking Writing

Figure (17) The Skill in the Second Position

Third position Rank

Listening 8 46%
33% 17%
Speaking 1 4%

Reading 4

Writing 11 Writing Listening Reading Speaking

Figure (18) The Skill in the Third Position

Third position Rank

Listening 6
33% 25% 25% 17%
Speaking 4

Reading 6

Writing 8 Writing Listening Reading Speaking

Figure (19) The Skill in the Forth Position

The first position of the overall scheme seems to be taken by the Speaking skill with
54% of the votes. In the second position, the majority of the learners ranked Reading. In the
third and fourth positions, most of the time Writing is singled out. From these statistics we
can deduce that the pattern of the learners’ votes goes in one direction which is Speaking,
Reading, and Writing. This order of importance is similar to the order of answers collected
about the question (g) with a slight difference between the positions of reading and writing.
These results display both the learners’ awareness of the target situation demands and their
aspiration to have their needs fulfilled within the course. Knowing that the teachers

44
 themselves take this skill for granted (Hedge, 2000: 227), it is of no wonder the learners pay
no need to it.

i. Which skill are you mostly deficient in?

Our question about the learners’ deficiencies aims at identifying the learners’ lacks.
The following are the results we collected:

Listening 5

Speaking 17 47%
19% 19% 14%
Reading 7

Writing 7

Inappropriate 10 Speaking Reading Writing Listening

Figure (20) The Skill the Learners are mostly Deficient in

47% of the learners voted on Speaking as their superseding deficiency, whereas, only
19% voted on reading and Writing. The pattern of the learners’ answers appears to be clearer
given the emphasis we noted by asking different questions. Speaking is mostly important and
needed by the learners and it is also the most challenging and problematic skill.

j. In what activities the mastery of the skills above can help you?

This question tries to identify the activities the learners will be engaged in once they
start their career. It tries also to see how the learners link the skills to the activities they will
be performing in the target situation. Figure (21) displays the responses to this question.

Writing reports and articles 19

31%
Reading manuals and books 13
21% 21% 26%
Participating in oral presentations 13

Managing work conversations 16

Writing Reading Participating Managing
Inappropriate 1
reports and manuals and in oral work
No Answer 2 articles books Presentations conversatio

Figure (21) The Activities the Learners Will Need in the OI Field

45
 The activities that the learners highly scored are: writing reports and articles and
managing work conversations. We understand from these results that the learners will be
engaged in all of these activities which also confirm the previous results we collected on the
skills needed (see figures: 16-17)

k. Do you think you need to study general grammar and general

vocabulary?

This question has the purpose of checking whether the learners feel they need the
general features of English first. We have asked this question because we were not sure of the
learners’ level in general English especially that our first interview with their teacher gave us
the impression that they might have some problems in general English which are
unacceptable and deplorable at this level. Here our question is a prediction of a problem and
it is acceptable since Dubin and Olshtain (1986: 15) advance: «the investigator predicts the
behavior resulting from a pre-supposed attitude, then expresses it in the form of a question to
which the subject responds».

97%
3%

yes No

Figure (22) The Need for the General Features of English

The results of this question so displayed in the graph show that most of the learners
feel they need these features except 3%. These results here back the teacher’s view when they
advanced that the learners have immense deficiencies in the general features of English. Let
us in what follows consider the justifications of the learners’ choices (they are reproduced
verbatim):

The justifications

 Pour dovlope mone niveure

 Because I need them
 Because I need them
 Pour maitrese cette langue bien comme il faut
 Because I can’t speak and write and is base the study english
 Because the english language very intersting in the oil industry
 to don’t fine probleme with colleagues

46
  so important it is the base of english
 important
 because very importente of englishe lenguidje
 because same time we can speak with ander persone, use the kind of British like
British American not same British of king united
 because I don’t know many information for general grammar and vocabulary
 because we are need to Think how formed paragraphe, sure we have base in
English but we can’t formed sentens
 to avoid Fault in writing
 it’s important
 because I need study grammer, Because it is la base the language
 Because I need to big informations of english
 17 students did not justify their choice

Obviously, the recurrent and most momentous belief all along these responses is the
learners’ urgent need of general grammar and general vocabulary. Some learners expressed
their need by exemplifying the uses of these features in the language, advancing that they help
in writing and speaking generally. Others just explained that they are the most essential
elements of the language. However, we cannot claim that the learners’ expression of need
may be a hundred percent genuine, because the learners may have been influenced to choose
yes just because the question was laid to them, or sometimes because they want «to tell what
they think the investigator would like to hear rather than what they truly believe» (Dubin &
Olshtain, 1986: 15).

l. In which of the following are you proficient?

General Grammar 18
43%
General Vocabulary 9
21% 19%
17%
Technical Grammar 8

Technical Vocabulary 7
General General Technical Technical
No Answer 4 Grammar Vocabulary Grammar Vocabulary

Figure (23) The Features the Learners Feel Proficient in

A comparison between the previous answers collected in question (k) and the
answers collected in this question would make the observer feel that these results are
contradictory. The learners expressed their need for these features and in the mean time
expressed that they are proficient in them. This leads us to infer their dissatisfaction with what

47
they are provided with. They unequivocally need more courses to focus on general grammar
structures and general vocabulary.

m. Which of the following do you urgently need?

We have included this question to confirm the learners’ views related to the previous
question and to see how much they are conscious of their choice, because the answers
collected in a questionnaire may to a great extent be arbitrary. So as a precautious step to limit
this possibility, we ask two questions or three questions about the same point, the difference
can be only in the diction and formulation or in the manner we elicit answers.

First position
55%
General Grammar 6
15% 25%
General Vocabulary 1 5%

Technical Grammar 11
General General Technical Technical
Technical Vocabulary 2 Grammar Vocabulary Grammar Vocabulary

Figure (24) The Feature in the First Position

Second position

General Grammar 1 55%

30%
General Vocabulary 3 10%
5%
Technical Grammar 5
General General Technical Technical
Technical Vocabulary 11 Grammar Vocabulary Grammar Vocabulary

Figure (25) The Feature in the Second Position

Third position

General Grammar 9 45%

20% 25%
General Vocabulary 4 10%

Technical Grammar 2
General General Technical Technical
Technical Vocabulary 5 Grammar Vocabulary Grammar Vocabulary

Figure (26) The Feature in the Third Position

48
 Forth position
60%
General Grammar 4

General Vocabulary 12
20% 10%
Technical Grammar 2 10%

Technical Vocabulary 2
General General Technical Technical
No Answer 3 Grammar Vocabulary Grammar Vocabulary
Inappropriate 11

Figure (27) the Feature in the Forth Position

The percentages of frequency of every feature show that the overall scheme of the
features urgently needed is firstly, Technical grammar; secondly, technical vocabulary;
thirdly, general grammar and fourthly general vocabulary. These results back the learners’
choice in the previous question. They emphasize that the learners need more technical English
than General English features.

A possible interpretation of the three questions we asked ranging from question (k)
to question (m) would be that the learners have a background in the general features of
English which they feel dissatisfied about. In addition to that, their urgent need lies in the
technical English of their field. Dudley-Evans and St John (1998: 138) explain what the needs
analyst should do in such cases, they maintain that: «A characteristic of ESP situations is
limited time, and needs will invariably exceed the available time, so the analysis must help in
selection and prioritisation».

n. Which activities help you improve your English mastery skills?

Asking the learners to suggest the activities that may enhance their skills’ mastery is
also relevant to their needs. It shows «how the learners learn» (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987:
62) and what methodology is the most convenient, satisfying and appealing to them. Let us
consider the results displayed in Figure (28) on the next page.

49
Homework 5
50%
Individual work 8

Pair-work 4 11% 17% 13%

9%
Whole-class work 6

Group-work 23 Homework Individual Pair-work Whole-class Group

work work work
No Answer 2

Figure (28) the Activities Improving the Skills’ Mastery

We can see in the graph that 50% of the learners claim that group work is most
suitable to learn the language. This very important rate is most likely due to the fact that this
type of activity (group work and whole-class work) helps in concealing the learners’
individual mistakes. The rest of the activities were also considered helpful but with lesser
degrees.

o. What pedagogical facilities and aids does the learning context provide?

Investigating the pedagogical facilities falls in the purpose of identifying the sources
available for the learners to achieve their needs (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987: 63). Figure 28
exhibits:

Audio-visuals 18 56%
44%
Workshops 14

No Answer 5 Audio-visuals Workshops

Figure (29) The Available Pedagogical Facilities

The learning context as the graph shows provides the learners with audio-visuals
more frequently than workshops. Audio-visual aids are also used within the methodology of
the learners’ disciplines. This is undoubtedly logical given that ESP «makes use of the

50
underlying methodology and activities of the disciplines it serves» (Dudley-Evans & St John,
1998: 4).

p. Can audio visual aids help you learn EOI?

This question tries to check the learners’ satisfaction about the pedagogical facilities
available to them.

90%
Yes 27
10%
No 3

No Answer 4 Yes No

Figure (30) The Usefulness of Visual Aids According to the Learners

The results displayed in the figure show that 90% of the learners prefer audio-visuals
to achieve their language needs, while only 10% feel they do not help. It goes without saying
that the learners’ votes display their awareness of the great magnitude and contribution of
these aids in meeting their needs.

q. According to you, what objectives the oil industry course should achieve?

Gathering data related to the objectives that the EOI course should achieve is the
most important point we wished to investigate within this questionnaire. Our purpose in
asking this question was to give the learners the chance to express their expectations on the
course without any limitation, and below are the learners’ answers; they are reproduced
verbatim:

 Pour garde une function pour l’avenir

 More english
 English language can help in work
 Writing reports and articles
 Can use in written reports and articles and the speak with oil companys
 In the rapports and in speaking in other company
 more science
 to take a good job in the future
 to know mor of the most technic of word industry
 to knew the most technic of word industry/to take a good job in the futur
 for talking with peopole of rig and who we can duccisan for give we eidn to
peopole to work

51
  Audio-visual course
 it’s very important actualy we must know it
 for me, I need to inderstand in menimale the key of my specialty like exemple,
and how do the dyaloge weth my frindes
 it can help me to know technical English
 learning the industri language
 19 No Answer

We have tried to interpret the learners’ views on the objectives although some of
their replies were irrelevant and extraneous to the question. Here, we felt the «dangers in
interpreting data» that Dudley-Evans and St John (1998: 138) emphasize and pinpoint out as
one of the questionnaire limitations. The interpretation we can deduce is that the majority of
the views appear to ponder more on: the ability to speak, write, and understand technical
vocabulary.

Although this may not be a representative example of their writings, the learners
seemingly have many problems in expressing their wants. We have noticed three problems so
far: the problem of language transfer (from French to English), the problem of orthography,
and sentence formation. We believe that the test will confirm these lacks and provide a better
account.

We will turn now to the interpretation of ‘No Answer’ issue that we noticed in many
questions of this questionnaire. It is purposefully deferred in order not to hamper the essential
data we are trying to gather within our investigation. Nevertheless this point does also provide
information that is no less important regarding the learners’ lacks. In every question except
the questions (a), (f), (i), and (k) there is always a percentage of learners who did not answer
the question or did answer the question but inappropriately. We will first deal with the first
category, that is, those who left the questions empty. Lynch (1996: 134) advances: «The
questionnaire format is more likely to result in incomplete data. Respondents will fail to
answer certain questions, for a variety of reasons».

A possible reason for the learners’ failings in answering the questions may be related
to time, boredom, or fatigue. Dudley-Evans and St John believe that «striking balance
between enough answers and data, and time/boredom for respondents is difficult» (1998:
133).

Another possible reason may be the learners’ inability to understand the questions.
we believe that this is mostly the case because during the questionnaire administration, we

52
 were consulted many times to clarify the meaning of some questions, some learners even
asked for assistance through the whole questionnaire since they were unable to understand the
type of input they need to submit. We believe that these reasons are also relevant to the
second category of learners, that is, those who answered inappropriately. We mean by
inappropriately that the learners either ranked instead of ticking their choices, or their
answers were irrelevant to the question.

1.4. The Analysis of the Teachers’ Structured Interview

1.4.1. The Interview Results
Issues Teacher A Teacher B
Pre-service Training in teaching
English as a second or foreign Yes Yes
language
Meetings, public
the context of learners’ English use Meetings, office
conferences, workshops
Who the learners will use English Both native and non-native Both native and non-
with speakers of English native speakers of English
Face to face conversations,
The Channel of use Written and oral
written reports and articles
The Frequency of Use Often Often
The skills the learners will need
All the skills Speaking, reading
most
The ranking scheme of the skills Speaking, listening, writing, Speaking, reading,
from most important to the least reading writing, listening
The Skills the Learners are Speaking, writing, listening,
Speaking
Deficient in reading
Managing work
Written reports and
The Activities That the Skills Help conversations, written reports
articles
and articles
General Grammar and Vocabulary
yes yes
are important for the learners
Technical grammar, General grammar,
The learners are proficient in
technical vocabulary general vocabulary
General grammar, general General grammar,
What The Learners Urgently need
vocabulary general vocabulary
The Materials Appropriate for the
Authentic Simplified
Learners
The activities that Improve the Homework , whole-class
Individual work
Learners Language Mastery work
Workshops, audio-
The pedagogical Facilities Available Audio-visuals
visuals
Audio-visuals can help learning Yes Yes

53
 Have to know the
vocabulary of Oil Industry
How to make reporting
How to make a CV and to know how write
motivation letter report
The Objectives that the Oil Industry
How to discuss and how to to do interview with
Course Should Achieve
make briefing company
Safety meetings
Interview
How to write reports.

Table (3) The Teachers Replies to The Interview Questions

1.4.2. Interpretation of the Results

a. The contexts of the learners’ future language use

When asked about the learners’ future language use contexts, both teachers maintained
that they will use English in meetings, but Teacher (A) added public conferences to the
human contexts and workshops to the physical contexts, whereas teacher B added only the
office to the physical contexts. It appears from the teachers views that all these contexts are
possible for the learners’ future language use. They were also highlighted by the learners in
the questionnaire which backs up their claim and gives us a more certain idea about the
situations the learners will handle.

b. Who the learners will use English with?

Where the language is used is not enough to decide upon the objectives of the course,
therefore we assumed it is important to know with whom the learners will use English. If the
learners will deal with NS only, then they will have to attain a certain level that is higher than
the one they need to deal with NNS only. Although the teachers emphasize the point that the
learners may use English with both speakers, what is most probable to happen is that non
native speakers of English are today larger than native speakers in number which raises the
chances of NNS-NNS interactions in contrast to NS-NNS ones (Feak, 2013: 36).

c. What is the channel of the learners’ language use and how often will
they use it?

Both teachers emphasized that the learners will use English in the written and spoken
mode which matches logically the contexts of use that they already mentioned. They also

54
stated that the learners will possibly use English often. Their views match the learners’ votes
in the questionnaire. The match between the teachers and the learners’ opinions sets our
findings about the target situation on a stronger foundation.

d. Which skill the learners will need most in their field?

According to Hutchinson and Waters (1987: 60) the answer to the question: «what
does the expert communicator need to know in order to function effectively in this situation?...
may be recorded in terms of language items, skills, strategies, subject knowledge, etc»;
therefore, we chose to ask the teachers about the skills mostly needed in the field.

Teacher A claimed that all the skills are needed, whereas teacher B pinpointed only
Speaking and Reading. A possible interpretation for the teachers’ different views may be that
each of them has his own perception, Hutchinson and Waters (1987: 56) believe that:
«perception may vary according to one’s standing point», which makes both views relevant
and important.

e. The Skills Ranks According to Their Importance to EOI

Both teachers consider Speaking as the most important skill for the learners of EOI;
they also ranked Writing in the third position. But they did not agree related to position of the
Listening and Reading skills which may be related to their views as teachers and as subject
specialists who have experienced the work demands differently.

f. The Skill The learners Are Mostly Deficient in

Teacher B ranked Speaking as the foremost and only skill where the learners
encounter difficulties, whereas teacher A claimed that the learners have lacks with all the
skills but with different degrees. Therefore, he ranked them from the most difficult to the
least. What we can deduce from this is that Speaking is the central part of the learners lacks,
since the learners too indicated that in the questionnaire.

g. In what activities does the proficiency in these skills can help?

The teachers within this question held that the learners will need to manage work
conversations and to write reports and articles in English, but they highlighted the importance
of the second activity in comparison with the first. These activities are also the ones the

55
learners highly voted for in the questionnaire which emphasizes the role of the Speaking and
Writing skills in EOI.

h. Are general grammar and general vocabulary prerequisites for the oil
industry course?

Within this question, both teachers agreed on the importance of the general features
of English to the OI field, and one of them said that they help the reporting activity of the
learners. Here again, we notice the importance of the writing skill in the learners field.

i. In which of the following are the learners proficient? General

grammar, general vocabulary, technical grammar, or technical
vocabulary?

Here the views of the teachers mismatched; teacher A said that the learners are
proficient in technical grammar and vocabulary, while teacher B said that they are proficient
in general grammar and vocabulary. A possible interpretation of the teachers’ incompatible
views may be that teacher B was the learners’ first teacher and he has been teaching them the
general features since they were beginners; therefore, he believes they know them, and that
teacher B is their current teacher, teaching them the technical features of the language, which
also influenced him to believe that they know more technical grammar and vocabulary. What
strengthens our interpretation is that teacher A said: «they must know» which means that he is
very sure of their competences in technical English.

j.Which of the following do you think the learners need urgently

Both teachers agreed that the learners need urgently the general features of English.
But their views diverge from the learners’ who advanced that they mostly need technical
vocabulary and technical grammar. According to Hutchinson and Waters (1987), this
situation may happen, they say «it is quite possible that the learners’ views will conflict with
perceptions of the other interested parties: course designers, sponsors, teachers». They claim
that the course designer will have to bring both views together in a satisfactory compromise»
(Ibid: 56-60).

k. Which type of materials do you think is appropriate for the learners?

Teacher A favors authentic materials however he claimed that he uses both types,
whereas, teacher B believes that simplified materials go better with the learners’ level. This

56
may again be interpreted by the fact that each teacher has his own opinions on the learning
materials.

l. Which activities help the learners improve their language mastery?

Teacher A believes in the usefulness of homework and whole class-work in

improving the learners’ language mastery, whereas teacher B believes individual work is
more efficient.

m. What pedagogical facilities and aids does the learning context

provide?

According to Hutchinson and Waters (1987: 62):«The target situation analysis can
determine the destination; it can also act as a compass on the journey to give general
direction, but we must choose our route according to the vehicles and guides available (i.e.
the conditions of the learning situation) », for this reason, we asked the teachers to describe
the learning aids available to them.

Both teachers advance that workshops and audio visuals aids are available. They
were positive about the effectiveness of audio-visuals in enhancing the learning of English,
but they did not agree on the best tool because each of them has his own teaching method that
he sees better to mirror the learners’ needs.

n. According to you what objectives the Oil Industry course should

achieve?

The teachers list of the course should-be objectives is quite similar to the learners’ list
in the questionnaire, but does not match completely the ones stated in the learning materials’
document. This latter objectives emphasize the «ability to read, speak, and write English»
(Hachemi, January 2009: 01), but the teachers emphasize the Speaking and Writing skills. We
also noticed that the teachers mentioned carrying interviews, writing CVs and Motivation
letters among the objectives, which actually were never dealt with in the material.

57
 1.5. The Test Results Analysis

Learner (A) 13,25

Learner (B) 12,25
Learner (C) 12
Learner (D) 11,75
Learner (E) 11,75
Learner (F) 11,75
Learner (G) 10,75
Learner (H) 10,5
Learner (I) 10,5
Learner (J) 10,25
Learner (K) 10
Learner (L) 9,75
Learner (M) 9,50
Learner (N) 8
10 Learners Cheated

10 Learners Absent
Table (4) The Learners’ Scores

We can notice from the table that 3 learners did not reach the average of 10 and that
the other 11 learners were not very different from each other in the scores. The top grade is
13, 75 out of 20 whereas the bottom grade is 8 out of 20. It appears that the learners are of
average level in Reading, Grammar and Writing.

1.5.1. The Reading Comprehension Section

Within this section, our purpose was to see how much the learners are able to
understand the texts of their field. The text was different from what they usually deal with
since it was extracted from an authentic source. The first activity checks the learners’ ability
to recall what has been said about the fishing operations; what is true, what is not true and
what is not given about these operations. The second activity of the Reading comprehension
does the same thing as the first, but the third asks the learners to link the questions to the most

58
important ideas found in the text. The purpose here is to check the learners’ use of the
Reading techniques. The table on the next page summarizes the scores within this section.

4 Learners 6,5/ 6,5

4 Learners 6/ 6,5
4 Learners 5,5/ 6,5
One Learner 5/ 6,5
One Learner 3/ 6,5

Table (5) The Reading Comprehension Scores

The complete score in this section should be 6, 5 / 6, 5. Within the learners’ answers,
it appears that the majority of the learners nearly got 6,5 which means that the learners ability
to read and understand texts of their field is very acceptable, given that they are mostly
acquainted with the simplified type of materials.

1.5.2. The Grammar Section

5,25/8,5 2 Learners

6,75/8,5 1 Learner
5,75/ 8,5 2 Learners

4,5/ 8,5 1 Learner

6/8,5 1 Learner
4/8,5 2 Learners

4,75/8,5 3 Learners

5/8,5 2 Learners

Table (6) The Grammar Section Scores

59
 Within the grammar section, we included a fill-in-the-gaps activity to observe the
learners’ ability to identify the missing vocabulary items in the extracted text. We also
included two activities that test the learners’ ability to write sentences in the passive voice,
and sentences where they can use adverbs of frequency, since the manipulation of these items
is very essential in scientific texts. The table above records the learners scores in the grammar
section. It shows that none of the learners could get the complete grade of 8, 5.

When we analyzed each activity separately, we noticed that 9 learners out of 14 got
the first activity right. This means that the majority of the learners are able to recognize
technical vocabulary which backs up the learners’ results in the reading comprehension
activities.

In the second activity, we asked the learners to reformulate three sentences into the
passive voice. Here the learners were successful with some mistakes of tense conjugation.

The activity in which most learners failed was the one in which they were asked to
write sentences on their own. The question was that they should write three sentences in
which they use the adverbs provided to them. We noticed from the learners’ answers that 8
learners out of 14 were able to understand the meaning and use of each adverb but their
sentences were not syntactically well organized or else not complete. Here we can deduce that
the learners know the meaning of the lexical items, but they cannot use them in the form of a
sentence since they do not know the function of each item. We have also noticed that four
learners took sentences from the text which shows their limited competence in generating
sentences. This appears as well in those who did not even try, which shows their desperation
in creating new sentences.

1.5.3. The Writing Section

11 learners 0

3 Learners Did not answer

Table (7) The Writing Section Scores

Within this section, none of the learners were able to write a coherent paragraph.
The majority of them wrote the topic sentences of the text’s paragraphs. This means that they
were able to grasp the key ideas of the text but unable to express them without referring to the

60
 text. It shows that the learners were most of the time exposed to texts of their field to read and
understand, but they were not asked to write summaries or texts of their own or if asked, their
writings were not subject to correction and feedback. Also, we could not record any use of
writing strategies or cohesive devices which also emphasizes that the learners are unable to
write in English.

1.6. Conclusion

The Course objectives’ statement:

Reading
speaking
The aim of this course is to help to
develop the ability to read, speak, and
write English as it is used in the
petroleum industry. The course also aims writing
to deal directly with descriptive technical
English used in the major areas of
activity in petroleum technology

Good EOI mastrey

Figure (31) The Course Objectives According to the Materials

3. The learner by the end of the

course should be able to read and
understand texts of average difficulty Reading
Grammar
in his field
4. He should be able to make the
difference between a sentence in the writing
passive voice and one in the active
5. He also should be able to use
easily the common grammatical
features of oil industry texts and
further be able to use them in a well Good EOI mastery
structured paragraph of his own.

Figure (32) The Course Objectives According to The Materials’ Analysis

61
 According to the statement of objectives that we can see in figure (31), the course
aims at building good language mastery by emphasizing the Reading, the Speaking, and the
Writing skills, but the analysis of the materials in figure (32) shows things differently. It
shows first that the Speaking skill was not included. This is the case, because we were not
able to find any Speaking task where the learners can practice Speaking. The negotiation of
the learners on the Reading comprehension questions alone cannot be enough to say that the
learners practice Speaking in the EOI class, there must be something indicating that in the
materials.

The absence of the Speaking skill was the first point we could notice against the
course objectives, even before checking whether they match the objectives collected from the
other sources of our enquiry. We mean here that the objectives do not match the materials in
the first place.

Moving to the other skills that our analysis revealed, we noticed that Reading
comprehension, technical vocabulary and grammar were given more importance than Writing.
(See bigger circles in Fig 32 if compared to those in Fig 31)

The aim of the course according to the list of objectives we included in figure (32)
are most likely to introduce the learners to the English of their field. It does not provide the
language as it is used, because the materials seem to be simplified in comparison with what
may be found in authentic texts. Our claim that the texts have been designed to go in line with
learners of a limited level became stronger when we did not find the sources of the texts
credited in the document. We also have to remember that the learners have been learning EOI
for four years and that their learning level should be advanced by the time of their graduation
which must appear in the learning materials.

The questionnaire findings will be the focus of what follows of our discussion. We
will compare the materials analysis findings with the learners’ needs.

62
 Learners of MAPG who have been Learning EOI for four
Who?
years now

What do they need urgently Technical vocabulary, technical grammar, speaking, and
in EOI? writing.

To manage work conversations and write work reports and

To Do What?
articles

Where will they use EOI? In Workshops and Public Conferences

With Whom? Native speakers and non native speakers of English

How? spoken and written mode

How often? Often

How many hours? 6 hours

What do they know? General grammar and general vocabulary

What can help them? Group work and individual work

What is available? Audio-visuals

Does it help? Yes

 They should be able to carry work conversations without

any problems
What should be the
 They should be able to write work reports and articles
objectives?
 They should be able to understand the technical
vocabulary of OI

63
 Table (8) The Learners’ Needs Summary

According to the results, the learners need English to manage work conversations, to
carry oral presentations, and to write work reports. These activities demand the manipulation
of the speaking and writing skills. These in turn demand a rich background on the technical
vocabulary and grammar structures related to EOI.

Concerning the learners’ lacks, the results emphasize that the learners feel mostly
deficient in the technical aspects of English.

If we compare these findings with the course objectives that we recorded in the
materials, we can sort out the results in the following figure.

The course The Learner'

Objectives Needs

Figure (33) The Comparison Between The Learners’ Needs and The Materials Objectives

The course objectives do not focus on the Speaking skill. They focus instead on
Reading which is less needed by the learners. It does not provide enough opportunities for
Writing nor does it satisfy the learners on the technical vocabulary and grammar structures,
because the learners still indicate that they have deficiencies with them.

64
 The interview results collected from the teachers emphasize the same results. They can
be summarized in the following points:

 The learners need to be competent speakers and writers of EOI. .

 They need the four skills to improve their lacks.
 They need both the technical and general features of English to fill the gaps of
their competences.

The points included in the list do not show big differences in comparison with the
learners’ views. They emphasize the significance of the four skills and both the general and
technical features in the mastery of EOI. If we consider the teachers’ view as well, we would
also feel that the course objectives do not match the learners’ needs nor do they match the
target situation demands.

To confirm these findings, we need to use the test results. The test revealed two main
points. First, it has shown that the learners have acceptable Reading comprehension abilities.
Second, it has shown that the learners are not able to write sentences or paragraphs in English.
Their competence on EOI is loaded with separate technical vocabulary items and some
grammatical forms linked to them, but, they cannot link these items in a sentence or a
paragraph chain. This is a logical result when the focus of the teachers falls solely on the
technical vocabulary.

The findings of this test have to a great extent depicted what the learners do in the EOI
classroom. They have shown that the learners read texts which have the only role of creating a
context for the vocabulary items that the teachers want understood and memorized. Once they
answer the reading comprehension questions, the learners solve the grammar section
activities. They speak little and write less in the EOI class.

The Writing tasks that we noticed in the materials were limited to writing paragraphs;
whereas, the learners, so as their views indicate in the questionnaire, will be more possibly
engaged in Writing whole reports and articles which shows that the course gives the learners
little if any of their needs in Writing.

65
 General Conclusion

In this thesis, we set ourselves up with the task of evaluating the course of EOI
designed for first year MAPG learners studying at KMUO. This task rose important issues:
Does the EOI course designed for first year Master Petroleum Geology (MAPG) learners
achieve the designers’ objectives? Does it meet the needs of the learners? What are its
strengths and weaknesses and how could the weaknesses be overcome?

To discuss these issues, we set our hypotheses on the assumption that the
aforementioned course may not succeed in concretizing these objectives. We also
hypothesized that if it does achieve anything, it may not cover all the objectives or else it may
be providing something the learners do not urgently need. We were brought to draw these
hypotheses mainly because the designers never elaborated a needs analysis before embarking
in the design.

To investigate these avenues, we have based our selected methods on specific criteria
namely data type, available time and population circumstances (i.e. the sample of learners and
teachers was too small, and the teachers’ strike (April/May 2013) did not allow classroom
observations). Furthermore, we draw an action plan made up of four steps: analyzing the
materials document; administering a questionnaire to the learners (to collect the
appropriate data); administering a structured interview to the teachers (to make data
comparable and amenable to analysis) and a test to the learners (to minimize bias in drawing
our results).

The analysis of the materials revealed the objectives of the designers, that is, the
standards the course was set to meet at the end of the learning experience. But since these
may not be the true needs of the learners, we opted for the questionnaire and the interview.
These tools gave us an updated picture on the learners’ needs from two different sources: that
of the learners and that of the teachers. Again, these alone were not satisfactory; consequently,
we saw that a test will also have a powerful word to say about these objectives and needs,
therefore, we administered the test taking into consideration how the learners are being
taught, yet without losing the purpose of depicting how the learners will do if they were

66
parachuted in an authentic situation. The answers we collected resulted in an array of facts
highlighted in what follows.

The EOI course, so as the quantitative and qualitative data revealed, does not meet
all the designers’ objectives. It focuses on the reading skill, the technical vocabulary, and the
grammar structures commonly used in the EOI texts; nevertheless, it neglects the speaking
and writing skills which were respectively stated among the course objectives.

Along the same line, the learners’ needs are not equally addressed. As a matter of
fact, the course fails to tackle the speaking and writing skills satisfactorily. These have been
proved by the teachers to be the essence of the learners’ future language endeavors. The
learners, likewise, emphasized strongly that they will need to manage work conversations
within meetings and public conferences. They also expressed the need for reports and articles’
writing skills to which the course does not provide enough materials or time, since its
concentration falls solely on the items we mentioned earlier (reading, vocabulary, and
grammar). The Learners, thus, cannot express themselves fluently in writing, which we
believe is also the case with speaking. Their linguistic competences appear to be loaded with
lexical items and grammatical structures which they memorize mechanically and which will
be of no use when faced with a blank page or when supposed to give an oral presentation to a
highly professional audience.

The course profile according to its materials does not allow the learners to practice
speaking in class; it limits their speaking participations to the infinitesimal negotiations they
may intermittently deal with in the reading comprehension phase. Also the writing tasks are
limited to paragraph writing, which is most likely different from what the learners will do,
considering their very much emphasized views in relation to the target situation.

The weaknesses of the course so far as our discussion has explained can be
summarized in three points: giving the learners less than their expectations (speaking and
writing), concentrating on things that are accessory and inconsequential in comparison with
the learners’ imperative and pressing needs (reading), and even failing in doing this latter
appropriately (e.g. the learners’ competence in vocabulary use does not reach even half their
competence in vocabulary recognition).

These weaknesses according to our findings confirm our hypothesis highlighting the
consequences of disregarding a needs analysis before designing the course. They all signal

67
that if these facts were taken into consideration before, the course evaluation would have
different results.

As to the strengths of the course, we have noticed that the learners have good
capacities of vocabulary recognition. They also do not encounter difficulties in reading
comprehension (we noticed in the learners copies some hints of reading techniques e.g.
identifying paragraphs by indentation), although the materials we presented to them were
authentic in contrast to the simplified ones they are acquainted with. We have also noticed
how the learners maintain an acceptable knowledge of the grammatical structures recurrently
associated with scientific texts.

This being said, we are now in front of the secondary task of our agenda: in what ways
can the situation be improved? What could be done to narrow down the weaknesses and
amplify the strengths?

Firstly, we believe that a needs analysis ought to be elaborated to check the changes
in the learners’ needs and the target situation demands. The application of needs analysis will
guarantee the match between the learners’ needs, the designers’ objectives, and the learning
outcomes. We believe that repeated analysis will result in a kind of a common ground that
will call for little modifications in the future. We also think that working in the cyclical
process of needs analysis, design, implementation, and evaluation will have its role in
expanding the benefits of the course and consequently accomplishing success.

Our emphasis on the application of a new needs analysis comes also from the
dissatisfaction with the generalizability of our findings especially that our teachers and
learners’ sample was too small. Therefore, we highly recommend the replication of the study
on a larger sample.

Another benefit that the needs analysis will bring to the course is the aspect of
involving the learners, the teachers, and the subject specialists within a common process,
which we believe will also unequivocally contribute in boosting up motivation and
enthusiasm into the learning experience.

Secondly, the weaknesses can be overcome if the course is modified taking into
consideration the facilities available in the learning context. Here we know that analyzing the
learners’ needs entails analyzing the learning needs, but we preferred to mention this as a
second solution to raise the awareness towards the possibilities that are available and that do

68
not need large financial budgets or efforts to get fruitful results. We have learnt from the
learners and teachers that they can use audio-visuals if they desired. We have also recorded
their positive attitudes towards their usefulness. This can improve the learning materials
especially that technology nowadays has proved efficient in teaching and learning.

The course can also be modified regarding the activities the learners feel mostly
comfortable with. Our study has shown that the learners prefer group work and whole class
work. These small things that are sometimes disregarded and overlooked can have mammoth
effects on the learning process. They can turn a frustrating ‘drudgery’ experience into an
exciting, enjoyable and motivating one where both the teachers and learners work in
harmony.

What we believe to be most important as a final comment on the study findings is

that there must be some considerable and serious attention given to the programs of ESP in
the fields where these programs are new. Since they are no less important than the subjects
the learners receive in the course of their higher education studies. We recommend the
establishment of course designs following the ESP course design ethics, approaches, and
parameters.

69
 Bibliography

 Beretta, A., & Alderson, C. J. (1992). Guidelines for The Evaluation of Language
Education. In Evaluating Second Language Education (pp.274-304). CUP.
 Dubin, F., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Course Design: Developing Programs and
Materials for Language Learning. CUP.
 Dudley-Evan, T., & St John. M. J. (1998).Needs analysis and Evaluation. In
Developments in English for Specific Purposes: A Multi-disciplinary Approach
(pp.121- 144). CUP.
 Graves, K. (1996). A Framework of course development processes. In Teachers as
Course Developers (pp.12-38). CUP.
 Hedge, T. (2000). Listening. In Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom
(pp.227-257). OUP.
 Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). In English for Specific Purposes: A Learning-
centered Approach. CUP.
 Lynch, B. K. (1996). Historical Background. In Language Program Evaluation:
Theory and Practice (pp.12-40). CUP.
 Rea-Dickens, P., & Germaine. K. (1992). Explanation-The Principles of
Evaluation. In Evaluation (pp 3-22). OUP.
 Rea-Dickens, P., & Germaine. K. (1992). How can teachers evaluate their
classrooms? In Evaluation (pp. 56-75). OUP.
 Rea-Dickens, P., & Germaine. K. (1992). Purposes for Evaluation. In Evaluation
(pp. 23-55). OUP.

Webography

Electronic Books available at www.Bookos.org and at www.englishtips.org

 Basturkmen, H. (2006). Issues in ESP Course Design. Ideas and Options in English
for Specific Purposes (pp. 15-29). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 Basturkmen, H. (2010). Main Considerations in ESP Course Development. In
Developing Courses in English for Specific Purposes (pp.15-34). Palgrave
Macmillan.
 Beretta, A. (1990). Who Should Evaluate L2 Programmes? In Brumfit, C., &
Mitchell, R. (Ed.). Research in The Language Classroom (pp.155-160). Modern
English Publications and The British Council.
 Brown, D. J. (1995).Goals and Objectives. In The Elements of Language
Curriculum: A Systematic Approach to Program Development (pp.71- 107). Heinle
and Heinle publishers.
 Brown, D. J. (1995).Program Evaluation. In The Elements of Language
Curriculum: A Systematic Approach to Program Development (pp. 217-246).
Heinle and Heinle publishers.
 Brown, D. J. (2006). Second Language Curriculum Development. In Berns, M.
(2010). (Ed.). The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Elsevier.
 Dudley-Evans, T. (2001). English for Specific Purposes. in Carter. R., & Nunan, D.
(Ed.). The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages
(pp.131 -136). CUP.

70
 Dudley-Evans, T. (Nov 8th 1997). An Overview of ESP in the 1990s. In Orr, T. (Jan
31st 1998). (Ed.). The Japan Conference on English for Specific Purposes (pp 5 -
11). Aizu University: Japan.
 Ellis, M., & Johnson, C. (1994). Glossary. In Teaching Business English (pp. 221-
222).OUP.
 Finney, D. (2002). The ELT Curriculum: A Flexible Model for A Changing World.
In Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (Ed.). Methodology in Language Teaching:
An Anthology of Current Practice (pp. 69 -79). CUP.
 Frendo, E. (2005). Evaluating and Assessing. In How to Teach Business English
(pp.123-139). Pearson Education limited.
 Frendo, E. (2005).Designing a course. In How to Teach Business English (pp.32-
42). Pearson Education limited.
 Genesee, F. (2001). Evaluation. In Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (Ed.). The Cambridge
Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (pp.144-150). CUP.
 Graves, K. (2000). Designing an assessment plan. In Designing Language Courses:
A Guide for Teachers (pp.207-235). Heinle & Heinle.
 Hounsell, D. (2009). Evaluating Courses and Teaching. In Fry, H., & Ketteridge,
S., & Marshall, S. (Ed 3). A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education: Enhancing Academic Practice (pp.198- 211). Routledge.
 Hyland, K. (2006). Glossary. In English for Academic Purposes: An Advanced
Resource Book (311-317). Routledge.
 Hyland, K. (2009) Specific Purposes Programs. In Long, H. M., & Doughty, J. C.
(Ed.). The Handbook of Language Teaching. (pp201-217).Wiley-Blackwell.
 Johns, A. (2006). Pedagogy of Languages for Specific Purposes. In Berns, M.
(Ed.). (2010). The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 318- 323).
Elsevier
 Kim, D. (2008). English for Occupational Purposes: One Language?Continuum
 Muraskin, L. D. (1993). Introduction to Evaluation. In Understanding Evaluation:
The Way to Better Prevention Programs (pp.1-17). Westat: US.
 Nation, I. S. P., & Macalister, J. (2010). Evaluation. In Language Curriculum
Design: An Overview (pp.123-135). Routledge
 Norland, L. D., & Preutt-said, T. (2006). Academic and Professional Approaches
.In A Kaleidoscope of Models and Strategies for Teaching English to Speakers of
Other Languages (pp.41-68). Libraries Unlimited
 Nunan, D. (1989). Learning tasks and the language curriculum. In Designing Tasks
for the Communicative Classroom (pp. 5-21). CUP
 Nunan, D. (2004). Glossary. In Task-based Language Teaching (pp.212-217). CUP
 Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2013). The Handbook of English for Specific
Purposes. Wiley- Blackwell
 Rea-Dickins, P., & Kiely, R. (2005). Historical Perspectives: Focus on Design and
Method. In Program Evaluation in Language Education (pp. 17-36). Palgrave
Macmillan.
 Richards, C. J. (2001). Approaches to Evaluation. In Curriculum Development in
Language Teaching (pp. 286- 309). CUP.
 Richards, C. J., & Schmidt, R. (Ed.4). (2010). Longman Dictionary of Language
Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Pearson Education Limited.
 Ross, S. J. (2009). Program Evaluation. In Long, M. H., & Doughty, C. J. (Ed.).
The Handbook of Language Teaching (pp.756-778). Wiley-Blackwell.
 Short, J. A. (1983). Drilling: A Resource Book on Oil and Gas Well Drilling from
Exploration to Completion. Pennwell Books: Oklahoma

71
 Smoak, R. (April 2003). What is English for Specific Purposes. English Teaching
Forum. p22-27
 Weir, C., & Roberts, J. (1994). Evaluation of Second Language Projects and
Programmes: An Overview. In Evaluation in ELT (pp. 3-43). Blackwell.
 White, R. V. (1988). Approach, Design, Procedure. In The ELT Curriculum:
Design, Innovation and Management (pp.1-6). Wiley.
 Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Course design and methodology .In Learning Purpose
and Language Use (pp.80- 104). OUP
 Widdowson, H. G. (1983).Learning purpose. In Learning Purpose and Language
Use (pp. 5- 30). OUP
 Widdowson, H. G. (1984). Criteria for course design. In Explorations in Applied
Linguistics 2 (pp. 191-202). OUP.
 Widdowson, H. G. (1984).English for specific purposes. In Explorations in Applied
Linguistics 2 (pp. 188-190). OUP.

72
 Appendices

Appendix I: The Learners’ Questionnaire

73
74
 Appendix II: The Teachers’ Structured Interview Questions

1. Have you had a pre-service training in teaching English as a second/foreign language?

 Yes
 No
2. Where will the learners use English?
 Physical contexts:
 Office
 Workshops
 Conference rooms
 Human contexts:
 Colleagues
 Meetings
 Public conferences
3. Will the learners use English with:
 English native speakers
 Non-native speakers
 Both
4. What is the channel of their language use?
 Face to face conversations
 Oral presentations
 Written reports and articles
5. How often will the learners use English?
 Never
 Rarely
 Often
 Very often
6. Which skill do they use the most in the field of their language use?
 Listening
 Speaking
 Reading
 Writing
7. Please, rank the four skills from 1 to 4 according to their importance to the Oil Industry
learners?

75
  Listening
 Reading
 Speaking
 Writing
8. Which skill do you think the learners are mostly deficient in?
 Listening
 Reading
 Speaking
 Writing
9. In what activities does the proficiency in the skills above help? (more than one choice is
possible)
 Writing reports and articles
 Reading manuals and books
 Participating in oral presentations
 Managing work conversations
10. Are general vocabulary and grammar structures prerequisites for Oil Industry course?
 Yes
 No
11. In which of the following are the learners proficient?
 General grammar structures
 General vocabulary
 Technical grammar structures
 Technical vocabulary
12. Which of the following do the learners urgently need? (please rank from 1 to 4)
 General grammar structures
 General vocabulary
 Technical grammar structures
 Technical vocabulary
13. Which type of material is more appropriate to achieve the learners’ language needs?
 Authentic
 Simplified
14. Which activities help improve the learners’ English mastery?
 Homework
 Individual work

76
  Pair-work
 Whole-class-work
 Group-work
15. What pedagogical facilities and aids does the learning context provide?
 Audio-visuals
 workshops
16. Can audio-visual aids help the learning of English?
 Yes
 No
17. According to you, what objectives the Oil Industry course should achieve?

77
Appendix III: The Learners’ Test

78
79
 Abstract

Our motivation in bringing about this study was to investigate the English for the Oil Industry
course that MAPG learners received this semester (1st term, 2013). We intended to see how
effective and efficient it is in meeting their needs and the designers’ objectives. We
administered a questionnaire and a test to the 34 MAPG learners. We administered also an
interview to the two teachers of the course. The findings revealed a variety of facts; first, they
showed that the course focuses on the reading skill and the technical vocabulary of EOI. They
showed also that it does not give the speaking and writing skills their due importance and
emphasis within the learning materials. These skills, according to the needs analysis we
carried, appeared to be more relevant to the learners’ future language use. These findings led
us to conclude that the course should receive major changes related to the teaching materials,
the teaching methodology and the content and that considerable and serious attention must be
given to the programs of ESP in the fields where these programs are new. We recommend the
establishment of course designs following the ESP course design ethics, approaches, and
parameters.

Résumé

La motivation qui a présidé à l’avènement de cette recherche est le traitement du programme

de Géologie pétrolière de première année master (1er semestre, 2013). Nos intentions
concernent son efficacité et effectivité concernant leurs besoins des apprenants et ceux des
créateurs du programme. Nous avons développé un questionnaire et une interview dans
lesquels nous avons collecté les opinions de deux (2) professeurs et de trente-quatre (34)
étudiants. Dans le même but, nous avons aussi soumis un test aux étudiants. Les résultats de
ces derniers ont révélé plusieurs aperçus sur la réalité du programme. En premier lieu, ils ont
désigné l’importance prépondérante qu’ils octroient aux vocabulaires techniques et aux
capacités des étudiants de lire des textes d’Anglais de GP. Cependant une négligence sérieuse
de l’oral et de l’écrit a été décelée alors que notre analyse des besoins a indiqué que ces deux
domaines constituent les besoins primordiaux des étudiants. Ces données nous ont amené à
conclure que le programme doit recevoir des modifications majeures relatives aux supports,
méthodologie, et contenu d’enseignement et qu’une attention vitale doit être accordée aux
programmes de l’ESP notamment dans les domaines ou ceux-ci sont nouveaux. Nous
préconisons des programmes strictement établis selon les éthiques, les approches et le
paramètres de l’ESP.

80
 ‫ﻣﻠﺨﺺ‬

‫ﻛﺎﻧ ﺖ دواﻓﻌﻨ ﺎ ﻓ ﻲ إﺟ ﺮاء ھ ﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳ ﺔ ان ﻧﻘ ﻮم ﺑﺘﻘﯿ ﯿﻢ اﻟﺒﺮﻧ ﺎﻣﺞ اﻟﺒﯿ ﺪاﻏﻮﺟﻲ ﻟﻠﻐ ﺔ اﻻﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾ ﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﺨﺼﺼ ﺔ ﻓ ﻲ ﻣﯿ ﺪان‬
‫اﻟﺒﺘﺮوﻟﯿ ﺔ و اﻟ ﺬي ﺗ ﻢ ﺗﻄﺒﯿﻘ ﮫ ﻣ ﻊ دﻓﻌ ﮫ اﻟﺴ ﻨﺔ اﻷوﻟ ﻰ ﻣﺎﺳ ﺘﺮﺧﻼل اﻟﺴﺪاﺳ ﻲ اﻟﻔﺎﺋ ﺖ ‪.‬ﻛ ﺎن ﻏﺮﺿ ﻨﺎ ﯾﺘﻤﺤ ﻮر ﺣ ﻮل‬ ‫اﻟﺠﯿﻮﻟﻮﺟﯿ ﺎ‬
‫إﻟﻘ ﺎء اﻟﻀ ﻮء ﻋﻠ ﻰ ﻣ ﺪى ﻓﺎﻋﻠﯿ ﺔ و ﻧﺠﺎﻋ ﺔ ھ ﺬا اﻟﺒﺮﻧ ﺎﻣﺞ ﻓ ﻲ ﺗﻠﺒﯿ ﮫ اﻻﺣﺘﯿﺎﺟ ﺎت اﻟﺒﯿﺪاﻏﻮﺟﯿ ﮫ ﻟﮭ ﺬه اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋ ﺔ و أﯾﻀ ﺎً ﻣ ﺪى‬
‫ﻓﺎﻋﻠﯿﺘ ﮫ ﻓ ﻲ ﺗﻠﺒﯿ ﺔ اﻷھ ﺪاف اﻟﺘ ﻲ ﺳ ﻄﺮھﺎ ﻣﻨﻈﻤ ﻮ اﻟﺒﺮﻧ ﺎﻣﺞ ‪.‬آﺧ ﺬﯾﻦ ھ ﺬه اﻟ ﺪواﻓﻊ ﺑﻌ ﯿﻦ اﻻﻋﺘﺒ ﺎر‪ ،‬ﻗﻤﻨ ﺎ ﺑﺘﻘ ﺪﯾﻢ اﺳ ﺘﺠﻮاب ﻟﻠﻼرﺑ ﻊ و‬
‫ﺛﻼﺛ ﯿﻦ ﻃﺎﻟ ﺐ اﻟﻠ ﺬﯾﻦ ﯾﮭﻤﮭ ﻢ اﻟﺒﺮﻧ ﺎﻣﺞ و ﻗﻤﻨ ﺎ أﯾﻀ ﺎ ﺑ ﺈﺟﺮاء ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻠ ﮫ ﺷ ﻔﻮﯾﺔ ﻣ ﻊ اﻟﻤ ﺆﻃﺮﯾﻦ اﻻﺛﻨ ﯿﻦ اﻟﻤﻜﻠﻔ ﯿﻦ ﺑﺘﻄﺒﯿ ﻖ ھ ﺬا‬
‫اﻟﺒﺮﻧ ﺎﻣﺞ ‪.‬أﻇﮭ ﺮت اﻟﻨﺘ ﺎﺋﺞ ﺣﻘ ﺎﺋﻖ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔ ﺔ ‪:‬أوﻟﮭ ﺎ أن اﻟﺒﺮﻧ ﺎﻣﺞ ﯾﺮﻛ ﺰ ﻋﻠ ﻰ ﻣﮭ ﺎرة اﻟﻘ ﺮاءة و ﻋﻠ ﻰ اﻟﻤﺼ ﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻟﺘﻘﻨﯿ ﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘ ﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻤﯿ ﺪان اﻟﺠﯿﻮﻟﻮﺟﯿ ﺎ اﻟﺒﺘﺮوﻟﯿ ﺔ و أﻇﮭ ﺮت أﯾﻀ ﺎً ان اﻟﺒﺮﻧ ﺎﻣﺞ ﻻ ﯾﺮﻛ ﺰ ﻋﻠ ﻰ ﻣﮭ ﺎرات اﻟﻤﺤﺎدﺛ ﺔ و اﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑ ﺔ و ﻻ ﯾﻌﻄﯿﮭ ﺎ ﺣﻘﮭ ﺎ ﻓ ﻲ‬
‫اﻟﻠﻮاﺣ ﻖ اﻟﺒﯿﺪاﻏﻮﺟﯿ ﮫ أﻟﻤﺴ ﺎﻋﺪه ‪.‬اﻟﺘﺮﻛﯿ ﺰ ﻋﻠ ﻰ ھ ﺬه اﻟﻤﮭ ﺎرات اﻟﻤﮭﻤﺸ ﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻃﺒﻘ ﺎ ﻟﻤ ﺎ أﻇﮭ ﺮه ﺗﺤﻠﯿ ﻞ اﻻﺣﺘﯿﺎﺟ ﺎت‪ ،‬ﯾﺒ ﺪو أﻛﺜ ﺮ أھﻤﯿ ﮫ‬
‫و أﻛﺜ ﺮ ﻣﺤﺎﻛ ﺎة ﻟﻤ ﺎ ﯾﺘﻄﻠﺒ ﮫ ﻣﯿ ﺪان اﻟﻄﻠﺒ ﺔ ﻓ ﻲ ﻣﺠ ﺎل ﻋﻤﻠﮭ ﻢ ‪.‬ھ ﺬه اﻟﻨﺘ ﺎﺋﺞ و أﺧ ﺮى ﻟ ﻢ ﻧ ﺬﻛﺮھﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻔﺼ ﯿﻞ ھﻨ ﺎ أدت ﺑﻨ ﺎ إﻟ ﻰ‬
‫اﻻﺳ ﺘﻨﺘﺎج ان اﻟﺒﺮﻧ ﺎﻣﺞ ﯾﺠ ﺐ ان ﯾﺘﻠﻘ ﻰ ﺗﻐﯿﯿ ﺮات ﺟﻮھﺮﯾ ﮫ ﻓ ﻲ ﻣ ﺎ ﯾﺘﻌﻠ ﻖ ﺑ ﺎﻟﻠﻮاﺣﻖ اﻟﺒﯿﺪاﻏﻮﺟﯿ ﮫ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﺘ ﻮى اﻟﺒﺮﻧ ﺎﻣﺞ‪ ،‬و ﻣﻨﮭﺠﯿ ﮫ‬
‫ﺗﺪرﯾﺴ ﮫ ‪ .‬ﯾﺠ ﺐ ﺗﻮﻟﯿ ﮫ أھﻤﯿ ﮫ ﺑﺎﻟﻐ ﮫ ﻟﮭ ﺬا اﻟﺒﺮﻧ ﺎﻣﺞ و ﺟﻤﯿ ﻊ ﺑ ﺮاﻣﺞ اﻟﻠﻐ ﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﺨﺼﺼ ﺔ ﻓ ﻲ اﻟﻤﺠ ﺎﻻت اﻟﺘ ﻲ ﺗﻜ ﻮن ﻓﯿﮭ ﺎ ھ ﺬه‬
‫ﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﺨﺼﺼ‬ ‫ﺎدئ اﻟﻠﻐ‬ ‫ﺎھﺞ و ﻣﺒ‬ ‫ﺪ ﻣﻨ‬ ‫ﺮم ﻗﻮاﻋ‬ ‫ﺮاﻣﺞ ﺗﺤﺘ‬ ‫ﮫﺑ‬ ‫ﺎً ﺑﺄﻗﺎﻣ‬ ‫ﻲ أﯾﻀ‬ ‫ﺪة‪ .‬ﻧﻮﺻ‬ ‫ﺮاﻣﺞ ﺟﺪﯾ‬ ‫اﻟﺒ‬

‫‪81‬‬