Academic Writing Instruction in Eastern Indonesia: A Multi-Stakeholder Needs Analysis of Tertiary EFL Learners
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63866/pendiri.v3i2.135Keywords:
EFL academic writing, Multi-Stakeholder Needs Analysis, Academic Literacy, Eastern Indonesia, Tertiary EducationAbstract
Academic writing instruction in EFL higher education is often planned without comparing learners’ perceptions with the expectations of more experienced stakeholders. This study examined perceived needs for academic writing instruction at UIN Alauddin Makassar, Eastern Indonesia, and identified areas of convergence and divergence among 51 fourth-semester students, 100 senior students who had completed an academic writing course, and two academic writing lecturers. A quantitative descriptive needs-analysis design used a structured questionnaire covering perceived EFL proficiency, the importance and goals of academic writing, confidence in writing tasks, preferred topics, and instructional activities. Frequencies, percentages, and mean scores were calculated separately for each group and compared descriptively across stakeholder groups. All groups viewed academic writing as important and identified summarizing and paraphrasing as a shared area of low confidence. However, they differed in evaluations of critical source use and preferred learning activities: senior students prioritized workshops and AI-assisted learning, whereas lecturers favored peer review and individual writing tasks. The study contributes a context-sensitive, multi-stakeholder account that connects needs analysis with academic literacy by showing that perceived general EFL proficiency does not necessarily indicate readiness for source-based academic writing. The findings support instruction that combines diagnostic assessment, explicit source-literacy development, scaffolded feedback, and carefully guided technology use. Because the evidence is perception-based and drawn from one institution, the results represent reported needs rather than direct measures of writing performance.
Downloads
References
[1] K. Hyland, Second Language Writing, 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, 2003. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511667251.
[2] T. Hutchinson and A. Waters, English for Specific Purposes, 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, 1987. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511733031.
[3] T. Dudley-Evans and M.-J. Saint John, Developments in ESP: a multi-disciplinary approach, 5. print. in Cambridge language teaching library. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003.
[4] J. Bitchener and D. Ferris, Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge, 2012.
[5] Z. (Victor) Zhang and K. Hyland, “Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing,” Assessing Writing, vol. 36, pp. 90–102, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.004.
[6] K. Andi and B. Arafah, “Using Needs Analysis to Develop English Teaching Materials in Initial Speaking Skills for Indonesian College Students of English,” The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication, Special Edition, pp. 419–436, 2017, doi: 10.7456/1070ASE/045.
[7] G. Brindley, “The role of needs analysis in adult ESL programme design,” in The Second Language Curriculum, 1st ed., R. K. Johnson, Ed., Cambridge University Press, 1989, pp. 63–78. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524520.007.
[8] K. Hyland, Second language writing, Second edition. Cambridge, United Kingdom New York, NY Port Melbourne, Australia New Delhi, India Singapore: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
[9] I. Leki, Undergraduates in a second language: challenges and complexities of academic literacy development. New York: Erlbaum, 2007.
[10] U. Wingate, Academic Literacy and Student Diversity: The Case for Inclusive Practice. Multilingual Matters, 2015. doi: 10.21832/9781783093496.
[11] M. R. Lea and B. V. Street, “The ‘Academic Literacies’ Model: Theory and Applications,” Theory Into Practice, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 368–377, Nov. 2006, doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4504_11.
[12] D. Brown, Q. Liu, and R. Norouzian, “Effectiveness of written corrective feedback in developing L2 accuracy: A Bayesian meta-analysis,” Language Teaching Research, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 1357–1389, Mar. 2026, doi: 10.1177/13621688221147374.
[13] Z. Mao, I. Lee, and S. Li, “Written corrective feedback in second language writing: A synthesis of naturalistic classroom studies,” Lang. Teach., vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 449–477, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1017/S0261444823000393.
[14] K. Hyland and F. Hyland, Eds., Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 2019. doi: 10.1017/9781108635547.
[15] D. Pecorari, “Plagiarism and English for academic purposes: A research agenda,” Lang. Teach., vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 362–376, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1017/S0261444821000495.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ummu Rofikah (Author)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.



