The eighth week of this module was probably the most daunting one to prepare for and reflect on, because it marked the beginning of the slightly daunting task of collating everything which has been explored so far into applied practice. Being introduced to and made more aware of the different ways to conceptualise materials creation and the role of materials in learning has been fascinating, but a lot of the investigation we have done has led me to completely new conclusions and ideas. The sheer volume of factors which would reward inclusion in the design process makes me concerned that I might miss something of import that I’d noticed or investigated earlier on in the process. This, though, is another concern that can be met by evaluation – either post- or whilst-use – and, especially helpfully, by peer evaluation as well as self evaluation. This week I’m writing about the reflections elicited by Jolly and Bolitho’s chapter (2011) and our discussions in today’s seminar, and how these helped prepare me for this new threshold.

Needs and authenticity

In preparation for week 8, I found the Jolly and Bolitho chapter (2011) interesting, and also revealing of the centrality of particular attitudes to the authors’ materials design process. Beginning as they did with a collection of quotations from teachers and learners, and extrapolating from these quotations the points they see as crucial parts of the unmediated materials design process, they showed that for them, positioning classroom needs at the centre of the design process was more than just a principle to be considered, but a basis from which to proceed in every part of the process. They took all the key points for their chapter from direct reporting of needs, by teachers and students. It also highlighted for me personally that no one particular need has primacy because it is more “valid” or common, but any need which is present in a learner, or indeed a teacher or context in general, is as relevant as can be, because it pertains exactly to the context which material will be used in. The example (Jolly and Bolitho 2011) of the Danish student who needed a specialised skill set to be a sports commentator springs to mind. In this example, the question of providing what is often called “real” and “authentic” language can be answered by looking at specific student needs. What is authentic for one person’s situation is totally artificial in another’s; for instance, if you’re a football commentator, you need to expertly use language on a daily basis which, say, a lawyer might never use in their life, whilst language use that a lawyer would see as authentic, real and relevant would possibly never appear in the equally “authentic” reality of a nurse, and so on. To clarify, the inclusion of language which can be described as “authentic” or “real”, as is a principle for many in materials design, is dependent on identifying the needs of the learners, because that is what determines whether language use or skills are “real” or not. The consistency of referral to classroom needs throughout Jolly and Bolitho’s chapter brought to my attention the thorough relevance of classroom needs to each part of the process of materials design.

The design process models (Figure 5.1, 5.2 in Jolly and Bolitho 2011)

Interestingly, the fact that student or teacher needs can justifiably be used as a basis for each stage of the linear materials design process initially debunked by Jolly and Bolitho – Identification, exploration, contextual realisation, pedagogical realisation, and finally production (Fig. 5.1) – is a very good reason for accepting their reconstruction of it into an internally referential cyclical process with slightly more steps (Fig. 5.2).

My first reaction to Jolly and Bolitho’s diagram of the design process was that explicitly pointing out the cyclical nature of materials design, and going to the lengths of redesigning the first example of a model process, was basically unnecessary. It seems strange to imagine that anyone would proceed in a totally linear fashion through the steps of any creative process. I’d argue that if you did – only moving into any form of pedagogical realisation of your activity after you felt it had been contextualised from all possible angles, and never returning to thoughts of contextualisation afterwards – you’d either be left with incoherent material, or material which you were fully aware of the flaws of just by a cursory pre-use evaluation. The writer would then, naturally, return to particular stages of the process to adapt and alter the material – but why would anyone wait until the end to do this? As apparent obstacles arose in “new” stages as a result of problems with “previous” stages, any writer would automatically reconsider the earlier design decisions. Similarly, as you identified a student need to base your material on, you might naturally jump to visualising a classroom procedure for how this could be approached before thinking about exploration of the language, or contextual realisation. This is not to disagree with the more complete and accurate imagining of the design process that is the second flow chart diagram in that chapter. It’s just to point out that anybody attempting to use the first diagram would, in my opinion, inevitably end up carrying out the process in the way represented by the second diagram. For reasons of practical application, then, either diagram could be used and would often produce the same results in terms of process.

However, the centrality of classroom needs to all parts of the design process does, I think, justify the emphasis on the second flow chart. Jolly and Bolitho appear to hold teacher and student needs to be paramount, centring their exploration of design processes itself on a classroom needs assessment. Therefore, it seems sensible of them to point out that identifying and exploring student needs can and should be referred to retrospectively at all stages of materials design, including production, use and evaluation (whenever the latter takes place). The same idea, I believe, also could justify the approach outlined by Tomlinson in which the process is begun with a text, as opposed to an identification of student needs; it doesn’t matter which is the “first” stage of the design procedure. Seeing as each step relates intrinsically to others, and it is not a linear process, the point at which you decide to begin is less important than the awareness of how each stage relates to the other.

Materials creation as a learning process

Another shared idea between the Jolly and Bolitho chapter and other literature is that materials writing as a discipline is very important, even necessary, to properly develop the skill set needed to use other material – essentially, to develop teaching skills. The idea that ‘all teachers need a grounding in materials writing’ (Jolly and Bolitho 2011) to build criteria for evaluation, adaptation and improvisation is echoed by Richards’ (2001) re-emphasis of the potential in materials design for professional development. I’d thought before that looking at the reasons why materials do or don’t work, and the reasons why we as teachers see some materials as more productive than others, is a really effective way of engaging with different aspects of teaching. It helps to expand your awareness of what we can do in class to create ideal conditions for learning, and makes one more efficient at making small adaptations to predetermined material that result in big improvements in learning outcomes. I’d never conceived of it as a necessity before though, but thinking about it now, if our aim is to provide the best opportunities possible for learning, anything which improves the upper limit for our learners’ language acquisition is a necessary step towards that aim. It’s true that examining the process of materials design, and trying it out yourself, moves you beyond that ‘whatever works’ mentality, demonstrated by behaviours like the flick test or other apparently arbitrary, experiential evaluation and adaptation, and allows teachers to be measured, justified and controlled in their choices concerning adaptation, evaluation and improvisation of materials. I agree with Jolly and Bolitho here, that it expands to all areas of teaching; everything that is important for learning and teaching.

Personal learning outcomes

This week provided an important nudge in the right direction, helping me to put the rest of our work during this module into action, and make the step into princpled, informed materials design. From the seminar and preparation, Cherry, Phil and I decided that in our own materials design process, student needs would be the ever-present reference point, in order to keep our material anchored to the context, the classroom and the learners themselves. We believe that this will ensure ‘authenticity’, relative to our learners. In progressing through the stages of the process we resolved to allow ourselves to approach whichever stage we were drawn to in whichever order, as long as there was an underlying reaction to identified student needs. Perhaps most valuably, we were also reminded that this process could be of great benefit to us as adaptors, evaluators and creators of materials for language learning, and as teachers of English.

 

Tomlinson, B.; ‘Materials development in language teaching; 2011