這項研究的主要目的是根據學生的需求分析，為台灣幼保系的學生量身定制英語教科書。目的是為想在海外求職的幼兒園教師做職前準備。此外，教科書學習的課程成效亦會納入討論與分析，以作為日後改善幼保英文教科書的參考做依據。
該研究是在台灣桃園一所科技大學進行的，研究從幼保系學生中選擇兩個班級參與。一班48名學生被分為實驗組，另一班47名學生為控制組，實驗組、控制組都接受了ESP幼保專業英文考試的前測，以了解他們目前的英語程度的落點。實驗組學生將提供ESP專業幼保英文教材，控制組則將提供EGP一般英文教材。一個學期後，他們將進行後測，以了解他們在參加ESP幼保英語課程後是否學習成效有進步。前後測的考題主要是來自於量身定制的教科書的內容，而ESP幼保英語教材的編輯是根據幼保系204名學生的需求分析所編撰的內容。除量性評量之外，此研究還進行7個質性的開放性問題（附錄IX），以了解學生對ESP幼保英文課程設計的看法和見解。學習者的觀點將被採用，以作為進一步改進ESP幼保英文教材的依據。
在聽力，口語，閱讀或寫作部分，研究結果顯示：實驗組和控制組的後測成績之間存在顯著差異。在聽力部分，獨立樣本的T檢定顯示，聽力部分的實驗組和控制組的後測評分存在顯著差異（t = 13.12，p <0.001）。實驗組（平均值= 69.19，SD = 11.53）比控制組（平均值= 38.21，SD = 11.47）得分更高。
在口說部分，獨立樣本的T檢定顯示，口語部分的實驗組和控制組的測試後評分之間存在顯著差異（t = 19.2，p <0.001）。實驗組（平均= 79.79，SD = 10.00）的得分高於控制組（平均= 39.57，SD = 10.42）。
在閱讀部分，獨立樣本T檢定顯示，閱讀部分的實驗組和控制組的測試後評分之間存在顯著差異（t = 7.75，p <0.001）。實驗組（平均= 52.54，SD = 13.13）的得分高於對照組（平均= 33.77，SD = 10.30）。
在寫作部分，獨立樣本T檢定顯示，寫作部分的實驗組和控制組的測試後評分之間存在顯著差異（t = 9.99，p <0.001）。實驗組（平均值= 55.10，SD = 13.97）比控制組（平均值= 27.66，SD = 12.76）得分更高。該研究還調查了聽力（平均值= 69.19，SD = 11.53）和口說（平均值= 79.79，SD = 10.00）之間的相關性。皮爾森（Pearson）的相關性分析表明，聽和說之間存在顯著的相關性（r = 0.76，p <0.01）。同樣地，該研究也調查了閱讀（平均值= 52.54，SD = 13.13）和寫作（平均值= 55.10，SD = 13.97）之間的相關性。皮爾森（Pearson）的相關性分析顯示，讀寫之間存在顯著的相關性（r =0 .73，p <0.01）。
除此之外，質性結果顯示出，ESP幼保英文課程對幼保系學生有一定程度的幫助。幼保系學生認為ESP幼保英文課程同時提供他們專業知識和一般英語的課程。學習者偏愛ESP幼保英文課程的原因如下：(1他們有機會學習到與其幼保系專業相關的專業術語和知識;（2）因為教科書的知識與幼保領域有關，因此學習對他們而言有意義，所以他們感到在學習過程中自己的動機和興趣被提升;（3）學習者覺得課程內容有趣，豐富且多樣性;（4）ESP幼保英文內容既活潑又實用，可以應用到將來的職業;（5）ESP幼保英文課程是量身訂做，所以教科書的內容非常簡單，易於了解。

The purpose of this study was primarily aimed at developing an English textbook customized for the students from the Department of Child Care and Education in Taiwan so as to prepare our students as the professional ESP kindergarten teachers if they expect to work overseas. Moreover, after taking ESP Childcare English, the effectiveness of the curriculum design will be discussed as well so as to make an improvement of the textbook that will be used in the future. 
This study was conducted at a vocational university in Taoyuan, Taiwan, and two classes from the Department of Child Care and Education were selected to participate in this study. One class with 48 students were chosen as experimental group and the other class with 47 students were chosen as control group. Both groups would take the pre-test to see their current level and after one semester, they would take the post-test to see whether they had made a progress after taking ESP childcare English course. The tests the students took was based on the content of the customized textbook.
The experimental group would be provided with ESP teaching materials while the control group would be provided with EGP teaching materials. The teaching materials were edited on the basis of the needs analysis of 204 students from the Department of Child Care and Education. After one semester, the learning efficiency for the experimental group would be evaluated. Aside from the quantitative method, 7 written open questions (see Appendix IX) were conducted to perceive the perspectives of the students and their insights towards the ESP curriculum design. The learners’ viewpoints were taken as a basis for the future improvement of the textbook.
With regard to the section of listening, speaking, reading, or writing, the results revealed that there was a significant difference between the post-test scores of the experimental class and control class. An independent-samples t-test showed that there was a significant difference between the post-test scores of the experimental group and control group (t = 13.12, p < 0.001) for the listening section. The experimental group (Mean = 69.19, SD= 11.53) received higher scores than the control group (Mean = 38.21, SD = 11.47). An independent-samples t-test showed that there was a significant difference between the post-test scores of the experimental group and control group (t = 19.2, p < 0.001) for the speaking section. The experimental group (Mean = 79.79, SD = 10.00) received higher scores than the control group (Mean = 39.57, SD = 10.42). An independent-samples t-test showed that there was a significant difference between the post-test scores of the experimental group and control group (t = 7.75, p < 0.001) for the reading section. The experimental group (M= 52.54, SD = 13.13) received higher scores than the control group (Mean = 33.77, SD = 10.30). An independent-samples t-test showed that there was a significant difference between the post-test scores of the experimental group and control group (t= 9.99, p < 0.001) for the writing section. The experimental group (Mean = 55.10, SD = 13.97) received higher scores than that of the control group (Mean = 27.66, SD = 12.76).
The study also investigated the relationship between listening (Mean= 69.19, SD = 11.53) and speaking (Mean = 79.79, SD = 10.00). Pearson’s correlation analysis showed that there was a significant correlation between listening and speaking (r=0.76, p < 0.01). Likewise, the study investigated the relationship between reading (M= 52.54, SD = 13.13) and writing (M= 55.10, SD = 13.97). Pearson’s correlation analysis showed that there was a significant correlation between reading and writing (r=0.73, p < 0.01). 
Apart from that, the qualitative results revealed that ESP childcare curriculum was beneficial to the childcare learners to a certain extent. childcare learners felt that ESP Childcare English provided both professional knowledge and general English at the same time. The reasons that learners favored ESP childcare courses were as follows: (1) They had an opportunity to study professional terminology and knowledge relevant to their childcare major; (2) They felt their motivation and interesting upgraded for the reasons that the textbook was associated with the field of childcare and the learning was meaningful for them; (3) They felt the content of the course was interesting, plentiful and diverse; (4) The ESP content was both lively and practical for future career; (5) The content of the textbook was extremely uncomplicated and easy to understand as the textbook was customized for them.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i
CHINESE ABSTRACT ii
ENGLISH ABSTRACT iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xi
CHAPTER ONE  INTRODUCTION 01
1.1 Background of the Study 01
1.2 Statement of the Problem 05
1.2.1 English Policy in Singapore 05
1.2.2 English Policy in Taiwan 07
1.2.2.1 English Education in Elementary Schools	08
1.2.2.2 English Language Exit Policy 09
1.2.2.3 English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) in Higher Education 10
1.2.3 Present English Problem for Taiwanese Childcare Learners 12
1.3 Purpose of the Study 13
1.4 Research Questions 14
1.5 Significance of the Study 15
1.6 Definition of Terms	15
1.7 Organization of the Study 17

CHAPTER TWO  LITERATURE REVIEW 18
2.1 English for Specific Purposes 21
2.1.1 The Origins of ESP 21
2.1.1.1 The Demands of a Brave New World 22
2.1.1.2 A Revolution in Linguistics 23
2.1.1.3 Focus on the Learner 24
2.1.2 The Development of ESP 25
2.1.2.1 The Concept of Special Language: Register Analysis	25
2.1.2.2 Beyond the Sentence: Rhetorical or Discourse Analysis 26
2.1.2.3 Target Situation Analysis 27
2.1.2.4 Skills and Strategies 28
2.1.2.5 A Learning-Centered Approach 29
2.1.3 Definition and Characteristics of ESP 29
2.1.4 The Classification of ESP	31
2.1.5 The Advantages of ESP courses 38
2.1.6 Related ESP Research with childcare English Curriculum Design 39
2.2 Needs Analysis (NA)	43
2.2.1 Meanings of Needs and Needs Analysis 44
2.2.2 Components of ESP Needs Analysis 47
2.2.2.1 Target Situation Analysis (TSA)	48
2.2.2.2 Learning Situation Analysis (LSA) 49
2.2.2.3 Present Situation Analysis (PSA) 49
2.2.2.4 Means Analysis 50
2.2.3 Four Models of ESP Need s Analysis 51
2.2.3.1 Munby’s Model of ESP Needs Analysis 51
2.2.3.2 McDonough’s Model of ESP Needs Analysis	53
2.2.3.3 Hutchinson and Waters’ Model of ESP Needs Analysis	54
2.2.3.4 Dudley-Evans and St. John’ Model of ESP Needs Analysis 56
2.2.4 Implementation of Needs Analysis (NA) in ESP Course Design 58
2.3 ESP Curriculum 60
2.3.1 Course Design for ESP 60
2.3.2 Parameters of Course Design 60
2.3.3 Approaches to Course Design 61
2.3.3.1 Language-Centered Course Design	62
2.3.3.2 Skills-Centered Course Design 63
2.3.3.3 A Learning–Centered Approach 65
2.4 Materials for ESP 68
2.4.1 Authenticity 68
2.4.2 Materials Evaluation 71
2.5 Course Evaluation 72
2.5.1 What Should Be Evaluated 72
2.5.2 How Could ESP Courses Be Evaluated? 73
2.5.3 Who Should be Involved in the Evaluation?	73
2.5.4 When Should Evaluation Take Place? 74
2.6 The Role of ESP Teacher 75
2.6.1 The ESP Practitioner as Teacher 75
2.6.2 The ESP Practitioner as Course Designer and Materials Provider 76
2.6.3 The ESP Practitioner as Collaborator 77
2.6.4 The ESP Practitioner as Evaluator	77
2.7 Evaluation of ESP Learners 78
2.7.1 Placement Tests 79
2.7.2 Achievement Tests	80
2.7.3 Proficiency Tests	81
2.8 The Changing Role and Importance of ESP in Asia	81
2.8.1 Views on the Future of ESP 82
2.8.2 Three Trends for Future ESP Teaching 83
2.8.2.1 The Impact of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in ESP 83
2.8.2.2 ESP in support of English-Mediated Instruction (EMI) 84
2.8.2.3 Corpus-Informed ESP teaching 86
2.9 Summary 87

CHAPTER THREE  METHODOLOGY 88
3.1 Research Design 88
3.2 Research Questions 90
3.3 Participants 92
3.4 Instruments	94
3.4.1 Questionnaire 94
3.4.2 The Pre-test and Post-test for Listening and Reading	95
3.4.3 The Pre-test and Post-test for Speaking and Writing	96
3.4.4 Written Open-ended Questions 97
3.4.5 Description of the Textbook Practical English for Childcare Learners (see Appendix X) 97
3.5 Data Collection 98
3.6 Data Analysis 100

CHAPTER FOUR  RESULTS 102
4.1 What are the Child-Care learners’ TSA (Target Situation Analysis), LSA (Learning Situation Analysis) and PSA (Present Situation Analysis)? 102
4.2 In terms of listening, speaking, reading and writing, were there any significant difference between the post-test scores of the experimental class and those of the control class? 106
4.3 What’s the correlation between learners’ ESP Listening and Speaking performance, and between their Reading and Writing performance? 111
4.4 What are the qualitative results of learners’ viewpoints on the ESP course design? 114
4.4.1 Do you like the content of the textbook for ESP Childcare English? Do you feel that this textbook provides you with some professional knowledge about childcare? 114
4.4.2 In the textbook, which part is your favorite and the most helpful for you? What contents, in your opinion, should be added to this English childcare textbook in order to meet the needs of your workplace? 120
4.4.3 Do you like the listening exercises in the textbook? How did the listening exercises help you? 127
4.4.4 Did you like the conversation part and oral practice sections of the textbook? How did these two parts help you? Please explain your viewpoints in detail. 130
4.4.5: Did you like the sentence-writing practice? How did the sentence-writing practice (sentence merging, sentence rewriting, sentence re-ordering) help you? Please explain your reasons in detail. 136
4.4.6 Did you like the attached parts of the textbook, such as English children’s songs section, childcare internship dialogs and classroom English? How did these parts help you? Please explain your reasons in detail. 139
4.4.7 Do you have any other comments or suggestions regarding the course instruction and textbook? 147
4.5 Summary of Major Findings 149

CHAPTER FIVE  DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 155
5.1 Summary of the Study 155
5.2 Discussions of the Study 158
5.2.1 The Importance of Needs Analysis While Designing ESP Courses	158
5.2.2 The Need to Promote ESP Curriculum for Taiwanese Learners 161
5.2.3 The Need to Teach Relevant Skills (Listening/Speaking or Reading/Writing) in ESP Courses 164
5.2.4 Major Types of Content Suggested for Inclusion in an ESP Childcare Course 166
5.3 Implications and Future Research of the Study 175
5.4 Limitations and Suggestions of the Study 176
REFERENCES 178
APPENDICES 195
Appendix I: Questionnaire for Learners (English Version)	195
Appendix II: Questionnaire for Learners (Chinese Version)	200
Appendix III: Childcare Learners’ Learning Needs 203
Appendix IV: Listening Test for Pre-test and Post-test 206
Appendix V: Speaking Test for Pre-test and Post-test 211
Appendix VI: Reading Test for Pre-test and Post-test 212
Appendix VII: Writing Test for Pre-Test and Post-Test 217
Appendix VIII: Open-Ended Questions for Learners (English Version) 219
Appendix IX: Open-Ended Questions for Learners (Chinese Version) 220
Appendix X: Contents for the Textbook “Practical English for Childcare Learners”	221

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Examples for TSA, LSA, and PSA (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998, p. 124)	50
Table 3.1 Recruitment of Students Participants	93
Table 3.2 Students’ Language Proficiency Index	93
Table 3.3 Analysis Methods Applied in the Research 101
Table 4.1 Learning Needs Before the ESP Program	103
Table 4.2 Independent Samples T-est for Listening (Pre-test) 106
Table 4.3 Independent Samples T-test for Listening (Post-test) 107
Table 4.4 Independent Samples T-test for Speaking (Pre-test) 108
Table 4.5 Independent Samples T-test for Speaking (Post-test) 108
Table 4.6 Independent Samples T-test for the Reading (Pre-test) 109
Table 4.7 Independent Samples T-test for the Reading (Post-test) 110
Table 4.8 Independent Samples T-test for the Writing (Pre-test) 110
Table 4.9 Independent Samples T-test for the Writing (Post-test) 111
Table 4.10 The Correlation Between Learners’ ESP Listening and Speaking 112
Table 4.11 The Correlation Between Learners’ ESP Reading and Writing 113
 
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Kachru’s Three Concentric Circles (Kachru, 1992, p. 356) 5
Figure 2.1 ELT Tree (Hutchinson and Waters 1987, p. 17) 33
Figure 2.2 ESP classification by experience (Robinson, 1991, p.3) 34
Figure 2.3 ESP Classification by Professional Area (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998, p.  6) 35
Figure 2.4 Continuum of ELT course types (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998, p. 9) 37
Figure 2.5 Stages in the ESP process (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998, p. 121) 44
Figure 2.6 Communication Needs Processor (Munby, 1981) 52
Figure 2.7 ESP Needs Analysis Model (McDonough, 1984) 54
Figure 2.8 ESP Needs as Necessities, Lacks And Wants (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987) 55
Figure 2.9 What Needs Analysis Establishes (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998, p. 125) 57
Figure 2.10  A Language-centered Approach to Course Design (Hutchinson &Waters, 1979, p. 66) 62
Figure 2.11 A Skills-centered Approach to Course Design (Hutchinson &Waters, 1979, p. 71) 65
Figure 2.12 A Comparison of Approaches to Course Design (Hutchinson &Waters, 1979, p. 73) 67
Figure 3.1 Flowchart of Study Plan 100
Figure 4.1  The Mean of Learning Needs Before the ESP Curriculum 104
Figure 4.2 The Correlation Between Listening and Speaking	112
Figure 4.3 The Correlation Between Reading and Writing 113

Figure 4.4 The Learners’ Opinions Regarding their Like or Dislike of the Textbook Contents 117
Figure 4.5 The Percentage of Learners Who Felt the Textbook Provided Them with Professional Knowledge about childcare Education 119
Figure 4.6 The Parts of the Textbook that Learners Said Were Helpful to Them 124
Figure 4.7 Student Suggestions Regarding the Content of the Textbook 127
Figure 4.8 Learners’ Opinions about the Usefulness of the Listening Exercises 130
Figure 4.9 Learners’ Opinions about the Usefulness of the Conversation Exercises 133
Figure 4.10 Learners’ Opinions Regarding the Usefulness of the Oral Practice Exercises of the Textbook 136
Figure 4.11 Learners’ Opinions Regarding the Usefulness of the Writing Sections of the Textbook 138
Figure 4.12 Learners’ Opinions Regarding the Usefulness of the Children’s Song Sections of the Textbook 141
Figure 4.13 Learners’ Opinions Regarding the Usefulness of the Practical Childcare Dialogs in the Textbook 144
Figure 4.14 Learners’ Opinions Regarding the Usefulness of the Classroom English Sections of the Textbook 146
Figure 4.15 Learners’ Comments and Suggestions Regarding the Course Instruction and/or the Textbook 149

Abbas, I. (2013). Investigating the students’ attitudes towards using the best practices in English listening in the blended e-learning environment at Al-Quds open university. Palestinian Journal of Open & Distance Education, 4(7). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.12816/0016342 

Alderson, J.C. (1979). ‘Materials evaluation’ in Harper, D.P.L. (ed.), ESP for Specific Purposes. Mexico: The British Council, 145-155. 

Alderson, J. C. & Hughes, A. (1981). Issues in Language Testing. ELT Documents 111: ERIC. 

Allen, J.P.B. & Widdowson, H. G. (1975). ‘Grammar in language teaching’ in Allen, J.P.B. and Corder, S.P. (eds.), The Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics, Volume two: Papers in Applied Linguistics, Oxford University Press.

Allwright, R. J. I. (1982). Perceiving and pursuing learners’ needs. Individualization, 24-31. 

Anthony, L. (2015). The changing role and importance of ESP in Asia. English as a Global Language Education, 1(1), 1-21. 

Basturkmen, H. (2014). Ideas and Options in English for Specific Purposes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Belanger, J. (1987). Theory and research into reading and writing connections: A critical review. Reading-Canada-Lecture, 5(1), 10-18. 

Belcher, D. (2004). Trends in teaching English for specific purposes. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 165-186. 

Berwick, R. & Johnson, R. (1989). Needs assessment in language programming: From theory to practice. The Second Language Curriculum, 48-62. 

Bhatia, V. K. (1983). Simplification v. easification—The case of legal texts. Applied Linguistics,4(1), 42-54. 

Bodden, V. (2010). Nursery Rhymes. Minnesota, USA: Saunders Books.

Bokhorst-Heng, W. D. & Caleon, I. S. (2009). The language attitudes of bilingual youth in multilingual Singapore. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 30(3), 235–251. 

Bozorgian, H. (2012). The relationship between listening and other language skills in international English language testing system. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(4), 657-663. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.4.657-663

Brindley, G. P. (1984). Needs Analysis and Objective Setting in the Adult Migrant Education Program. Sydney, NSW: Adult Migrant Education Service. 

Brindley, G. P. (1989). The role of needs analysis in adult ESL programme design. The Second Language Curriculum, 63-78. 

Brown, J. D. (1995). The Elements of Language Curriculum: A Systematic Approach to Program Development. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. 

Brown, H. D. & Lee, H. (1994). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. NJ: Prentice Hall Regents Englewood Cliffs. 

Carver, D. (1983). Some propositions about ESP. The ESP Journal, 2(2), 131-137.

Cavallaro, F. & Ng, B. C. (2014). Language in Singapore: From multilingualism to English plus. Challenging the Monolingual Mindset, 156, 33-52. 

Celik, O. & Yavuz, F. (2015). The relationship between speaking grades and listening grades of university level preparatory students. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 2137-2140. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.339 

Chambers, F. (1980). Are-evaluation of needs analysis. ESP Journal, 1, 25-33. 

Chang, W. C., Yeh, H. N., Joe, S. G., You, Y. L., Chern, C. L., & Liaw, M. L. (2007). 台灣英語教育政策對英語教學影響調查研究[Research on English-in-education policies and their effects on English teaching]. The Proceedings of 2007         International Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics. Taipei: Crane, 672–686.

Chao, C. (2004). Constructing a language learning environment for the new century: The theoretical framework underlying the foreign language self-learning center at Soochow University. Soochow Journal of Foreign Languages and Literatures, 18, 1–16. 

Charles, M. (2012). Proper vocabulary and juicy collocations: EAP students evaluate do-it-yourself corpus-building. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 93-102.

Chen, M. & D. Johnson (2004). Graduation English language proficiency benchmarks in Taiwan –Issues and problems. The Proceedings of 2004 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics. Taipei: Crane, 136–147. 

Chen, S. C. (2010). Multilingualism in Taiwan. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 205, 79–104. 

Chen, S. & Tsai, Y. (2012). Research on English teaching and learning: Taiwan (2004–2009). Language Teaching, 45(2), 180-201.

Chen, Y. (2006). From common core to specific. Asian ESP Journal, 1(3), 24-50.

Cheng, W. W. & Lee, M. L. (2009). Students’ perspectives toward the management of a self-access learning center. Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University, 271–277.

Coleman, J. A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39, 1–14.

Davies, F. (1985). Toward a classroom based methodology for identifying information structures in text. Ulijn and Pugh, 37, 103-22. 

Davies, S., & West, R. (1981). The Pitman Guide to English Language Examinations for Overseas Candidates. London: Pitman Publishing Ltd. 

Department of Statistics (2001).Census of Population 2000 Statistical Release 2: Education, language and religion. 

Singapore: Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and Industry. Retrieved from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/

Dodigovic, M. (2005). Vocabulary profiling with electronic corpora: A case study in computer assisted needs analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning,18(5), 443-455. 

Dudley-Evans, T. & St. John, M. J. (1998). Developments in ESP: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. 

Edwards, N. (2000). Language for business: Effective needs assessment, syllabus design and materials preparation in a practical ESP case study. English for Specific Purposes, 19(3), 291-296. 

Ewer, J. & Hughes-Davies, G.(1971). Further notes on developing an English programme for students of science and technology. ELT Journal, 26(1), 65-70.

Ewer, J. R. & Latorre, G. (1969).A Course in Basic Scientific English (Vol. 382). London: Longman. 

Far, M. (2008). On the relationship between ESP & EGP: A general perspective. ESP World, 7(1): 1-11.

Ferris, D. (1998). Students' views of academic aural/oral skills: A comparative needs analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 289-316.

Feyten, C. (1991). The power of listening ability: An overlooked dimension in language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 75(2), 173-180. 
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2307/328825

Gardner, R. C. (2000).Correlation, causation, motivation and second language learning acquisition. Canadian Psychology, 41, 1-24. 

Gao, J. J. (2007). Designing an ESP course for Chinese university students of business. The Asian ESP Journal, 3(1), 1-10.

Goodman, K. S. (1986). What’s Whole in Whole Language? Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Gözüyeşil, E. (2014). An analysis of engineering students’ English language needs. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,116, 4182-4186. 

Greenhalgh, J. S. (1984, March). Authenticity in technical English [Conference presentation]. 1984 The Symposium on English for Specific Purposes, Alexandria.
 
Gupta, A. F. (1994). The Step-Tongue: Children's English in Singapore. Clevedon Avon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Harste, J. C., Burke, C. L., & Woodward, V. A. (1982). Children's language and world: Initial encounters with print. Reader Meets Author/Bridging the Gap, 105-131.
 
Halliday, M., McIntosh, A. & Strevens, P. (1964). The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Longmans. 

Hendi, N. S. & Asmawi, A. (2018). Preschool English teachers’ practices and early literacy instruction: Montessori vs. international preschool curriculum. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 6(2), 29-36.

Holliday, A. & Cooke, T. (1982). An ecological approach to ESP Lancaster practical papers in English language education. Issues in ESP, 5, 123-143. 

Holmes, J. (1982). ‘Some Approaches to Course Design’, Working Paper No. 7, Brazilian ESP Project. 

Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes. New York: Cambridge university press. 

Hyland, K. (2006). English for Academic Purposes: An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge. 

Iswaran, S. (2010, April 19). Opening Ceremony of the Inaugural APEC-RELC International Seminar [Speech]. 2010 SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, Singapore. 

Iwai, T., Kondo, K., Limm, S. J. D., Ray, E. G., Shimizu, H., & Brown, J. D. (1999). Japanese Language Needs Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/Networks/NW13/NW13.pdf

Johns, A. M. & Dudley-Evans, T. (1991). English for specific purposes: International in scope, specific in purpose. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 297-314.

John, M. J. S. & Dudley-Evans, T. (1998). Developments in English for Specific Purposes: A Multi-disciplinary Approach. Australia: Cambridge University Press.

Johns, T. F. & Dudley-Evans, A. (1980). An experiment in team-teaching of overseas postgraduate students of transportation and plant biology. Team Teaching in ESP, 6-23. 

Johns, T. & Davies, F. (1983). Text as a vehicle for information: The classroom use of written texts in teaching reading as a foreign language. Reading in a Foreign Language, 1(1), 1-19. 

Johns, T. F. & Dudley-Evans, A. (1980). An experiment in team-teaching of overseas postgraduate students of transportation and plant biology. Team Teaching in ESP, 6-23.

Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for Academic Purposes: A Guide and Resource Book for Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Kachru, B. (1992). Teaching world Englishes. In B. Kachru (ed.), The Other Tongue: English across Cultures. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 355–366. 

Kaur, S. (2007). ESP course design: Matching learner needs to aims. ESP World, 6(1), Retrieved March 5th, 2009 from http://www.espworld.info/Articles_14/DESIGNING%20ESP%20COURSES.htm 

Krashen, S. (1984). Writing: Research, Theory and Applications. Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English. 

Kuo, E. (1980) Population ratio, intermarriage and mother tongue retention. Language and Society in Singapore, 20(2), 85-93. 

Law, W. W. (2004). Translating globalization and democratization into local policy: Educational reform in Hong Kong and Taiwan. International Review of Education, 50, 497–524.

Lawson, K. H. (1975). Philosophical Concepts and Values in Adult Education. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. 

Lee, W. & Kwon, Y. (2020). Exploring the play-centered curriculum action competence of early childhood teachers based on FGI analysis. Korean J of Childcare & Education, 16(4), 93-110. 

Lepetit, D. & Cichocki, W. (2002). Teaching languages to future health professionals: A needs assessment study. Second Language Needs Analysis, 86(3), 384-396. 

Ling, P. (2012). The" whole language" theory and its application to the teaching of English reading. English Language Teaching, 5(3), 147-152.

Long, M. H. (Ed.) (2005). Second Language Needs Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

McDonough, J. (1984). ESP in Perspective: A Practical Guide. London and Glasgow: Collins Educational. 

McLachlan, C. & Arrow, A. J. R. (2014). Promoting alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness in low socioeconomic child care settings: A quasi experimental study in five New Zealand centers. Reading and Writing, 27(5), 819-839. 

Ministry of Education. (2004). Report of the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee. Accessed Oct 29, 2020, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2004/CLCPRC%20Committee%20 Report.pdf.

Ministry of Education. (2013). Ministry of education, Singapore: Forum letter replies – bilingual education is cornerstone of Singapore’s education system. Accessed Nov 1, 2020, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/ forum/2013/01/bilingual-education-is-cornerstone-of-Singapore-education-system.php.

Morrow, K. (1977). Authentic texts and ESP. English for Specific Purposes, 13-15. 

Mountford, A. (1981). The what, the why and the way. Aupelf/Goethe Institut/British Council, 1, 19-34.
 
Munby, J. (1981). Communicative Syllabus Design: A Sociolinguistic Model for Designing the Content of Purpose-Specific Language Programmes. Cambridge: University Press.
 
Murphy, D. F. (1985). Evaluation in language teaching: Assessment, accountability and awareness. Evaluation, 1-17.
 
Ng, C. (2014). Mother tongue education in Singapore: Concerns, issues and controversies. Current Issues in Language Planning, 15 (4), 361–375.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. 

Nunan, D., Candlin, C., & Widdowson, H. (1988). Syllabus Design (Vol. 55). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. 
Phillips, M. & Shettlesworth, C. J. (1978). How to arm your students: A consideration of two approaches to providing materials for ESP. ELT Documents, 101, 27-48.

Rahman, M. (2015). English for Specific Purposes (ESP): A Holistic Review. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(1), 24-31.

Ratsoy, E., Friesen, D., Holdaway, E. et al. (1987). Evaluation of the Initiation to Teaching Project. Edmonton: University of Alberta. 

Richards, J. C. (1984). The secret life of methods. TESOL QUARTERLY, 18 (1), 7-23. 

Richards, K. (1989). Pride and prejudice: The relationship between ESP and training. English for Specific Purposes, 8(3), 207-222. 

Richards, J. (2008). Teaching Listening and Speaking: From Theory to Practice. Retrieved from http://www.professorjackrichards.com/wp-content/uploads/teaching-listening-and-speaking-from-theory-topractice.pdf

Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

Richterich, R. & Chancerel, J.L. (1978). Identifying the Needs of Adults Learning a Foreign Language. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 

Rickabaugh, S. (1992). Elgin YWCA family literacy project. Curriculum for ESL Parents and Preschoolers. ERIC. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED348889

Rigg, P. (1991). Whole language in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 521–42.

Robinson, P. C. (1991). ESP Today: A Practitioner's Guide. Hemel Hempstead, London: Prentice Hall International. 

Rodgers, C. (1969). Freedom to Learn. OH: Merrill.

Rubdy, R., and T. Tupas. (2009).  Research in applied linguistics and language teaching and learning in Singapore (2000–2007).Language Teaching, 42(3), 317.
 
Ross, D. A. (2020). Creating a “quarantine curriculum” to enhance teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Academic Medicine, 95(8), 1125-1126. Retrieved from  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7179056/ 

Sayakhan, N. I. & Bradley, D. H (2019). A nursery rhymes as a vehicle for teaching English as a foreign language. Journal of University of Raparin, 6(1), 44-55.
 
Schiffman, H. F. (2007). Tamil language policy in Singapore: The role of implementation. Language, Capital, Culture: Critical Studies of Language in Education in Singapore, edited by V. Vaish, S. Gopinathan, and Y. B. Liu, 209-226. 

Sinclair, J. M. & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Singapore Department of Statistics. (2014). Population Trends 2014. Accessed Nov 1, 2020, from http://www.singstat. gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document- library/publications/publicationns_and_papers/population_ and_ population_structure/population2014.pdf.

Snapp, S. D., Burdge, H., Licona, A. C., Moody, R. L., Russell, S., & Education, E.I.(2015). Students’ perspectives on LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum. Equity & Excellence in Education, 48(2), 249-265. 

Spruman, Cardyn V. (1992). Whole language questions: What teachers are asking. Contemporary Education, 64(1), 61. 

Stotsky, S. (1983). Research on reading/writing relationships: A synthesis and suggested directions. Language Arts, 60, 627-642. 

Stoller, F. (2001). The curriculum renewal process in English for academic purposes. Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes, 208-224. 

Strevens, P. (1988). ESP after twenty years: A reappraisal. ESP: State of the Art. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center. 

Su, F.H. (2000). New goal orientation of English education for young EFL learners. The Proceedings of the Conference of ELT Curriculum for Young Learners in East Asia. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University, 107–120.

Swales, J. (1971). Writing Scientific English. London: Nelson. 

Sysoyev, P. (2000). Developing an English for specific purposes course using a learner centered approach: A Russian experience. The Internet TESL Journal, 6(3). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Sysoyev-ESP.htm1

Tan, C. (2006). Change and continuity: Chinese language policy in Singapore. Language Policy, 5(1), 41–62.
 
Temple, C. A., Martinez, M. A., & Yokota, J. (2011). Children’s Books in Children’s Hands: An Introduction to Their Literature (4th Ed.). New York: Pearson. 

Teng, S. C. & Wang, C. (2009).Teachers beliefs about using English as the medium of instruction and their teaching techniques. The Proceedings of 2009 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics. Taipei: Crane, 441–451. 

Tsao, F. F. (2000). The language planning situations in Taiwan. In R. B. Kaplan & R. B. Baldauf, Jr. (eds.), Language Planning in Nepal, Taiwan and Sweden. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 60–106. 

Tsao, F. F. (2004a). Prospects of English teaching in elementary schools. Paper presented at The Conference on Cross-Strait English Language Teaching. National Chiayi University, Taiwan. 

Tsao, F. F. (2004b). How to achieve a breakthrough in English learning in an EFL context like Taiwan. English Teaching & Learning, 28(3), 1–16. 

Walqui, A. (2000). Contextual factors in second language acquisition. ERIC Digest, 1-6. 

Waters, A. (1985). Involving ESP Learners in Course Evaluation. Thailand: King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology.  

Watson, D J. (1989). Defining and describing whole language. The Elementary School Journal, 90(2), 129-141. 
West R. (1994). Needs analysis in language teaching. Language Teaching, 27, 1-19. 

Whitehurst, G. J. & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848–872. 

Widdowson, H. (1981). English for specific purposes: Criteria for course design In English for academic and specific purposes. English for Academic and Technical Purposes,1-11. 

Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: University Press. 

Wilson, J. (1986). Task-based language learning. ESP for the University, 27-64. 

Wu, M.C. & Chen, S. H. (2006). The effects of two early reading training programs on word recognition in Taiwanese EFL young poor readers. English Teaching & Learning, 30, 61–80. 

Xiaoqiong, B. H. & Xianxing, J. (2011). Kachru’s three concentric circles and English teaching fallacies in EFL and ESL contexts. Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education, 18(2), 219-228.  

Zhang, Y. (2009). An experimental study of the effects of listening on speaking for college students. English Language Teaching, 2(3), 194-204. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v2n3p194 

Zipes, J. D. (2005). The Norton Anthology of Children’s Literature: The Traditions in English. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.