ENGLISH FOR FUTURE HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS IN SAUDI ARABIA: A NEEDS ANALYSIS PROPOSAL
Literature suggests that a thorough language needs analysis is very essential for curriculum development whose goal is to help healthcare learners to be proficient and successful in English in both their academic study and professional workplace. Although English language course designers spend large amount of money in developing their curriculum, they often neglect the process of a needs analysis which is considered to be an important first step when planning any English language course. Unfortunately, English language courses taught at the Health Sciences Colleges in Saudi Arabia, too, have been developed without carrying out a needs analysis.  The purpose of this paper is to discuss the importance and necessity of identifying the academic and professional English language needs of students of Health Sciences Colleges in Saudi Arabia. It also proposes a needs analysis framework for the development of ESP course at these colleges .
Needs analysis in language teaching
There have been several surveys of approaches to needs analysis in foreign-language teaching (James, 1974; Jordan, 1977; Chambers, 1980; Cunningsworth, 1983; Brindley, 1989; Riddell, 1991; van Hest & Oud-de Glas, 1990; Robinson, 1991; Jordan, forthcoming). During the period of 20 years covered by these surveys, both the focus and scope of needs analysis have changed. The dominant focus of early needs analysis was occupational/EOP, but this later changed to academic language/EAP (for the origin of the terms EOP and EAP, see T.Johns, 1981: 16). More recently the focus has shifted again to include general language learning. The scope of needs analysis up to and including Munby (1978) was syllabus specification derived from target-situation needs, but the scope has since been broadened to include areas specifically excluded by Munby practicalities and constraints, teaching methods and learning strategies, and, recently, materials selection. This evolution can be summarised by characterising each of three stages in the development of needs analysis, and to hint at the future by suggesting a fourth stage (see table below). Much of the later work in needs analysis is either not widely known or (Richards, 1984, cited by Nunan 1988 a: 17) it is still assumed that curriculum development in language teaching should concentrate on language syllabuses to the exclusion of broader aspects such as needs analysis, methodology and evaluation. It therefore seems appropriate to survey the field of needs analysis in a broad context. This survey concentrates on work relating to English (for a survey of recent work in other European languages, see van Hest & Oud-de Glas, 1990).
The New ‘U’
Today's talk about tenure must be framed within broader discussions about the role of the university. Our university system is now over one hundred years old, the “Old-Time College” is gone, the “cold war” university is no longer viable, and the foundations of the modern “multiversity” are cracking, so it is time to talk about change. But change is not necessarily reform, and resisting change probably will not keep things the way they are, so academics must understand the forces reshaping the university. Whenever I listen to colleagues defend the status quo by saying that the United States has a university system that is the envy of the world, I hear echoes of the Detroit automobile industry's casual dismissal of foreign competitors in the early 1960s. The decision not to change did not preserve the auto industry, and it is unlikely to preserve public universities as we know them. The current debates about tenure began with ideological attacks on “tenured radicals” who used their secure jobs to subvert conservative cultural values. The attack on tenure gathered steam as fiscal hawks in financially-strapped states looked for ways to save money and found huge state university systems with budgets to match. When asked why he robbed banks, the legendary Willie Sutton replied, “Because that's where the money is.” When asked why they are robbing tenure, legislators, regents, and administrators reply, “Because that's where the money is.” Personnel costs are a large share of university budgets and tenure ties the hands of administrators and legislators accustomed to using purse strings to control universities.