So here you go, this is my last post. I can’t believe how fast this semester has gone, and looking back at my first post I realise how much we have gone through.

In my very first blog post I mentioned that I am not a very wordy person and find writing on a blog extremely hard. To my surprise, however, over the course of this module I have written over 15,000 words! I truly found the topic of material design fascinating and as a result found the writing on this matter a lot easier than I thought at first.

I met so many amazing and talented people on this module. I remember being slightly annoyed that the class has 21 students as opposed to an average of 7-8 people that are doing a Dip course. But I was wrong. The mixture of teachers of different nationalities from  teaching contexts made this class very special. I enjoyed  networking with my colleagues,  working on various tasks, and reading and commenting on their blogs. This is exactly the kind of knowledge sharing I was advocating in my first blog. It is a pity, however, that some colleagues didn’t open their blogs and didn’t get involved in the discussions.

I also looked at the notes I made at the beginning regarding my expectations of this module. This is what I wrote:

1.To gain a deeper understanding of materials and materials design
2. To get better at evaluating and choosing ELT materials
3. To get better at catering for needs of students and teachers
4. To explore the future of ELT materials
5. To create my own education product
6. To get involved in EdTech

Did I achieve any of them? I’d say so!  I have definitely got a much better understanding of materials and materials design. To illustrate, I have learnt how to analyse a coursebook and its tasks, created and evaluated my own materials, and worked with images and video in a completely different way than before. I have got a much better understanding of the world of ELT materials and its future trends. I am particularly thankful to Paul Slater for the talk delivered by Paul Driver who inspirited me to use augmented reality in my material design.  Finally, as I wished, I developed my own materials: augmented reality jigsaw puzzle and the vocabulary app exPLAYn. Both of them based on the use technology and I feel these materials are my little step towards getting involved in the Ed Tech revolution. I am also giving a talk about recent developments in educational technology which is organised by Sussex DoSA on 20^th July.

But most importantly, this module has taught me who am I as a teacher. In fact for the entire nine months I have been discovering, changing and rediscovering my role.  Regarding this module, I realised I am not a material writer. I don’t have a talent and frankly desire to do so. I am, however, pretty good at selecting materials and incorporating technology into the process of material design. And this is where I see myself heading in the future.

exPLAYn app is the second example of materials that I developed.  In this post I am going to evaluate the app. As I was approaching the end of this course, I felt that it was a great opportunity to apply the knowledge I obtained. I wanted to analyse my app from different angles: pedagogical, second language acquisition and material design.

 The fist check-list I used was for evaluating systematic vocabulary development by Julie Nortom (2014). Since the app relies on the teacher inputting selected vocabulary items, the first couple of questions can’t be answered. However, I feel that the app is particularly useful when it comes to practise, revision, and studying this vocabulary outside class.

1.Can you easily identify the target vocabulary in the lesson?
2.Why are students learning this vocabulary?
3.Is it useful and appropriate for their level?
4.How much new vocabulary is taught in each lesson/ in each unit?
5.Have students been presented with enough information to use the new vocabulary? (e.g. context; collocation)
6.How many opportunities do students have to use the new vocabulary in the lesson/in the unit? Is this enough?
7.What opportunities do students have to revise and study this vocabulary outside class?

Similarly,  Gairns and Redman (1986, cited in Mishan & Timmis (2015) provide a useful set of evaluation criteria for vocabulary work in a coursebook . The exPLAYn app can be a useful tool in facilitating recycling and consolidation stages.

• Is there a lexical syllabus? And a rationale for vocabulary selection?
• How are vocabulary items grouped?
• How many items are introduced at once?
• What learning approaches are selected? Are strategies taught?
• Does the teacher’s book suggest teaching procedures?
• Are practice and testing activities provided? Is vocabulary recycled?
• How are learners encouraged to consolidate and widen their vocabulary outside the classroom?
• Does the coursebook contain useful visual material?
• Does the coursebook anticipate vocabulary needed for skills activities?

From the SLA point of view, using technology to can be used to lower students’ affective filters.  According to Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis (1982), putting students on a spot could result in their affective filters raising and causing a ‘mental block’ due to negative emotions such as fear and embarrassment that prevents comprehensible input from being used for acquisition. The study by Ritter (2003), for example, reported  that:

‘92% of the students preferred learning new vocabulary using technology, because they considered it ‘good fun’ and 88% regarded it as a good addition to more traditional ways of vocabulary acquisition.  Students’ anxiety levels were reported to be lower when they used technology; also when their anxiety levels were lowered, students became more active participants in the learning process ‘ ( Ritter, 2003, cited in Liu, M. et al 2014)

Moreover, Sweeney & Moore (2012) point out that behaviourally, we also know that the combination of social interaction and gaming provide opportunities for multi-sensory learning (Pacansky-Brock, 2012) and social language learning experiences (Clarke, 2010; Schmidt, 2012).

Once again, I looked at principles for meaningful technology integration by Vicky Saumel (2016) to check if I am integrating technology effectively.

 Principles for meaningful technology integration:

-focuses on the learning task and not the technology (yes)

-involves the students (as opposed to just the teachers) actively using the technology (yes)

-works well for your specific context (yes, it’s BYOD classroom in my case)

– addresses 21^st century skills’ issues and digital literacy training (yes, skills such as collaboration, negotiation of meaning)

– facilitates learning activities that would be more difficult or impossible without the technology

– breaks down classroom walls  (yes, the app can be used outside the classroom)
Finally I used a learning app design framework by Sweeney& Moore (2012).

• Allows for personalization (yes, both teachers and students can add new words)• Provides visible progress indicators ( yes, point system at the end)

  • Covers relevant language (yes, as it is the teacher who adds the words)

  • Covers more than one skill (not just revision, but speaking)

  • Maximizes exposure to target language ( yes, as the app facilitates revision of target language)

  • Appropriate for the device in terms of content, activity and user interface (yes, simple layout, focus on one feature)

  • Encourages learning behaviours which correspond to what we know about general mobile-enabled behaviour patterns (includes social and gamification aspects) (yes, it’s a game and it’s played in groups).

Overall, I feel  that the exPLAYn app can be an effective tool in ELT classroom.  When it comes to learning vocabulary, students need to memorise a certain number of words and there is no way around it. Technology, however, can help to motivate students to revise, get learners interested in the language and  make the process of learning more enjoyable.  But technology is not going to ‘fix’ learning because learning is not fundamentally about technology. As Nicky Hockly (2016) notes, effective education has always been about good teachers, motivated learners and a strong rapport between them. Good teachers can very quickly see how to make the best use of available resources. Basic pedagogy needs to be in place, and then the technology can form another layer on top of that. At end of the day, good educational design is about knowing how to use the technology as a tool within the learning experience, instead of getting hung up on the technology itself.

Bibliography

Godwin-Jones, R. (2011) Emerging technologies – Mobile apps for language learning. Language Learning & Technology 15 (2): pp.2-11.

Hoclkly, N. (2016) The miracle language cure.  Fact or Fiction: report by Person & ELT Jam   Available from: http://dbxmrk3ash14o.cloudfront.net/englishfiles/Fact-or-Fiction.pdf  accessed 28/04/2015

Liu, M. et al (2014) A look at the Research on Computer Based Technology Use in Second Language Learning , Journal of Research on Technology in Education,34(3), pp250-273

McCarter,S. (2016) Reflection on publishing a language app. Modern English Teacher 25(2), pp 11-12

Mishan, F. & Timmis, I. (2015) Materials Development for TESOL. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Norton, J. (2014)  You’ve got to have a system: vocabulary development in EFL. Available at https://oupeltglobalblog.com/2014/08/07/youve-got-to-have-a-system-vocabulary-development-in-efl/ accessed 28/04/2015

Saumell, V. (2016) Principles for meaningful technology integration. Modern English Teacher 25(2), pp 15-17

Sweeney, P. & Moore, C. (2012) Mobile Apps for Learning Vocabulary: Categories, Evaluation and Design Criteria for Teachers and Developers. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching 2 (4): pp. 1-16.

Walker, A. & White, G. (2013) Technology Enhanced Language Learning: Connecting theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

In this last session we were looking at materials for vocabulary and grammar, particularly in digital forms. Also I was given an opportunity to present a vocabulary mobile app I have been working on together with my husband.

Here is the reflection of my little journey.

As I mentioned in my previous posts, I have always been interested in educational technology. So the idea of creating an Ed Tech product has been in my mind for a while now. But my biggest inspiration, however, was Nick Robinson’s talk we watched in preparation for one of the sessions for this module. In the talk he mentioned the Start Up weekend they ran in Cambridge where people could compete by presenting their Ed Tech ideas, with the winner receiving funding for their project. What struck them (and me) is that out of 65 people who attended the event,   only 5% were from ELT and only one was a practising teacher. And she won. Which is not surprising since we, practising teachers , see our students day in and day out, we see their problems and we can come up with effective solutions how to solve them.

I can also see, with the advent of technology, more and more teachers developing their own apps and self-publishing their own books. I wanted to engage with Ed Tech too.

With this in mind, I decided to build a vocabulary app. Why another vocabulary app you would ask?  It’s a good question. There are hundreds and hundreds vocab apps available. The problem is all of them are designed for the students so they can work individually. There is hardly anything the teacher can use in class for the whole group. I wanted an app that:

– personalisable and allows me to use vocab that I covered with my students in class

-saves my preparation time and comes to my rescue when I run out of things to do in class

-engages my students and increases their talking time (and consequently reduces mine)

So I started looking at the current trends regarding vocabulary app design and came across two major trends. First is spaced repetition – a presentation method that gives you the information before you would forget it.  The idea is based around the Forgetting Curve – a term coined by German psychologist Herman Ebbinghaus.

The curve hypothesizes the decline of memory retention over time and shows that our newly learned knowledge and made memories are halved in a matter of days unless the information is reviewed. The more we review such information, the stronger we make the memory, the longer we can remember it.

The second trend  is gamification  which is the use of game design elements in non-game contexts to maximise engagement through capturing the interest of learners and inspire them to continue learning.

Baring these trends in mind, I needed an idea for my app. However, with the limited budget and time (a full time job plus a full time university course) I wasn’t going to reinvent the wheel. Instead I was going to improve a proven old-school method. And I wasn’t the only one who thought so. Robert McLarty, the editor of  Modern English Teacher journal points out in the latest issues how ‘ many of our basic pedagogical ideas, acquired on teacher-training courses and professional development workshops over the years, underpin the new technologies’.

So I built my app around my favourite  classroom activity – Back to the Board.  I love this activity for many reasons:

• it’s communicative
• it’s a fun way to consolidate new vocab
• it lifts testing off the page
• and it’s a great warmer or filler

It does, however, have some major disadvantages.  Firstly, only limited number of students can talk at the same time. Secondly, some students don’t like to be in the spotlight. The aim of my app was to avoid such disadvantages.

This is how ExPLAYn was born. The idea of the app is that after the lesson the teacher can create a set where they record the vocabulary items that have been covered in the class. The app then sets a time limit and displays a word from the set. Students work in pairs with one holding a mobile device displaying words and trying to guess them and the other explaining the words. If the student who is guessing gets the word right, they tilt the screen and the app displays the next word. If, however, they struggle to remember the word  or their partner cannot explain the word, students could tilt the screen in the opposite direction, pass that word and continue the game. After the time runs out, the app shows the score based on the number of correct answers. It supplies students with a reward system and keeps them motivated to get a better score next time. The app also displays the words that were incorrect, informing the students what vocab items need more revision.

Having been testing the app for a couple of months now, I can see some great benefits for both teachers and students. Regarding the students, they now can work in pairs that makes everyone in the class involved.  The app can also be used in groups, individually or outside the classroom. It gives students the sense of ownership, with them relying on each other, rather than a teacher. It increases student to student interaction and helps them to develop strategies to cope when they don’t know the word.  For the teacher it provides a system for keeping a record of previously taught vocabulary, reduces their talking time and gives greater opportunity for monitoring and delayed error correction. But most importantly, I could really see that my students enjoy using the app. And as we know, motivation is an important part of language learning.

With all this in mind, I headed to our last seminar. Prior to my presentation, we had a task of discussing what makes a good vocabulary app. I was very interested in what my colleagues would say as they are my target audience.  First thing they mentioned is that an app should be a support tool for the teacher. Aleks made a point that most vocab apps are designed as a self-study tool for students and she simply doesn’t understand how they can be used in the classroom. As I mentioned earlier, that was exactly my problem with the currently available apps, and exPLAYn was designed to solve this problem. Stuart commented on how often apps try to cater for so many different things that in the end they don’t do any of them properly. In his opinion, instead of being ‘all –signing, all- dancing’ apps should focus on one feature and have a simple and clear interface. Funnily enough, that’s exactly what exPLAYn does.  Finally, we all agree that a good app should be fun and students need to be motivated to use it. My group suggested that to achieve this, an app should have a reward system and be more like a game – exactly the features of gamification. Stuart also suggested that it should be free to use, however, Aleks disagreed by saying that free apps usually mean they don’t have good quality and if you pay for it, it’s a better product.

All these comments gave me a lot of confidence as I felt that my app is meeting the needs of the teachers. My actual presentation went well and I got many comments and positive feedback from my colleagues. It was great to see how during a short demo when teachers were using the app they were extremely involved in the process and were having fun.

I was also expecting the obvious question: Why bother with the app if you could do this activity in other ways without the use of technology? I was asked why not tell students to write the words on bits of paper and they can ask each other in pairs. I’m sure we all have done this before, my personal issue, however, is that I tend to lose these bits of paper. Logging the words in the app provides a better and more systematic way of keeping a record of new vocabulary items.  Other teachers also mentioned that the handwriting of the students can be an issue, which I agree with.

What I was trying to demonstrate, however, is that instead of fearing and avoiding Ed Tech revolution, we, teachers, should get involved. I am lucky to have my husband Alex who is extremely interested in Ed Tech and brings his web development expertise to the table. However, we shouldn’t forget that Brighton is a digital hub and for every language teacher living and working here there are at least two developers. Brighton University runs various digital development courses and I’m sure you can find someone who will be happy to work on the project with you.   So if you have what you think a successful idea, the lack of your digital skills shouldn’t stop you. Make EdTech revolution work to your advantage!

Don’t limit a child to your own learning,

for he was born in another time.

Rabindranath Togore, poet.

This week’s session is about materials and digital technology and the subject is very close to my heart.  I see the development of digital technologies as one of the greatest changes in the education in the last 10-15 years.

Academics highlight numerous benefits of implementing  information and communication technology (ICT) in the EFL classroom. It’s changing the way we think. It’s changing how we communicate. It’s changing how we access information. It’s changing the way we use materials. Maley (2011, citied in Tomblinson 2012) points out ICT can free ‘teachers and learners alike from the constraints of the coursebook’. Most teachers seem to agree that using technology in the English language classroom is a norm, and using and extending digital literacy skills is expected as a part of a 21^st-century education curriculum ( Hasper, 2016).  Stanley (2013) adds that technology should always be part of what a teacher is currently doing with a class and shouldn’t be something special, done as a break from regular classroom learning or as a reward for good behaviour.

Some, however, are sceptical about the benefits of technology. They argue that there is no pedagogical value in using it for teaching and learning and it is a distraction in the classroom or even a gimmick (Robb, 2016). They refer to it as Everest syndrome (Maddux, cited in Stanley, 2013). Named after George Mallory’s reason for wanting to climb Mount Everest, this refers to a situation where teachers using IT ‘because it is there’.

Another obstacle of embracing digital technology within an educational setting, in my opinion, is it is transitional.   There are a lot of people in education who didn’t grow up in the world where all these amazing technological tools existed. They still do, to some degree, think of them as exotic. Somebody once said ‘Technology is something that happened after you were born’. I think that’s right. You can imagine, 30 years from now, we’ll get a generation of kids looking back at a picture of you and your Iphone with a patronising smile. And this is exactly where another problem lies – the fear. The fear of being replace by a computer.  I don’t think technology will ever replace a human tutor. Or at least not during our lifetime. Quite the opposite,with the advent of technology more and more teachers are becoming authors and developers in their own right, self-publishing their own books and apps (myself included). So none of this should be seen as a threat to a teacher’s future.

So, what is the answer to the pedagogy vs technology debate? The question, in my opinion, is not whether or not to use technology, as the presence of technology alone, no matter how advanced, does not equal transformation. The important question is when to use technology. What are the pedagogical implementations and knowledge needed for the process to be successful?  The following frameworks can be used to evaluate it.

Hasper (2016) suggests her FACE IT key principles based on Griffith & Burns (2012) ideas of effective learning practice.

She argues that technology can be implemented effectively at each of the stages. For example, Google drive can be used for peer feedback whereas voicethread.com records your oral feedback.  Hasper (2016) points out that the rise of technology dramatically increased our opportunity to move away from teacher-centred learning and towards giving learners more choice in their learning process. Technology, she continues, can be used to challenge our learners , for example, using acceleread.com to develop their speed in reading. Finally, technology can be used to increase students’ engagement using todaysmeet.com – a platform for a project work or piktochart.com – a great tool to present project work results visually (Hasper, 2016).

Similarly, Saumell  (2016) considers ways of helping to decide how and when to use technology based on  6 principles for meaningful technology integration. These are:

1. Meaningful technology integration focuses on the learning task and not the technology.
2. Meaningful technology integration involves the students (as opposed to just the teachers) actively using the technology.
3. Meaningful technology integration works well for your specific context.
4. Meaningful technology integration addresses 21^st century skills’ issues and digital literacy training.
5. Meaningful technology integration facilitates learning activities that would be more difficult or impossible without the technology.
6. Meaningful technology integration breaks down classroom walls.

As Bill Gates once said ‘ technology is just a tool, in order to enhance learning, teachers are more important’. I couldn’t agree more. Technology is a fantastic tool available to us, but only our experience and expertise as teachers can transform it into an effective tool.

As we can see, technology has become an integral part of education, and for language teaching this change in the nature of context is extremely important.  In this light, it is important to acknowledge the trends and future predictions of such development.

Walker, A. & White, G. (2013) predicting the technology trends of the future, refer to ‘On the Horizon’ report , which each year attempts to forecast the future of learning technology.  The 2012 report identified  the following prediction:

• In one year or less- mobile apps and tablet computing
• Within two to three years – game-based learning
• Within four to five years – ‘the internet of things’

What I find particularly interesting is that in 2016, I, an average ELT teacher, am working on developing my own mobile game app for ELT classroom. If this is not the indication of a success prediction, I don’t know what is 🙂

Looking at the current report we can see the following areas of important developments in educational technology cited for 2016:

• In one year or less – Bring Your Own Device (BYOD), Learning Analytics and Adaptive Learning
• Within two to three years – Augmented and Virtual Reality, Makerspaces
• Within four to five years – Affective Computing, Robotics

While some seem pretty farfetched as a prediction, others I can definitely see making their way into ELT classroom.

Take, for example, augmented and virtual reality. Personally, I have been successfully  using both of these technologies in my ELT classroom for months. In my earlier posted I mentioned the application of augmented reality (AR) to ELT classroom and even made my own materials using it.

Last seminar I also demonstrated the use of virtual reality (VR) via Google cardboard – a budget version of a VR viewer that now you can even get for free .Very often it’s mentioned that technology breaks down classroom walls and VR couldn’t be a better example, as within seconds students can be transformed anywhere in the world.  Here is an interesting article on how wearable technology can be used in education.

Another one of my personal interests is adaptive learning.  Last year I attended a conference organised by ET Professional titled Adaptive learning in practice.  There were some fascinating discussions and predictions  about how adaptive learning will shape the future of  ELT. Phillip Kerr’s blog offers great guide into the world of adaptive learning and here is the list of his predictions.

I would like to finish by quoting Steve Wheeler – the author of ‘Learning with ‘e’s ‘ blog.

‘’So the future of technology supported learning is uncertain and contested. Are we being made more intelligent by our habituated uses of technology, or are we becoming smarter because we have more opportunities to create our own content, and think more deeply about it? Does our collective increase in intelligence owe itself to better connections with experts and peers, or should we simply put the growth of knowledge down to a natural, progressive evolution of the human mind? Is technology actually a threat to good learning, creating a generation of superficial learners, or do interactive tools such as social media and search engines provide us with unprecedented access to knowledge?

Such questions are exactly what the study of the future is all about’’

Tomlinson, B. (2012) Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching 45 (2): pp. 143-179

Robb, K. (2016) Mobile technologies, friend or foe? Modern English Teacher, 25(2), pp 19-21

Hasper, A. (20016) Keep calm and F.A.C.E IT: ICT is the least of your concerns! Modern English Teacher 25(2), pp 8-10

Saumell, V. (2016) Principles for meaningful technology integration. Modern English Teacher 25(2), pp 15-17

Stanley, G. (2013) Language Learning with Technology: Ideas for Integrating Technology in the Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Walker, A. & White, G. (2013) Technology Enhanced Language Learning: Connecting theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

This week we had to work in groups again and analyse a unit from a coursebook. We had to develop a taxonomy of task types and see what type of tasks are used in the unit. We chose English File third edition Upper-Intermediate as 2 teachers in our group of three have been currently using it.

It makes sense to start by asking what a ‘task’ is.  How does it differ from, let’s say, ‘an activity’ or ‘an exercise’? Ellis (2003) provides a good summary of task definitions, drawn from both research and pedagogic literature.  A broad definition, such as provided by Long (1985), includes tasks that require language, e.g. booking a table and tasks that can be performed without using language, for example, painting a fence. However, more narrow definitions, such as those of Richards, Platt, and Webber(1985) and Nunan (1989) define task as an activity that necessarily involves language.

Personally, I believe in our context we should be concerned with tasks that involve use of language. However, this poses another  question: should the term ‘task’ be restricted to activities where students’ attention is focused on conveying a message or should it include any kind of language activity that gets learners to demonstrate their knowledge?

Ellis (2003) adopts a narrower definition and defines a task as ‘an activity that calls for primarily meaning-focused language use’ as opposed to an exercise that is ‘an activity that calls for primarily form-focused language use’.  Johnson (2003), however, argues that the definition of a task is much broader and calls it everything ‘we give students to do in classrooms” (Johnson, 2003: 4).  Ur (1988)  supports  this idea by saying that  “the function of the task is simply to activate the learners in such a way as to actually get them to engage with the material to be practiced”( Ur, 1988: 17).

I tend to agree with the last two definitions as I believe that the overall purpose of tasks is the same as exercises – learning a language. Therefore for the pre- seminar  task I am going to use a broader definition of  task than merely meaning-focused language use.

When it came to evaluating the unit from the coursebook we decided to do so according to different systems. Jane was working with the task taxonomy suggested by Maley (2011), Victoria focused on language skills and I used Bloom’s Taxonomy of cognitive objectives.

Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues designed this model to provide a way to describe levels of thinking. The taxonomy essentially is a hierarchy with Lower Order Thinking skills (remember, understand and apply) at the bottom and Higher Order Thinking Skills (analyze, evaluate and create) at the top. I decided to use this model as I remembered the talk by Steph Dimond-Bayier I attended a while ago. She was using Bloom’s taxonomy of thinking skills to illustrate how very often in the classroom we focus on Lower order thinking skills (LOTS) and not much on Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS).  I totally agree with Steph Dimond-Bayier. I find it particularly difficult when teaching EAP classes where students are required to think critically but many learners are lacking such skills.  Many EAP coursebooks approach critical thinking in a superficial way: while ‘think about it and discuss’ sections usually involve critical thinking, such an exercise on its own does not  really help learners to develop their skills.

Evaluation results

My evaluation of the unit showed that most of the tasks require Lower order thinking skills, ‘understand’ and ‘remember’ in particular. This is perhaps not surprising for a general English book, however, I wish that coursebooks  would include a broader range of tasks that develop not only basic language skills, but also life skills, such as critical thinking, problem solving, prioritising, decision making that our learners need in order to be effective  learners, effective professionals and effective citizens.

Jane was analysing the unit using  the task taxonomy suggested by Maley (2011). This is her conclusion.

Classifying  27%

Summarising 26%

Evaluating 19%

Predicting  15%

Problem-solving 11.5%

Revising/editing 7.7%

‘As there was very little room for learner interpretation in the answers to most of the exercises, I thought that most of the material was used in an inauthentic way. There are some examples of opinion-gap tasks, but these are typically discussions as an introduction to the text and not a main feature. There is not much opportunity for learners to respond to the text in a personalised way before answering closed questions’.

Victoria was focusing on language skills and found a  good balance of grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation and skills. This is very interesting, as it is exactly what the book claims to have.

Here is Victoria’s findings.

Ellis, R (2003) Task-based language learning  and teaching. Oxford:OUP

Johnson, K. (2003) Designing Language Teaching Tasks. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Maley, A. (2011) Squaring the circle – reconciling materials as constraint with materials as empowerment. In: Tomlinson, B. (ed). Materials Development in Language Teaching. (2nd edn) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.379-402.

Ur, P. (2009) Grammar Practice Activities: A practical guide for teachers. (2nd ed) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

As I mentioned earlier, today we had a feedback session where our worksheets were peer reviewed.  And what an exciting session it was! To say that I was impressed by the materials my peers created is understatement. Everyone did a fantastic job!  It was particularly interesting to see that one of my peers created a worksheet for the same exam task as me. Although the way we approached it was different, it was good to see that we used similar teaching strategies.

My work received a lot of attention and people seemed to be impressed.  I partly expected it due to the wow factor of augmented reality (AR) . I was, however, looking for some critical feedback so I could improve my work.  Here is the feedback from my peers:

I found the comments very useful and it just shows how beneficial peer reviewing can be.

Positive points:

Innovative use of technology

Engaging visual/kinaesthetic activity

Makes a very dry task interactive and collaborative

Really testing students’ skills

Looks appealing and professional

The content of the reading text is interesting

Nice layout

Great warmer

Negative points

1. Is it reliant on every student having a smart phone and Aurasma or can it be done without?

And we are back to the classic technology vs pedagogy argument. What can I say? Can this activity be done without the use of technology? Yes. After all, we have been doing jigsaw reading activities with the strips of paper for years. Is it the case of using technology for the sake of using technology? I don’t think so.  I’m going to use Vicky Saumell’s (2016) principles for meaningful technology integration to demonstrate.  Firstly, the focus is on the learning task and not the technology. Technology is used to transform what is usually a dull and non-communicative  reading task into one with genuine engagement and collaboration.    Secondly, this activity   involves the students (as opposed to just the teachers) actively using the technology.  Thirdly, the use of AR addresses 21^st century skills’ issues and digital literacy training.  Finally, technology integration works well for my specific context. Although my school doesn’t provide mobile devices, my students have no problem bringing and using their own phones. Also for this activity, for example, it is not necessary for everyone to have a mobile phone as students work in groups and one device per group is enough.  All these factors, according to Saumell (2016), are signs of meaningful  technology integration.

2. When doing black and white copies of the worksheet, some parts of the worksheet won’t be seen well/will consume lots of ink?

This is an interesting comment as I initially designed this worksheet to be used in its digital form. In my teaching I am trying to be as paperless as possible and this is where technology helps. I’ve decided to stick to my beliefs and am going to demonstrate the improved version of this worksheet in a digital format that can be viewed on a computer as well as a mobile device.

           3. The title gives it away too much.

Fair point. I agree that a good title should be intriguing. I came up with a new title.

This is the updated version of the worksheet.

I additionally made some design changes, added more instructions and prompts. I also completely redesigned exercise 3, making it more of a guided discovery task rather than eliciting.

My next step was to evaluate my material using the evaluation framework we came up with in week 3.

Here is what I found.

MATERIALS SHOULD : 

Overall, I feel that the task I have designed scored fairly high. I think the most important points of this activity are that it is engaging and motivating, easily adaptable and not only helps to develop exam skills but other life skills too.

The drawback of it is, however, the fact it relies on technology available to hand and the technological competence of a teacher and students. But as I demonstrated above, such technology integration is meaningful

Saumell, V. (2016) Principles for meaningful technology integration. Modern English Teacher 25(2), pp 15-17

As part of the module we were required to create a worksheet for a particular class.  As I have been currently teaching Exam Skills I have decided to design my materials for this class. After doing some reading about worksheet development and design I have chosen to use Jolly and Bolitho’s (2011) sequence of material design process.

I like this model as it’s fairly simple and straightforward. The authors do point out, however, that it is a  simplified version of the design process and that the real process might not necessarily be carried out in the same order.

So here is how I followed these sequences:

1. IDENTIFICATION

Teaching exam classes can at times be a real challenge.  Although exam students are generally motivated and work hard towards their goals, preparing for exams can be very stressful for them. From my personal experience I found that students prefer (and sometimes insist on) doing a lot of practice tests in such classes, however, I don’t entirely agree with it.  By simply doing practise tests, exam classes can become very boring.  It can also demotivate some students if they do badly. There is no collaboration among the students as everyone does their tests individually. Teaching turns into testing.

I believe exam preparation classes should not just be exam practice, but also teach students examination techniques and encourage peer collaboration. With this material I attempt to make a reading activity a bit more kinaesthetic by turning it into a jigsaw puzzle.  Each puzzle piece represents a part of the text that students can see by scanning the piece with Aurasma app on their mobile phones. The students in this class are in their early 20s and familiar with mobile technology, and using a new application shouldn’t be an issue. They are also used to using a screen, rather than paper, for reading.

By integrating mobile technology into the lesson I hope to bring a fun element into what could be a studious and dry exam class.  Doing something out of ordinary can create a memorable experience so the students are more likely to remember what was taught in the lesson.   In order to complete the task students will need to negotiate and work together which brings speaking element into this reading lesson and makes it more collaborative.  Digital literacy skills exchange might take place when students are discovering the use of augmented reality and teaching each other how to use it.

2. EXPLORATION

Very often, regardless the exam they take, students find the reading component the hardest. This is perhaps because reading tasks require not only a good range of vocabulary to get the gist, but also reading techniques. When it comes to exam reading, students feel it is important to understand virtually every word in the text to complete the  task, whereas in reality if they are good at reading techniques they can do it without understanding the text fully. Therefore, I believe reading skills training is absolutely crucial for these kind of learners.

3. CONTEXTUAL REALISATION

The reason behind using a jigsaw puzzle is to highlight what students do wrong while doing this type of exam task. Often learners make the mistake of connecting sentences because they are describing the same idea but are not linked cohesively and vice versa.  Similarly, a puzzle piece could fit into a grid because it has the right shape but wouldn’t work because it has the wrong picture paten. I am hoping that by doing this activity students will understand the structure and development of a text better.

4. PEDAGOGICAL REALISATION

Next step was to choose a text I was going to turn into a jigsaw puzzle. I wanted to find something my students might find interesting and relevant to them.  I have chosen a story of Tom Davies, a young British cyclist who cycled around the world last year. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/aug/09/teenager-completes-round-the-world-cycle-trip

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/33842738/londoner-tom-davies-19-becomes-youngest-person-to-cycle-the-world

The event is fairly recent and the fact that the cyclist is in his early twenties might help my learners to identify with him.

Although the AR puzzle is the central point of this activity, I didn’t want it to overtake or dominate the class but instead act as a facilitative tool for collaboration and learning. I started thinking about what other activities I was going to use and the how I was going to structure my lesson. This is what I came up with:

1. Warmer: to activate the learner’s schemas and to elicit some of the language related to challenges
2. Pre-reading : to pre-teach and explain any difficult vocabulary
3. Exam skills: to elicit and revise reading techniques
4. Instructions: to explain to the students how to complete the puzzle task
5. Task: to let students start the task
6. Follow-up: to read the complete article and highlight the linking devices

5. PHYSICAL PRODUCTION

This was the most time consuming but equally the most interesting part of the process. The worksheet design was pretty straightforward  as I already have a good knowledge of graphic design.

Augmented Reality Reading Worksheet 1

Augmented Reality Reading Worksheet 2

Augmented Reality Reading Worksheet 3

The making of the AR jugsaw puzzle, on the other hand, was a totally new experience.First, I bought a couple of DIY jigsaw puzzle sets (Tiger is a great shop for it).

Then I needed to find a way of making some sort of pattern on each puzzle piece so it can serve as a trigger image. I couldn’t use an existing jigsaw puzzle with one complete image, as students would just follow the pattern of the image and not the text.  Another complication was that each piece should be unique enough so the software doesn’t confuse it with another piece and display the wrong bit of text.  Eventually I decided to use a set of stickers with as many different colours and patterns as I could find (Amazon is a great place for it) and started creating.

Once the puzzle was completed it was time to link it with the text. I split the text into 25 parts (the number of puzzle pieces) making sure each part could be linked to another by a linking device. I then printed and scanned them. Next step was to use Aurasma app and connect each puzzle piece with the printed part of the text.

The following stage was the testing stage and this is where I run into a problem.

The issue was the type of stickers I used.  They were reflective and would look different depending on the light, meaning the software couldn’t correctly recognise the tiles. I made the puzzle in the evening with a fairly dim light and it worked fine, but then I asked my husband to test it again for me in the morning in much brighter conditions. It failed to work. Well, live and learn! Meanwhile, I had to totally re-design my puzzle.

This time I needed to find some plain stickers. (photo).  It worked without a problem and the puzzle was finally completed.

6. STUDENT USE OF MATERIALS

As we were given 4 weeks to develop this worksheet over the Easter break, I actually had a chance to test my materials with my class in an observed lesson. I knew that trialling something totally new (and relying on technology to work) in an observed lesson was risky but I believe if, as a teacher, you feel inspired this shouldn’t stop you. The lesson went extremely well and I received positive feedback from both my students and my tutor. My assessor felt ‘it was an effective use of mobile technology that didn’t dominate, instead facilitated the transformation of what could have been a very dry, non-communicative lesson into one that generated genuine engagement and collaboration.’

7. EVALUATION OF MATERIALS

Although I have tested my materials in class and got positive feedback from my assessor, I am looking forward to demonstrating my work to my colleagues next week and receiving their feedback. I am excited to hear what alternative ideas other teachers can offer, as I would like to develop my material even further.

What I have learnt:

-Trailing and evaluation are essential in successful material design.

-Be prepared to go back to square one and re-design your materials. It shouldn’t put you off.

Jolly, D., & Bolitho, R. (2011). A framework for materials writing. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.),Materials development in language teaching (2nd ed., pp. 107– 134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Language teachers have been using video technologies for at least the past twenty years. From videotapes to DVDs and streaming video from the Internet, the visual mode is still powerful and popular.  But the way we use video in the classroom has changed. No longer is it used just for practising listening skills or stimulating speaking. When I ask myself how using video has been affected by recent trends in teaching, I think of the following:

– Equipment (IWB, mobile learning)

-Task based learning

– Flip classroom

-CLIL

-Blended learning

As a result teachers now have more creative opportunities to incorporate video inside and outside the language classroom.

But using video is more than just a trend. SLA theories also advocate the use of video to facilitate learning. If we look at research into the retention of information, a lot of studies show that use of images and sound (i.e video) is the optimum way of presenting new information to students. Richard Mayer’s work (2003), which looks at dual coding, focuses on the way visual and oral information can complement each other and avoid overloading the students with information. If a student is presented with a picture and text, then all this information is being processed visually and might lead to visual overload. A better way to organise the information might be through pictures and audio, thus using two channels (visual and auditory).

Prior to the session we had some key questions to think about and a pre-seminar task where we needed to create our own videos.

• Why use video to support the teaching and learning of second languages?

As Kieran Donaghy (2015) sums it up, video can “inspire, while exposing learners to a wide range of authentic language, improving comprehension, intercultural understanding and visual literacy.” I couldn’t agree more. Video has become an integral part of students’ lives and it makes sense to bring it into the classroom. Young people not just watching but actively produce and upload their videos. 300 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube every minute. (https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/en-GB/statistics.html ) YouTube has more than 1bn users – a third of all the people on the planet.

Learning with video is motivating and enjoyable, it makes the language learning process more entertaining and memorable. And, as we all know, motivation is one of the most important factors in successful second-language acquisition.   Another benefit of using video is that it is a source of authentic and varied language. Students can see examples of real-life conversations, natural expressions and flow of speed.

Finally, video brings variety to the language classroom by extending the range of materials and teaching techniques. And with the advent of the internet there is now a wealth of online resources for both language teachers and their students.

We shouldn’t however forget about its disadvantages.  Integrating video into materials can be extremely time consuming (especially for the first time), there is an issues of copyrights and appropriacy of some videos. Some learners might find authentic videos confusing and complex and lose interest. But the most important factor in my view, just like with educational technology in general, is lack of training. This, in my opinion, has deep implications for English language teacher training programmes, which should include technology integration from the very beginning.

For those who would like to incorporate more video in the classroom, here are my favourite resources:

http://lessonstream.org/

http://film-english.com/

https://allatc.wordpress.com/

• How can video be used with language learners?

Since I started teaching, I have had a strong interest in incorporating video in my classroom. In my first year of teaching (2010) I gave a TD about using video in the classroom, trying to encourage my colleagues to use video not just for practice listening or speaking skills, but for a range of other skills. Here is a quick example:

1. Writing. After watching this short clip from the License to Wed film, student write a letter of complaint.

2. Reading. While watching this video students scan the information along with the main character and write down all key words and data they can see.

3. Grammar. Students watch the video and put the items that were requested to buy intro countable/uncountable categories.

4. Vocabulary. Student watch the clip and name as many vocabulary items related to cooking as possible.

5.  Pronunciation.’The sound of English’ series is a brilliant resource that provides students with visual  pronunciation models.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningenglish/english/features/pronunciation

These days I am trying to involve my learners in producing video themselves rather than just passively watching it.

Here is an example of a project I did with my students where they had to dub a video. The language focus of this project was “showing interest”. First, I showed my students this clip from the series “The Big Bang Theory”.

They then worked in pairs and came up with their own version of the dialogue and voiced it. What was great about this project is that not only did my students learn how to show interest, but by working with video they also created a narrative, worked collaboratively, had lots of language practice while rehearsing and filming, and had a final product that they are proud of.

Here is the example of one of the videos.

• What are the benefits of a teacher shooting their own digital material for use with learners?

I want to say personalisation would be the main reason for me. By making your own video you tailor it to your students’ needs, level and interest. But also involving students in producing video themselves has a lot of benefits. Not only students use the language while they are working on the video production, but you can also use the video they produced as material for other classes.

• What do you need to think about prior to making a video?

Walker, A. & White, G. (2013) suggest the way of finding and being critical about online video which consists of asking the following questions:

-Who made it?

-What is its purpose?

-Could you use it in your classroom and if so, how?

I believe the same questions can be applied to your own video material.

-Who is going to make it? You or your students?

-What is its purpose? Are you making this video so you can flip your classroom? Is it a TBL project where video is a final product? Or is it simply a bypass product, eg when students record themselves in preparation for a presentation? Does the video have a narrative audio soundtrack or subtitles?

– Could you use it in your classroom and if so, how? I guess it depends on your learning objectives. Stanley ( 2013) asks an interesting questions: what comes first: technology or learning objectives? The answer, in his opinion, is neither.  The learners come first. That is why the decision on how much technology should play a part in the class should be made based on your learners attitudes towards using technology for language learning and shouldn’t be imposed on them.

• How is digital video captured, edited and output?

Nicky Hockly (2014) points out that although students make videos in their personal lives quite regularly, they are probably less familiar with recording video in an English class. She suggests starting by asking students to film objects or places, rather than themselves until they become comfortable with filming each other.

Video recording and editing is arguably a very technically challenging for the teachers and the learners who have never done it before. However, there are many mobile applications available that can simplify video editing and production.

Donaghy, K. (2015) Film in Action. Peaslake: Delta Publishing.

Hockly, N. & Clandfield, L. (2010) Teaching Online: Tools and techniques, options and opportunities. Peaslake: Delta Publishing.

Hockly, N. & Dudeney, G. (2014) Going Mobile. Peaslake: Delta Publishing.

Mayer, R. (2003) Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning, Educational Psycologist, issue 38(1), 43-52, available at http://www.uky.edu/~gmswan3/544/9_ways_to_reduce_CL.pdf

Stanley, G. (2013) Language Learning with Technology: Ideas for Integrating Technology in the Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Walker, A. & White, G. (2013) Technology Enhanced Language Learning: Connecting theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

WHY
Why adapt materials? After all, coursebook writers and publishers work very hard to ensure their product meets their customers’ needs. The reasons, as McDonough (2013) highlights, depend on a whole range of factors operating in each teaching situation and one teacher’s priorities may well differ considerably from another.
Maley (2011), points out that due to individual differences amongst the learners and to teacher factors, there will never be a perfect fit between the materials, the teacher and the learners. Such teacher factors include:
-degree of language proficiency and confidence
– previous personal learning experience as learners rather than as teachers
– own personality (introvert/extrovert, open/closed etc)
– preferred teaching style (directive/consultative, etc)
– cultural background.

Mishan and Timmis (2015), however, question if it is right to adapt materials according to the teacher’s own preferences and insist that adaptation must be driven by learners’ needs instead of teachers’ ‘whims’ or preferences. While it is a valuable point, I personally find myself selecting material based on what I’d feel comfortable teaching. Even Theresa Clementson admitted she wrote Unlimited so she has something to teach from.
Malley (2011) goes on to highlight that ‘for reasons to do with the economics of publishing amongst other things, the materials are intended to be used by the largest possible number of learners’. But in reality, the wider the area publishers try to cover, the more diverse the learner’s state is likely to be. As a result, the teacher has to bridge the gap between the materials and his/her learners’ need.Nick Robinson in his talk “An introduction to Learner Experience Design in ELT” urges EdTech companies to avoid going “wide and shallow” and instead go “narrow and deep” . He talks about creating Learner Personas – a specific group of learners with certain characteristics. Malley (2011), however, argues that ‘what is needed is not just decentralisation of materials production, but a fundamental change in the design of materials in the direction of providing greater flexibility in decisions about content, order, pace and procedures’.

HOW
McDonough (2013) talks about different techniques that can be applied to content in order to bring about change. There are:
1. Adding
2. Deleting or omitting
3. Modifying
4. Simplifying
5. Re-ordering

Malley (2011) offers the following strategies to make coursebooks more effective:
1. Give it a rest
2. Change it ( a number of options include omission, addition, reduction, extension, rewriting/modification, replacement, reordering, branching )
3. Do it yourself
Similarly, Madsen and Bowen (1978, cited in McGrath, 2002) defines adaptation as ‘one or more of a number of techniques: supplementing, editing, expanding, personalizing, simplifying, modernizing, localizing, or modifying cultural/situational content.

We, the teachers on this course, in the role of practitioners, seem to agree. During the seminar we had a chance to discuss what, when, why and how we adapt our materials and our findings are similar to the ones mentioned by scholars. The table below summaries the results of four different discussion groups.

Finally, prior to this session we were giving a task of analysing a unit from the course book that we use, and had to adapt or supplement. Here are the questions we had to answer:
1. What did you adapt?
In my case it was unit 6A from New English File Pre-Intermediate. The focus of the unit was grammar of first conditional .

2. Why did you adapt it?
As I mentioned earlier I got really inspired by the talk about Augmented Reality (AR) I attended last weekend and couldn’t wait to use in my classroom. Last week one of my Dip colleagues came to observe me and because she couldn’t attend the workshop thought it would be a good idea to demonstrate to her what AR is and how it can be applied in the classroom. AR technology is gaining popularity within society and numerous researchers have identified it as having immense potential to enhance learning and teaching. The process of combining virtual data with real world data can provide users with access to rich and meaningful multimedia and create experiences that the learners are more likely to remember.

I believe helping students to develop their digital literacy skills is extremely important as especially for younger people technology will continue to play a significant role in their lives as students and in their professional lives. I think we have to accept this as fact and try to ensure that the role technology plays in their lives is as positive and empowering for them as we can.

From the pedagogical point of view, the reasons behind the changes I made were the following:
– Changing the order of the task: production instead of discovery
– Adding missing skills: students write the sentences describing the pictures instead of matching them
– Changing the task: students speculate about the story instead of reading it which makes it more communicative

3. How did you adapt it?
So this activity is a simple example how AR can be integrated in a lesson using Aurasma app.

1. I’ve chosen to adapt the text from  unit 6A of New English File Pre-Intermediate.

2. I then scanned and cut the images from the exercise. They would act as the trigger images.

3. I typed the sentences, printed and took pictures of them.

4. My next step was using Aurasma to link a trigger image with a sentence picture.

5. As a result, when students scan an image using Aurasma app, they will get a sentence related to this image.

6. I made a handout out asking students to put cut off images in order and write their version of the story using first conditional sentences.

7. After they wrote their stories and compared them with other groups, students could scan the images and read the original version of the story.

4. What were the consequences of the adaptations you made?
This lesson was a great success! Students were very intrigued by Aurasma app and its abilities. This was a great way of making a grammar lesson interactive, kinaesthetic and memorable. The total preparation time for this activity was no longer than 15 minutes and I can use this activity again with our groups. I hope this example illustrates how easy it is to integrate technology in a lesson and hopefully will inspire some to give it a go.

5. Were there any constraints on the degree to which you were able to adapt?
Not really. The technological side might seem complicated but in reality it is not. The majority of students in private language schools like mine are in their early 20s and familiar with mobile technology, so using a new application shouldn’t be an issue for them. They are also used to using a screen, rather than paper, for reading.

6. In your context what factors prevent you from adapting materials in the way you want?
Frankly, I don’t feel any major constraints being put on me at Language Studies International. Although we have a set of coursebooks we follow, we are not required to stick to them “religiously” and are free to adapt and supplement. In fact often it is students who are the biggest obstacle as they expect to follow a coursebook and feel cheated if they don’t complete every single unit of it. As a teacher with an interest in EdTech, often my way of adapting includes use of technology and sometimes lack of resources or poor infrastructure at school can be a problem. However these factors don’t make me shy away from use of technology in the classroom.

Maley, A. (2011) Squaring the circle – reconciling materials as constraint with materials as
empowerment. In: Tomlinson, B. (ed). Materials Development in Language Teaching. (2nd ed) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.379-402.

McGrath, I. (2002) Materials evaluation and design for language teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press

McDonough, J., et al. (2013) Materials and Methods in ELT: A Teacher’s Guide. (3nd ed) Chichester:Wiley-Blackwell.

Mishan, F. & Timmis, I. (2015) Materials Development for TESOL. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Robinson, N. “An introduction to Learner Experience Design in ELT” accessed on 12/03/2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_Gs5-qWH2s&utm_source=LXD+Total+Subscribers&utm_campaign=ea5f152d75-Typeform+for+future+webinars&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c484f23f08-ea5f152d75-287952169

After we discussed the principles that underpin the design of the ELT materials, our next step was to create an evaluation framework.  I evaluate materials informally almost every day but it never occurred to me to use a framework.  For this task we had to work in groups. The groups chosen this week to present had to evaluate a coursebook using their framework. As my group wasn’t presenting, we simply developed a general framework based on our reading and personal beliefs.

As all three of us work in a similar teaching environment, which is multilingual General English classes in  private language schools in Brighton, we decided to set it is as our context.

Next step was to decide what approach for evaluating materials we were going to follow. It became apparent that there are various ways of looking at it. McDonough (2013), for instance, divides the process into the external evaluation, the internal evaluation and the overall evaluation.

The aim of the external evaluation is to examine the organisation of the materials by looking at claims made on the cover and the table of contents. At this stage it is suggested to look at the intended audience, the proficiency level, the context in which the materials are to be used, how the language has been presented and organised, the author’s view on the methodology.

The aim of the internal evaluation is to carry out a more in-depth investigation into materials. It includes investigation of the following factors:

-the presentation of the skills in the materials

-the grading and sequencing of the materials

-the authenticity of the materials

-the speaking materials and the nature of real interaction

-the relationship of the text and exercisers to learners’ needs

-the suitability for different learning styles

Finally, the aim of the overall evaluation is to make an overall assessment by considering the usability factor, the generalizability factor, the adaptability factor and the flexibility factor.

In my group we decided to use the Mcdonough’s evaluation checklist as a basis.  I find this model pretty straightforward, although I am doubtful whether an effective external evaluation can be conducted without working with the coursebook – after all, I have been always told not to judge a book by its cover. Some coursebooks can look as though they are very well-designed, however, in practise they can be hard to use.

After deciding on our evaluation checklist, we then added further criteria for our framework based on our beliefs and other sources. We divided our criteria into 4 sections: teacher, student, content and design.

Tomlinson (2012) suggest using questions instead of a checklist for the framework and McGrath (2013) also suggests that criteria can be statements or questions. For our framework we decided to use both statements and questions.

MATERIALS SHOULD : 

McGrath (2013) points out several problems with evaluation frameworks. First, criteria made at a particular point in time may not be appropriate years later. Secondly, as teachers work in different contexts, we cannot simply take an existing checklist and reuse it without considering ‘local’ factors.   In our framework, for instance, we focused on use of technology and development of soft skills, as in our context these are important factors, however in a different setting they may not be relevant.

As I personally have a strong interest in educational technology, I noticed that although there are numerous checklists and frameworks available for coursebook packages, there is very little mentioned about other elements such as software or apps. As I am currently working on designing a mobile app for language learning, I am interested in the ways I can evaluate my final product. Perhaps later in the course I could come up with this framework myself.

What I have learnt.

There is a vast selection of checklists of evaluation criteria for coursebooks available for teachers to use. However every evaluation should start from specification of the teaching situation and use criteria relevant to the target learners.

McDonough, J., et al. (2013) Materials and Methods in ELT: A Teacher’s Guide. (3nd ed) Chichester:Wiley-Blackwell.

McGrath, I. (2013) Teaching Materials and the Roles of EFL/ESL Teachers: Practice and Theory. London: Bloomsbury.

Tomlinson, B. (2012) Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching 45 (02): pp. 143-179. doi:10.1017/S0261444811000528.