Needs analysis, a fundamental aspect of ESP, plays a crucial role in shaping various components of language education. To determine the reasons learners should study an ESP course, it is necessary to collect information about their specific needs—an approach widely recognized as one of ESP’s most significant contributions to English language teaching ( Kherraz, 2022 ). This process influences multiple aspects of the educational framework, including course design, the development of teaching materials, instructional strategies, and the evaluation of both students and the overall course ( Bocanegra-Valle, 2016 ; Lou et al., 2020 ; Viktorovna & Viktorovna, 2020 ). Failure to address these needs, as noted by language experts such as Jeong Park (2021) , can hinder the advancement of ESP instruction. Furthermore, Kurniawati (2022) stresses that for vocational students, developing English skills tailored to their field is vital for enhancing future career prospects. Consequently, needs analysis is widely regarded as a cornerstone of ESP course development ( Kherraz, 2022 ; Rofikah et al., 2022 ; Salamanca González, 2020 ).

Target Situation Analysis, Present Situation Analysis, and Learning Situation Analysis are universally acknowledged as three crucial and fundamental approaches for scrutinizing the language needs of learners ( Jitpanich et al., 2022 ; Sujana et al., 2020 ). To achieve this, a needs analysis was conducted through a questionnaire, designed following the needs analysis frameworks of Hutchinson and Waters (1987) and Graves (2000) . The analysis focused on three key areas: (a) target situation analysis, which examines the language skills learners need in real-world contexts; (b) present situation analysis, which assesses learners’ current proficiency and challenges in using the language; and (c) learning situation analysis, which explores the most effective language learning methods for the learners.

The Cabin Service English Course is designed to enhance cabin crew’s language proficiency and intercultural communication skills, addressing language barriers and cultural differences to improve service quality and passenger satisfaction in a global setting ( Ji, 2024 ). By integrating linguistic and cross-cultural communication knowledge, the course prepares students to communicate effectively, deliver high-quality service, and ensure passenger safety in diverse aviation environments ( Ma, 2023 ). Higher vocational education for cabin crew has traditionally focused on combining theoretical knowledge with practical skills to cultivate well-rounded professionals ( Ma, 2023 ).

With the rapid advancements in the aviation industry, traditional educational models struggle to meet their diverse demands, leading to a growing mismatch between academic training and industry expectations ( Jiao, 2020 ). The traditional teaching method for a Cabin Service English Course relies on structured, teacher-centered instruction, emphasizing rote learning and standardized materials. In the cabin crew sector of the aviation service industry, practical skills are a key measure of professional competence, yet traditional teaching models are increasingly inadequate to meet evolving industry demands amid global competition and technological advancements ( Jiao, 2020 ). The traditional instructor-led approach relies heavily on lectures and demonstrations, limiting opportunities for students to actively develop practical skills for real-world service scenarios. Rote memorization of vocabulary prioritizes quick recall over meaningful language application, while standardized textbooks create a uniform learning experience but may fail to address individual learning needs or industry-specific adaptability ( Sharma et al., 2024 ). Although integrating traditional culture into the curriculum can enhance cross-cultural communication skills, it may not be sufficient to fully prepare students for the dynamic linguistic and service challenges in cabin service ( Zhang, 2024 ).

The method of designing effective qualifications by first analyzing work processes was initially developed by German experts ( Tūtlys & Spöttl, 2017 ). This approach involves a comprehensive examination of tasks within real work environments, resulting in the creation of work-process-based occupational standards and ultimately leading to well-rounded and contextually relevant occupational competence ( Spöttl & Loose, 2014 ). The process of developing a curriculum based on work processes is referred to as the co-production of vocational curricula (Bernard, 2000). Its goal is to eliminate unnecessary theoretical content from vocational subjects while incorporating relevant theoretical and practical knowledge aligned with future job roles. However, while this method provides a solid foundation for language acquisition, its lack of engagement and adaptability to individual learning needs highlights the necessity of conducting a thorough needs analysis.

This research was conducted at a comprehensive vocational college in Chongqing, focusing on the cabin service program within the Automobile and Aviation School. The vocational college in Chongqing attaches great importance to the Civil Aviation (Air Crew) program, viewing it as a key driver for international talent cultivation under initiatives like the Western China Land-Sea New Corridor and vocational education going global. As a core course, Cabin Service English is designed to align with international service standards, enhancing students’ practical English skills and cross-cultural communication abilities. This prepares graduates for both domestic and overseas aviation markets, supporting the global vision of China’ s modern vocational education.

Cabin Service English Course, guided by Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era and the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, innovatively constructs a “three-dimensional progressive” education system (knowledge, competency, quality) rooted in vocational education. Aligned with the Air Crew Vocational Skill Level Standard (3.0) and 1+X Air Crew Certificate Examination Syllabus (2.0), it integrates industry standards and core competencies, employing a “Three Stages and Nine Steps” framework: knowledge (understanding-comprehension-application), skills (imitation-operation-expansion), and values (awareness-experience-practice). However, to ensure the course aligns with industry expectations and effectively supports students’ career readiness, a comprehensive needs analysis is essential. This study explores the specific language requirements of cabin crew roles and examines how a work-process-based approach can enhance the course’s relevance, engagement, and practical applicability.

For descriptive studies, researchers are encouraged to maximize their sample size based on available time and resources ( Fraenkel et al., 2012 ). A larger sample can enhance the reliability of the research findings ( Cohen et al., 2018 ). In this study, stratified random sampling method was used. Stratified random sampling improves estimation accuracy by dividing a population into distinct subgroups and randomly selecting participants from each, ensuring balanced representation across key characteristics, as demonstrated in the study’s comparative analysis of sampling methods ( Peanpailoon et al., 2024 ). A total of 85 students from the cabin service program participated in this study, representing first-year, second year, and third-year students. These participants were selected using stratified random sampling to ensure a representative sample of students enrolled in the Civil Aviation English course at the vocational college in Chongqing. Stratified random sampling was employed to reduce bias and ensure that students from different academic years were proportionally represented.

In this study, a questionnaire was designed to examine the needs of Chinese vocational college students for a work-process-based Civil Aviation English course, with a focus on language skills, professional contexts, and learning preferences to enhance course design. The questionnaire, adapted from Supriadi & Purbani (2019) and Kaya (2021) , consisted of three sections. The first section gathered demographic information about the students, while the second section focused on needs analysis, divided into target situation analysis, present situation analysis, and learning situation analysis. The target situation analysis examined the required English skills for Civil Aviation English, assessing the importance of the four language skills and identifying essential topics, work-related language functions, and expressions. The present situation analysis explored students’ difficulties in reading, writing, speaking, and listening to understand their current proficiency and challenges. The learning situation analysis investigated students’ preferences for specific expressions or language functions needed to support occupation-related knowledge, along with their preferred process-based learning strategies. All items in the second section were measured using a five-point Likert scale.

The collected data were analyzed quantitatively using descriptive statistics, including frequency, percentage, and means to identify overall trends in students’ language skill needs, learning difficulties, and preferences for course content and instructional strategies. A comparative analysis was conducted to examine differences across academic years, providing insights into how students’ needs evolved throughout their studies. The Likert-scale responses were interpreted to assess the relative importance of various language skills and professional communication scenarios. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS to ensure accuracy and reliability in the findings.

In general, listening and speaking were recognized by most respondents as the most essential English skills for performing effectively in cabin crew roles (See Table 1 ). According to the results of the questionnaire survey, the average scores for listening and speaking skills were 4.35 and 4.38 respectively, indicating a strong consensus among respondents regarding the importance of these two skills. Specifically, more than 51% of the participants rated listening and speaking as “very important,” highlighting their perceived relevance to the job requirements in the field of cabin service. In contrast, the average scores for reading and writing were relatively lower, at 4.16 and 4.08 respectively, suggesting that these skills are considered somewhat less critical in the context of cabin crew duties. Overall, English language proficiency is widely regarded as a core competency in the civil aviation service sector, with listening and speaking abilities standing out as particularly vital for effective communication with international passengers and the successful performance of professional responsibilities on board.

Table 2 presents college students’ perceptions of the importance of various work-related topics for their future careers. Overall, students rated all items as important, with mean scores (M) ranging from 4.34 to 4.53 on a 5-point Likert scale. The topics of Safety (M = 4.53) and Emergency (M = 4.53) received the highest ratings, indicating that safety-related knowledge is regarded as most essential. Passenger services (M = 4.51) and Food and beverage (M = 4.51) were also rated highly, showing the emphasis placed on service quality. Preparation before flight (M = 4.46), Health and medical issue (M = 4.48), and Boarding to the plane (M = 4.49) were similarly considered important. The topic of Duty-free Sales received the lowest score (M = 4.34), suggesting that commercial aspects are perceived as relatively less important. These results reflect students’ greater concern for safety, service, and operational preparedness in their anticipated work environment.

Table 3 summarizes college students’ self-assessed proficiency levels across the four core language skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. It reveals that college students reported the lowest proficiency in speaking (M = 3.15) and listening (M = 3.19), with a high percentage rating themselves as “Incompetent”—44.71% for speaking and 45.88% for listening. These two skills had the lowest mean scores and the smallest proportion of students rating themselves as “Very Competent.” In contrast, reading (M = 3.21) and writing (M = 3.24) were relatively stronger, though still with notable weakness, as 36.47% of students rated themselves as “Very Incompetent” or “Incompetent” in reading, and 35.3% in writing. Overall, the data suggest that speaking and listening are the most challenging areas for students, while reading and writing are perceived with slightly more confidence but still show room for improvement.

Table 4 illustrates college students’ self-assessed proficiency in various aspects of Cabin Service English. Overall, students rated themselves as generally “competent” across all items, with mean scores ranging narrowly from 3.09 to 3.19. The highest-rated skill was the ability to understand and follow English instructions for standard operating procedures (M = 3.19), indicating moderate confidence in comprehension of procedural language. Slightly lower mean scores were observed for responding quickly during practical operations (M = 3.12), using English fluently under pressure (M = 3.12), and remembering and correctly using professional terminology (M = 3.14). The lowest-rated item was understanding passengers’ needs and responding accurately in English (M = 3.09), suggesting a particular challenge in real-time, customer-focused communication. These results highlight the need to strengthen students applied English communication skills, especially in high-pressure and customer service scenarios.

Table 5 presents students’ difficulties in speaking work-related English in the civil aviation context. Overall, respondents reported moderate challenges across all items, with mean scores ranging from 3.16 to 3.21. The greatest difficulty was reported in responding promptly and appropriately in English after hearing passengers’ needs (M = 3.21), reflecting challenges in real-time, situational communication—such as answering sudden passenger inquiries or handling in-flight service requests. Other notable difficulties include fear of making grammatical mistakes during formal announcements (M = 3.18) and difficulty using accurate professional terminology (M = 3.18), which suggest that anxiety and a limited command of aviation-specific language hinder effective spoken performance. These findings point to the need for targeted training in oral English for service interactions, especially under time pressure or unexpected situations like resolving complaints or assisting passengers with special needs.

Following this, Table 6 explores listening-related challenges in the same domain. Students consistently reported moderate listening difficulties, with mean scores ranging from 3.05 to 3.14. The most significant issue was the difficulty in remembering aviation-related expressions and professional terminology (M =

3.14), suggesting a need for more retention-based listening practice. Other notable concerns included understanding different English accents (M = 3.11) and accurately comprehending passengers’ needs during simulations (M = 3.11). These results underscore the importance of exposing students to a wider variety of spoken English input, including real-world scenarios and accent diversity.

Table 7 shifts the focus to reading difficulties. Students reported slightly lower levels of difficulty in this area, with mean scores ranging from 3.08 to 3.16. The most prominent challenge was understanding content in in-flight safety instructions, passenger manuals, or aviation regulations (M = 3.16), followed closely by identifying key information in flight-related documents (M = 3.14). This suggests that while students are generally able to comprehend basic texts, interpreting detailed or technical reading materials remains an area for improvement. Providing targeted reading strategies and specialized vocabulary support may help alleviate these difficulties.

Finally, Table 8 addresses challenges in writing work-related English. Mean scores in this section were fairly consistent (M = 3.09 to 3.15), reflecting a moderate level of difficulty. The top issues included using professional vocabulary for drafting in-flight announcements (M = 3.15) and developing ideas for emails or reports (M = 3.15), indicating that students often struggle with both content generation and linguistic accuracy. Problems with paragraph organization (M = 3.13) and clearly expressing thoughts (M = 3.12) were also common. These findings suggest that writing instruction should focus not only on language mechanics but also on structuring professional documents relevant to cabin service duties.

In the process of enhancing English language skills within the civil aviation context, learners expressed clear challenges in listening and speaking, particularly when required to respond quickly and accurately in real-time service situations. These difficulties were especially prominent in tasks like making announcements, handling passenger inquiries, and communicating with crew members. Table 9 shows that learners highly valued integrating English practice with specific workflow scenarios. Situations such as passenger check-in, in-flight service, and safety demonstrations received the highest mean scores (M = 3.74), indicating that these contexts are not only relevant but also directly target the skills students find most difficult—listening comprehension and spoken expression in high-pressure, real-world settings.

Table 10 further highlights that students preferred instructional strategies that align closely with these challenging scenarios. Practical, interactive methods such as role play (M = 3.73), task-driven learning (M = 3.71), safety and emergency simulations (M = 3.71), and group exercises (M = 3.71) were rated highest, demonstrating a strong preference for experiential learning. These approaches allow learners to repeatedly practice listening to instructions, processing real-time information, and delivering spoken responses in context—addressing their communication difficulties directly. Even strategies like scenario simulations (M =

3.68) and online dialogue training (M = 3.67) received positive support, suggesting that both in-person and digital task-based methods are effective in building confidence and speaking fluency.

Finally, the suggestions in Table 11 reinforce students’ desire for authentic, job-relevant learning environments that can reduce anxiety and improve communication performance. Top-rated recommendations included increasing training that mirrors real work settings (M = 3.80), adopting immersive methods like airport internships and in-flight training (M = 3.80), and incorporating case-based learning (M = 3.80). These suggestions point to the need for learning experiences that simulate the complexity and immediacy of actual airline operations, helping learners improve both listening and speaking skills in meaningful contexts. Overall, the alignment between perceived language difficulties and preferred instructional strategies underscores the importance of context-rich, experience-based teaching in civil aviation English education.