A Study on the Writing Educational Needs by Learner Type: Based on the Basic Class of H University

Abstract

This study is a plan for reflection on college student writing education and the writing requirements of learners. The purpose is to analyze the educational needs of college students, who are the actual users of college writing education, and to reflect the results in other educational sites actively. In particular, a study was conducted on college students in the basic class, whose writing ability was relatively lower than that of general students. What is particular about this study is that learners were not generally analyzed. This study was conducted within a private university in Korea, and they were first divided into four learning types based on learning motivation and self-control. In addition, by investigating the educational needs according to the four learning types, research was conducted so that they could use them in the educational field in the future. For a systematic study, a questionnaire on learning types and on demand for writing education was produced, and to obtain objective results, frequency analysis, descriptive statistics, t-test, f-test, Borich requirement formula, and statistical analysis, using The Locus for Focus model, were performed. As a result of the study, meaningful results were derived for each learner type. Reflecting on these research results, the researcher hopes that there will be practices such as developing programs that can write an outline well in writing education, strengthening writing correction education, and expanding engaging writing education using media.

1. Introduction

Modern society in the twenty-first century is talked about as the era of the fourth Industrial Revolution, information society, and knowledge-based society, and it is showing rapid social changes. As a result, the core competencies are emphasized according to the subject change, and accordingly, the direction of education for each subject also changes. Consequently, there is a difference in the core competencies emphasized by the subject. And the focus of education for each issue is also different [1]. Compared to the past, the ability required by a knowledge-based society has also changed significantly. To keep pace with the rapidly changing current era, universities are also establishing a talent image that can immediately respond to future changes in society and conducting many discussions and research to continue the role of education under the goal.

Students who will lead the era of knowledge and information should have the creativity, thinking skills, and problem-solving skills that this era wants. To meet these needs of the times, we have paid a lot of attention and effort to diversifying the learner-centered curriculum to maximize individual aptitude, ability, and interest, breaking away from traditional teaching methods centered on cramming education in the past. As a result, what received attention was the diversification of the curriculum and the individualization of the curriculum. And in that context, what draws attention is to classify students by level and conduct classes. However, since interest in classes by level is centered on middle and high schools, universities are less interested. In addition, there is indeed research on writing subjects as this interest is concentrated on English or Mathematics.

By experimenting and verifying elementary and middle school students, learning motivation and self-control can be practical criteria for diagnosing positive learning behavior. In this reality, Hwang Mae-Hyang et al.’s research has implications [2]. This study developed a learning type test with learning motivation and self-control as sub-areas to diagnose underachieving students.

This study was aimed at students in the basic class who take a college liberal arts course called <writing> at H University in South Korea. The purpose of the study is to derive learning types by conducting paper-based surveys based on the research of Hwang Mae-hyang et al. and analyzing writing education needs through the importance and execution of writing-related items [2]. And the researcher would like to derive educational implications through the results.

H University has designated and operated the “writing” subject as a required liberal arts subject. Since 3 years ago, 8% of the total classes have been classified separately as basic classes and are assigned 1 hour a week¹. It is giving practice time. However, it is time to analyze how satisfied students are and what their requirements are by leaving more practice time to the instructor’s autonomy.

Therefore, the researcher wants to analyze the educational needs by classifying basic class students by learning type, compiling what they consider essential in writing subjects by type, and what parts of writing subjects lack performance.

To achieve the research purpose, the research contents are set as follows:

• A survey item is determined to investigate the learning type and writing-related.

• Needs of college students in the basic class.

• Learners’ learning-type tests are conducted.

• The importance and execution of each item are analyzed for each learning type.

• It analyzes the writing education needs of college students.

Suppose it is a characteristic of this study, in that case, it differs from previous studies in which it classifies college students in the basic class by learning type and analyzes the needs for writing-related items by type.

2. Research method

2.1 Subject of study

The subjects of the survey study were students who took the <Writing> course opened as a liberal arts compulsory subject at H University in South Korea. A total of 105 students, including 77- and 78-minute students, who took the first semester of 2019, and 85- and 86-minute students, who took the second semester of 2019. However, among them, 99 people were subjected to the exclusion of three additional people who did not respond to the learning type test, excluding three who did not respond to the survey after a long absence. All the learners who participated in the class were in the first grade. The ratio of men and women was 43 male learners and 56 female students, with a high proportion of female students. The survey was conducted anonymously, and a 5-point Likert scale was used as the measurement item.

2.2 Measuring tools

To determine the learning type, learning motivation, and self-control measurement, questionnaires were used. The learning motivation was produced by Kim Yong-Rae and a scale of 25 questions is used by Cha Mi-Yang [2, 3]. This questionnaire consisted of six questions about intrinsic motivation, six questions about nonessential motivation, six questions about continuous motivation, and seven questions about class motivation. This scale is a 5-point Likert scale, and the reliability of the scale Cronbach’s α is .85, which is reliable. For self-control measurement, a scale in which Cho Hyun-jin organized the self-control scale developed by Tangney, Baumeister, and Bone into 12 questions was used [4, 5]. The reliability of this scale Cronbach’s α was .82.

To measure the importance and implementation of writing-related items, a questionnaire item was organized focusing on the contents of lectures during the semester. First, the writing procedure area was set into seven items: to conceive, choosing a topic, searching for references, creating an overview, writing sentences, paragraph writing, and trimming writing. Next, the genre writing area was set to five items: SNS writing, descriptive writing, introduction writing, argumentative writing, and writing of a report. For each writing item, the importance level was selected on the 5-point Likert scale, and the execution level was selected on the 5-point Likert scale. In addition, the educational needs were calculated based on the difference between importance and implementation.

2.3 Analysis method

The average value of the collected data was calculated based on learning motivation and self-control and was classified into four types based on the average value. In other words, the diagnosis was properly divided into four groups: Group 1 is a group with high learning motivation and self-control, Group 2 is a group with high learning motivation and low self-control, Group 3 is a group with low learning motivation and high self-control, and Group 4 is a group with low learning motivation and self-control. In this way, it was divided into four groups and diagnosed.

In addition, a dependent sample t-verification was conducted to verify the difference between the importance and execution of writing-related items. Subsequently, after calculating the Borich needs, the priority of each item was confirmed. And each item was divided into four areas using The Locus for Focus model. All statistical analysis was analyzed using the SPSS 25.0 program.

2.3.1 Learning type inspection

The learning type test classifies students into four types based on learning motivation and self-control, which are major areas that are closely related to learning and can be changed through guidance and support. The purpose of the learning type test is to provide systematic learning guidance by understanding the causes of poor learning and classifying types.

• Type 1 (Effort Type): Students with excellent learning motivation and self-control skills.

• Type 2 (Synchronous): Students with high learning motivation and low self-control.

• Type 3 (adjustable): Students with low learning motivation but high self-control.

• Type 4 (behavior): Students with low learning motivation and self-control.

2.3.2 IPA

IPA (Imperformance-Performance Analysis) is a statistical technique developed to determine how consumers perceive the key attributes of the product or service to be evaluated. Since it was first presented in the field of business administration in the 1970s, it has now been used in various academic fields [6]. The IPA aims to establish the relative importance and supplier utilization of product features [7].

IPA analysis has the advantage of being able to suggest which areas of priority should be given to practitioners with time and cost limitations [8]. The IPA is also useful in determining what priority should be addressed with a fixed budget and manpower without going through a complicated process [9].

IPA analysis is largely divided into four-step procedures [10]. The first step is to select important attributes. The second step is to conduct a survey. In the third step, an action grid is created. The fourth step is to interpret and evaluate the execution lattice.

2.3.3 Borich needs

Borich’s need is a method of surveying to determine the current and desirable levels of a phenomenon and to prioritize each item by applying weights to the desired levels [11]. The Borich needs formula can overcome the shortcomings of t-verification [12]. The t-verification has a limitation in that it only compares the mean of the two levels. If only t-verification is used, it cannot be prioritized. However, applying the Borich requirement formula makes it possible to prioritize item B because the requirement level is higher.

2.3.4 The Locus for Focus model

The Locus for Focus model is effective in overcoming the shortcomings of the t-test and Borich’s requirements [11]. The Locus for Focus model is characterized by determining the significance of the difference between the two variables through the t-test and suggesting priority visually using a coordinate plane. It presents the difference between the current level and the desired level and weights it [13].

The Locus for Focus model analyzes the upper rank of the Borich needs and determines the upper rank of the Borich needs as many as the number included in the first quadrant. As a result, there are cases where results different from the Borich needs are derived.

3. Research results

3.1 Ranking of educational needs

Descriptive statistics were conducted and a corresponding sample t-test was conducted to evaluate the overall level of importance and implementation. Table 1 shows the results of analyzing the implementation-importance level for 12 items. Looking at the results, the educational needs for “creating an overview” (6.16) were the highest. It was followed by “writing of a report” (6.04), “Paragraph writing” (5.76), and “argumentative writing” (5.73).

a	b		c	d	e	f	g
							h	i
1	The writing process	To conceive	4.12	3.00	3.35	1.12	4.61	6
2		Choosing a topic	4.08	3.04	2.93	1.04	4.24	7
3		Search for references	3.76	3.20	1.46	0.56	2.11	11
4		Creating an overview	4.40	3.00	3.31	1.40	6.16	1
5		Writing sentences	3.92	2.72	2.26	1.20	4.70	5
6		Paragraph writing	4.36	3.04	.89	1.32	5.76	3
7		Trimming of writing	4.20	3.28	1.72	0.92	3.86	9
8	Genre	SNS writing	3.32	2.84	1.43	0.48	1.59	12
9		Descriptive writing	3.56	2.92	1.22	0.64	2.28	10
10		Introduction writing	3.92	2.92	2.85	1.00	3.92	8
11		Argumentative writing	4.48	3.20	3.22	1.28	5.73	4
12		Writing of a report	4.44	3.08	3.27	1.36	6.04	2
			4.04			1.02

Table 1.

Ranking of educational needs.

a: Item number, b: Area, c: Severity level, d: Execution figures, e: t, f: Difference, g: Borich’s needs, h: Requested figures, i: Overall ranking.

3.2 Educational needs by learning type

Borich’s needs for a total of 12 items, including seven writing process areas and five writing genre areas, such as to conceive, creating an overview, and trimming of writing, was analyzed for each learning type. The next content to be introduced is the analysis of educational needs from types 1 to 4.

3.2.1 Educational needs by learning type (1 type)

Table 2 shows the result of calculating the needs of college students in the first type of basic class. Looking at the results, the educational needs for “6. polishing writing” (6.53) was the highest. Subsequently, the priority was higher in the order of “creating an overview” (5.61), “paragraph writing” (5.12), and “argumentative writing” (3.71).

a	b	c	d	e	f			a	b	c	d	e	f
					g	h	i						g	h	i
1	The writing process	3.74	2.76	0.97	3.63	4	6	8	Genre	3.26	2.79	0.47	1.54	4	10
2		4.12	3.38	0.74	3.03	6	8	9		3.85	3.50	0.35	1.36	5	12
3		3.59	3.18	0.41	1.48	7	11	10		3.41	2.94	0.47	1.61	3	9
4		4.24	2.91	1.32	5.61	2	2	11		4.26	3.12	1.15	4.89	1	4
5		3.97	3.09	0.88	3.50	5	7	12		3.94	3.00	0.94	3.71	2	5
6		4.35	3.18	1.18	5.12	3	3
7		4.44	2.97	1.47	6.53	1	1	Overall		3.95		0.85

Table 2.

Analysis of the type 1 learners’ needs priorities.

a: Item number, b: Area, c: Severity level, d: Execution figures, e: Difference, f: Borich’s needs, g: Requested figures, h: Ranking within area, I: Overall ranking.

Next, let us analyze the priority of education needs for the writing process and genre for college students in the basic class using The Locus for Focus model.

The average of the overall importance perceived by college students was 3.95 and the average level of execution was 0.85. Looking at the results of the fourth quadrant based on the average of the important level and the average of the execution needs level, the items corresponding to the first quadrant were found to be items that should be considered first due to high awareness of the importance level and high execution needs level. The questions shown in the first quadrant were 4, 5, 6, 7, and 11, with a total of five items.

Table 3 shows whether the priority derived using Borich’s needs calculation formula is derived by the number of items included in the priority area of The Locus for Focus model and whether it overlaps. At this time, question 12 was excluded because the Borich requirement was high, but it was not included in the first quadrant. According to each priority derivation method, the questions that exist in the top priority area that commonly indicates high needs were found in the order of 7, 4, 6, and 11. Looking at the contents, it is in the order of “trimming of writing,” “creating an overview,” “paragraph writing,” and “argumentative writing.”

a	b		a	b
	c	d		c	d
1			7	O	O
2			8
3			9
4	O	O	10
5		O	11	O	O
6	O	O	12	O

Table 3.

Deriving the priority of needs through analyzing the needs of the type 1 learner.

a: Question number of questionnaire, b: To derive priority, c: Borich’s needs, d: The Locus for Focus.

3.2.2 Education needs by learning type (2 types)

Table 4 is the result of calculating the needs of college students in the second type basic class. Looking at the results, the educational needs for “creating an overview” (6.70) was the highest. It was followed by “choosing a topic” (5.98), “paragraph writing” (5.65), and “writing of a report” (5.64).

a	b	c	d	e	f			a	b	c	d	e	f
					g	h	i						g	h	i
1	The writing process	3.94	3.15	0.79	3.13	5	7	8	Genre	3.09	2.68	0.41	1.27	5	11
2		4.24	2.82	1.41	5.98	2	2	9		3.74	3.29	0.44	1.65	4	10
3		3.32	3.03	0.29	0.98	7	12	10		3.38	2.79	0.59	1.99	3	9
4		4.38	2.85	1.53	6.70	1	1	11		3.59	2.59	1.00	3.59	2	5
5		3.76	2.82	0.94	3.54	4	6	12		4.26	2.94	1.32	5.64	1	4
6		4.18	2.82	1.35	5.65	3	3
7		3.76	2.94	0.82	3.10	6	8	Overall		3.80		0.91

Table 4.

Analysis of the type 2 learners’ needs priorities.

a: Item number, b: Area, c: Severity level, d: Execution figures, e: Difference, f: Borich’s needs, g: Requested figures, h: Ranking within area, i: Overall ranking.

Next, we analyze the priority of education needs for the writing process and genre for type 2 college students in the basic class using The Locus for Focus model.

The overall importance average recognized by college students was 3.80, and the average level of execution was .91. Looking at the results of the fourth quadrant based on the average of the important level and the average of the execution needs level, the items corresponding to the first quadrant were found to be items that should be considered first due to high awareness of the importance level and high execution needs level. The questions shown in the first quadrant were 4, 2, 6, and 12, with a total of four items.

Table 5 shows whether the priority derived using Borich’s needs calculation formula is derived by the number of items included in the priority area of The Locus for Focus model and whether it overlaps. According to each priority deriving method, the questions that exist in the top priority area that commonly indicates high needs were found in the order of 4, 2, 6, and 12. Looking at the contents, it is in the order of “writing an outline,” “choosing a topic,” “writing a paragraph,” and “writing of a report.”

a	b		a	b
	c	d		c	d
1			7
2	O	O	8
3			9
4	O	O	10
5			11
6	O	O	12	O	O

Table 5.

Deriving the priority of needs through analyzing the needs of the type 2 learner.

a: Question number of questionnaire, b: To derive priority, c: Borich’s needs, d: The Locus for Focus.

3.2.3 Educational needs by learning type (3 types: Synchronous)

Table 6 is the result of calculating the needs of college students in the third type basic class. Looking at the results, the educational needs for “choosing a topic” (6.57) was the highest. It was followed by “writing a Paragraph” (6.27), “writing an Overview” (6.23), and “writing of a report” (5.49).

a	b	c	D	e	f			a	b	c	d	e	f
					G	h	i						g	h	i
1	The writing process	3.62	2.47	1.15	4.15	4	6	8	Genre	3.15	2.76	0.38	1.20	5	12
2		4.29	2.76	1.53	6.57	1	1	9		3.71	3.24	0.47	1.74	4	11
3		3.53	2.97	0.56	1.97	7	10	10		3.35	2.74	0.62	2.07	3	9
4		4.32	2.88	1.44	6.23	3	3	11		3.88	2.76	1.12	4.34	2	5
5		3.76	2.79	0.97	3.65	5	7	12		4.15	2.82	1.32	5.49	1	4
6		4.35	2.91	1.44	6.27	2	2
7		4.00	3.18	0.82	3.29	6	8	Overall		3.84		0.99

Table 6.

Analysis of the type 3 learners’ needs priorities.

a: Item number, b: Area, c: Severity level, d: Execution figures, e: Difference, f: Borich’s needs, g: Requested figures, h: Ranking within area, I: Overall ranking.

Next, We analyze the priority of education needs for the writing process and genre for type 4 college students in the basic class using The Locus for Focus model.

The overall importance average recognized by college students was 3.84, and the average level of execution was 0.99. Looking at the results of the fourth quadrant based on the average of the important level and the average of the execution needs level, the items corresponding to the first quadrant were found to be items that should be considered first due to high awareness of the importance level and high execution needs level. The questions shown in the first quadrant were 2, 4, 6, 11, and 12, with a total of 5 items.

Table 7 shows whether the priority derived using Borich’s needs calculation formula is derived by the number of items included in the priority area of The Locus for Focus model and whether it overlaps. At this time, question 5 was excluded because the Borich needs was high, but it was not included in the first quadrant. According to each priority deriving method, the questions that exist in the top priority area that commonly indicates high needs were found in the order of 2, 6, 4, 12, and 11. Looking at the contents, it is in the order of “deciding a topic,” “writing a paragraph,” “writing an outline,” “writing of a report,” and “argumentative writing.”

a	b		a	b
	c	d		c	d
1			7
2	O	O	8
3			9
4	O	O	10
5			11	O	O
6	O	O	12	O	O

Table 7.

Deriving the priority of needs through analyzing the needs of the type 3 learner.

a: Question number of questionnaire, b: To derive priority, c: Borich’s needs, d: The Locus for Focus.

3.2.4 Educational needs by learning type (4 types: Behavioral type)

Table 8 shows the result of calculating the needs of college students in type 4 basic class. Looking at the results, the educational needs for “to conceive” (7.02) was the highest. It was followed by “SNS writing” (5.85), “writing of a report” (5.11), and “choosing a topic” (5.09) in the order of priority.

a	b	c	d	e	f			a	b	c	d	e	f
					g	h	i						g	h	i
1	The writing process	4.26	2.62	1.65	7.02	1	1	8	Genre	4.06	2.62	1.44	5.85	1	2
2		4.32	3.15	1.18	5.09	2	4	9		3.65	3.24	0.41	1.50	5	12
3		3.21	2.65	0.56	1.79	7	10	10		3.26	2.74	0.53	1.73	4	11
4		3.53	2.53	1.00	3.53	4	7	11		4.06	3.15	0.91	3.70	3	5
5		3.59	2.97	0.62	2.22	6	9	12		4.24	3.03	1.21	5.11	2	3
6		3.88	2.97	0.91	3.54	3	6
7		3.71	2.88	0.82	3.05	5	8	Overall		3.81		0.94

Table 8.

Analysis of the type 4 learners’ needs priorities.

a: Item number, b: Area, c: Severity level, d: Execution figures, e: Difference, f: Borich‘s needs, g: Requested figures, h: Ranking within area, I: Overall ranking.

Next, let us analyze the priority of education needs for the writing process and genre for college students in the basic class using The Locus for Focus model.

The overall importance average recognized by college students was 3.81, and the average level of execution was 0.94. Looking at the results of the fourth quadrant based on the average of the important level and the average of the execution needs level, the items corresponding to the first quadrant were found to be items that should be considered first due to high awareness of the importance level and high execution needs level. The questions shown in the first quadrant were no. 1, 2, 8, and 12, with a total of four items.

Table 9 shows whether the priority derived using Borich’s needs calculation formula is derived by the number of items included in the priority area of The Locus for Focus model and whether it overlaps. According to each priority derivation method, the questions that exist in the top priority area that commonly indicates high needs were found in the order of 1, 8, 12, and 2. Looking at the contents, it is in the order of “to conceive,” “SNS writing,” “writing of a report,” and “choosing a topic.”

a	b		a	b
	c	d		c	d
1	O	O	7
2	O	O	8	O	O
3			9
4			10
5			11
6			12	O	O

Table 9.

Deriving the priority of needs through analyzing the needs of the type 4 learner.

a: Question number of questionnaire, b: To derive priority, c: Borich’s needs, d: The Locus for Focus.

3.3 Education requirements for the writing process and the genre of writing

Borich’s needs for seven writing process areas and five writing genre areas, such as to conceive, writing preparation, and writing plaster, was analyzed for college students in the basic class of H University. The results of this will be introduced in three categories: the case of integrating the writing process and the writing genre area, the case of the writing process, and the case of the writing genre.

3.3.1 Educational requirements incorporating the writing process and the writing genre area

Table 10 shows the result of calculating the needs of college students. Looking at the results, the educational needs for “creating an overview” (6.16) was the highest. It was followed by “writing of a report” (6.04), “paragraph writing” (5.76), and “argumentative writing” (5.73).

a	b	c	d	e	f			a	b	c	d	e	f
					g	h	i						g	h	i
1	The writing process	4.12	3.00	1.12	4.61	4	6	8	Genre	3.32	2.84	0.48	1.59	5	12
2		4.08	3.04	1.04	4.24	5	7	9		3.56	2.92	0.64	2.28	4	10
3		3.76	3.20	0.56	2.11	7	11	10		3.92	2.92	1.00	3.92	3	8
4		4.40	3.00	1.40	6.16	1	1	11		4.48	3.20	1.28	5.73	2	4
5		3.92	2.72	1.20	4.70	3	5	12		4.44	3.08	1.36	6.04	1	2
6		4.36	3.04	1.32	5.76	2	3
7		4.20	3.28	0.92	3.86	6	9	Overall		4.04		1.02

Table 10.

Analysis of all learners’ needs priorities.

a: Item number, b: Area, c: Severity level, d: Execution figures, e: Difference, f: Borich’s needs, g: Requested figures, h: Ranking within area, I: Overall ranking.

Subsequently, the priority of education needs for the writing process and genre for all college students in the basic class was analyzed using The Locus for Focus model.

The overall importance average recognized by college students was 4.04, and the execution level was 1.02. Looking at the results of the fourth quadrant based on the average of the important level and the average of the execution needs level, the items corresponding to the first quadrant were found to be items that should be considered first due to high awareness of the importance level and high execution needs level. The questions shown in the first quadrant were 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, and 12, with a total of six items.

Table 11 shows whether the priority derived using Borich’s needs calculation formula is derived by the number of items included in the priority area of The Locus for Focus model and whether it overlaps. At this time, question 5 was excluded because the Borich requirement was high, but it was not included in the first quadrant. According to each priority deriving method, the questions that exist in the top priority area that commonly indicates high needs were found in the order of 4, 12, 6, 11, and 6. Looking at the contents, it is in the order of “creating an overview,” “writing of a report,” “paragraph writing,” and “argumentative writing.”

a	b		a	b
	c	d		c	d
1	O	O	7
2		O	8
3			9
4	O	O	10
5	O		11	O	O
6	O	O	12	O	O

Table 11.

Deriving the priority of needs through analyzing the needs of all learners.

a: Question number of questionnaire, b: To derive priority, c: Borich’s needs, d: The Locus for Focus.

3.3.2 Training requirements for the writing course area

Borich’s needs was analyzed for a total of seven writing processes, including to conceive, writing preparation, and writing registration, for college students in the basic class of H University.² As a result, the needs for the “overview writing” (6.16) item was the highest. Subsequently, “paragraph writing” (5.76), “writing sentences” (4.70), and “to conceive” (4.61) were the highest in order.

Subsequently, the priority of the needs in the writing process for all college students was analyzed using The Locus for Focus model. The average importance of the writing process was 4.12, and the average difference in the execution level was 1.08. According to each priority derivation method, the questions that exist in the top priority area that commonly indicates high needs were found in the order of 4, 6, and 1. Looking at the contents, it was derived in the order of “creating an Overview,” “paragraph writing,” and “to conceive.”

3.3.3 Education requirements for genre writing areas

Borich’s needs were analyzed for a total of five writing processes, including SNS writing, explanatory writing, introductory writing, thesis writing, and writing of a report, for college students in the basic class of H University.³ Looking at the results, “writing of a report” (6.04) was the highest. It was followed by “argumentative writing” (5.73) and “creating an overview” (3.92).

Subsequently, the priority of needs in genre writing was analyzed for all college students using The Locus for Focus model, and the result was that the average of importance in the entire area was 3.94 and the difference from the execution level was 0.95. According to each priority derivation method, the questions that exist in the top priority area that commonly indicates high needs were found in the order of 12 and 11. Looking at the contents, it was derived in the order of “writing of a report” and “argumentative writing.”

3.4 Discussion

The statistical results derived above are discussed as follows.

First, as a result of analyzing the educational needs by synthesizing the writing process and writing by genre, two needs for the writing process and two needs for genre writing were derived. It can be seen that the difficulty of the basic process of writing is as great, but the difficulty of the genre is as high as this. The highest need for creating an overview can be seen as emphasized because the most necessary ability for college students to write reports or assignments is the necessary ability to complete the overall framework and submit regulatory tasks. If you do not have this ability, you will not be able to fill the given assignment amount, or giving up happens all the time.⁴ In addition, even if the portion is filled, there are many cases where good scores are not obtained due to the lack of unity.

The reason why the need for a rewrite appeared low in the writing process is not because of confidence in it, but because there are many ways to solve it on your own without the help of the instructor. The need for this seems to have been low because of the high possibility of solving it. In addition, the low need for SNS writing among various genres reflects the attitude that it can be done without learning. After all, it is viewed as a kind of familiar writing because it is relatively used to writing every day rather than the need for it.

Second, the Borich requirement formula is a proven formula that has already been used in many studies, but it is necessary to consider whether the requirement and practical importance match exactly. Therefore, as a supplementary measure for this, this error was attempted to be eliminated by using The Locus for Focus model. Even though the Borich level was high, it was excluded from the actual priority.

Third, by conducting this study, it is meaningful that the opportunity for reflection was provided through the importance and execution of college students on writing-related items from the perspective of instructors. If the needs of college students, who are consumers, can be well reflected through these survey results, it will be possible to conduct more efficient classes in the future even though it is a limited time. In addition, if a significant amount of time has not been invested, a change in teaching methods can be sought. I think this study provides important information for all of these things.

Based on these topics, an efficient education plan is discussed as follows. The first of the four types of this study (effort type) is a group of students with high learning motivation and self-control. In this type, the high needs were “creating an overview” and “trimming of writing.” “Trimming of writing” is a part of the report submitted as a task that wants to be individually guided on what is good and what is insufficient, and wants to get a higher score when submitting the next report. “Creating an overview” is also a part that is always difficult when submitting reports, and is interested in organizing the overall framework, but is also a part that is feeling difficult. They are judged to be learners with a relatively high levels of preparation to start learning behavior among basic classes. Since they have a higher sense of goal and motivation for learning than other learners and are students who can control their behavior, I think guidance that directly helps to learn is needed. An effective guidance plan for them is to acknowledge their learning motivation and self-regulation skills and give appropriate feedback on their needs.

The second type (synchronous type) is a group of students with high learning motivation but low self-control. They showed a high need for creating an overview and choosing a topic. Submit several assignments during the writing class.⁵ The students had to, but they had a hard time filling up the amount. Therefore, to fill the designated amount and avoid unnecessary content, it is necessary to guide “choosing a topic” or “creating an overview.” Although they are interested in studying, they lack self-control and are weak in temptation, so it is necessary to recognize high learning motivation and guide them to connect them well with academic expectations. It will also be helpful to guide specific goals and motivations related to writing. In addition, it is necessary to help them focus on learning to develop their insufficient self-control and control skills.

The third type (adjustable type) is a group of students with high self-control but low learning motivation. They showed high needs for choosing a topic and paragraph writing. This is related to the lack of motivation to write. They adapt relatively well to school life and do not interfere with learning, but have weak goals or meanings for their studies. They need to have hopes and expectations for their future as well as their learning goals and help them have meaning in their studies. Some of these students are lethargic due to long-term poor learning, and others do not feel the need for voluntary meaning, although they refer to a given task. They need guidance measures to boost their motivation.

The fourth type (behavior type) is a group of students with low learning motivation and self-control. They showed a high need for SNS writing and conceiving. This can be seen as a lack of motivation for writing, making it difficult to figure out what to do from the beginning. In addition, they may tend to act impulsively for immediate satisfaction in behavior without setting goals or values for learning. It is necessary to guide them to have basic learning habits. In addition, considering their low self-control, a pleasant and familiar guidance plan seems to be appropriate [14]. Therefore, it is necessary to actively utilize and guide the media in the stage of envisioning the writing. For example, I think it is necessary to devise writing using pictures or photos or to actively use mind maps.

It can be difficult to satisfy all learners with such diverse needs. However, this study is meaningful in terms of securing basic data to solve the sluggish learning of the basic class by identifying the learning types of basic class learners and identifying the needs of each type.

4. Conclusions and suggestions

This study was conducted to analyze the writing-related education needs of college students organized in the basic class for effective writing education and to create data that can use in future writing education. Currently, the perception of college students with writing education and the degree of implementation were identified, and based on this, presented the ranking of educational needs. In addition, the researcher drew the following conclusions based on these results.

First, as a result of analyzing the educational needs by synthesizing the writing process and writing by genre, two needs for the writing process and two needs for genre writing were derived. The difficulty of the basic writing process is as great, but the difficulty of the genre is as high as this. The highest need for “creating an overview” can see as emphasizing because it is necessary to fill the number of tasks. The reason why the need for “trimming of writing” was low in the writing process is believed to be that there are many ways to solve this problem on your own.

Second, learners were classified into four types, focusing on learning motivation and self-control, and analyzed the needs of each group. As a result, the needs were high in the order of “trimming of writing” and “creating an overview” in Type 1, “Creating an Overview” and “choosing a topic” in Type 2, “choosing a topic” and “paragraph writing” in Type 3, “to conceive” and “SNS writing” in Type 4.

Third, the Borich requirement formula is a proven formula that has already used in many studies, but it is necessary to consider whether the requirement and practical importance match precisely. Therefore, as a supplementary measure for this, this error was attempted to be eliminated by using The Locus for Focus model. In fact, in this study, even though the Borich score was high, it was excluded from the priority. More helpful research is needed to solve this problem.

Fourth, by conducting this study, it is meaningful that the opportunity for reflection is provided through the importance and execution of college students on writing-related items from the instructors’ perspective. If the needs of college students who are consumers can be well reflected through these survey results, it will be possible to conduct more efficient classes in the future even though it is a limited time. In addition, if a significant amount of time has not been invested, can seek a change in teaching methods. This study provides essential information for all of these things.

Above all, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the execution score is lower than the importance. Based on this, it can be a reference for redesigning or adjusting the existing class. In particular, in the reality of the lack of research data on college students in the basic class, such data are expected to have desirable significance for the basic class by allowing various plans for the basic class to be attempted.

Of course, there are limitations to this study. First, in this study, the degree of implementation and importance of college students’ competencies necessary for writing education were analyzed as a questionnaire. In the survey, there is a limit to generalizing the tendency of all Korean college students by conducting it for college students in the basic class of a specific university called H University.

Second, since quantitative research was conducted on college students, further qualitative research is needed to reveal more details. In addition, it would be more helpful if there was a comparative study between the basic and non-basic classes. Third, the lack of presentation of efficient teaching methods based on the results of this study is also a limitation. This part will also be left as a future study.

The suggestions based on the conclusions of this study are as follows. First, this study has a limitation in objectivity because it investigated the degree of implementation and importance of college students in writing education in a self-selection method. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a tool that can more objectively measure execution, significance, and even needs.

Second, the purpose of this study was to analyze implications by measuring the educational needs related to the writing education of college students in the basic class. Based on this, follow-up studies at the level of qualitative research are needed to find out what causes these differences. In addition, most of the 99 survey subjects are college students from H University, so it is necessary to expand this and study more samples.