Investigating Language Learning Needs of Medical Students at an English Language Institute in Saudi Arabia

Abstract

This dissertation investigates the English language needs, teaching and learning preferences, and learning environment of first-year medical-track students in Saudi Arabia, drawing on perspectives from both students and instructors. Situated within the framework of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and English for Medical Purposes (EMP), the study addresses ongoing debates about how best to prepare students for academic and professional demands in medical-related disciplines, particularly the balance between General English (GE) and Medical English (ME). A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design was employed. In the quantitative phase, 224 participants (201 students and 23 instructors) completed structured surveys assessing language and skill priorities, preferred teaching strategies, and learning environment factors. In the qualitative phase, focus group interviews with students and semi- structured interviews with instructors were conducted to contextualize and explain survey patterns. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, while qualitative data were thematically analyzed following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) framework. The findings highlight both convergence and divergence between students and instructors across three interconnected areas. Regarding language and skills needs, both groups agreed that English is essential for academic survival and professional readiness. Students favored strengthening GE foundations before transitioning to ME, while instructors advocated earlier specialization to meet disciplinary demands. Hospital-related topics such as patient communication and clinical documentation were seen as most relevant, with authentic tasks like history taking and interpreting medical advice rated highly. Students prioritized speaking and vocabulary for immediate confidence, while instructors stressed writing as the most demanding and institutionally significant skill. Both identified speaking and writing as the most challenging, with listening and reading viewed as more manageable. Teaching and learning preferences v revealed further overlap. Both groups endorsed authentic, communication-focused strategies and emphasized the teacher’s role as facilitator. Task-based and interactive strategies were preferred to lecture-heavy delivery. However, students expressed dissatisfaction with rigid strategies, while instructors pointed to systemic barriers such as large class sizes and limited time. Divergences appeared in attitudes toward extensive reading and English-only instruction, with instructors more supportive than students. Learning environment and style preferences emphasized balanced and engaging conditions. Both groups agreed that textbooks remain necessary but should be supplemented with digital and interactive tools. Multimodal learning was most favored, with small-group interaction, in-person delivery, and morning classes identified as optimal. Students resisted heavy weekly schedules, preferring 8–12 hours, while instructors supported 16 hours or more to ensure sufficient exposure. In assessment, both endorsed balanced strategies, but students leaned toward projects and presentations, while instructors emphasized traditional and computerized testing for efficiency. The study contributes to ESP and EMP research by clarifying how present-situation needs and target-situation demands intersect in first-year medical education. It underscores the importance of a staged curriculum bridging GE and ME, integrating authentic and discipline-specific tasks, and providing systematic support for productive skills. Practically, the findings offer guidance for curriculum designers, instructors, and policymakers seeking to enhance ESP programs in Saudi universities and comparable contexts.