English Unlimited B1+ Intermediate
Course book Rea, D. & Clementon, T. with Tilbury & Hendra, A. (2011)
Self-study Pack Baigent, M. & Robinson, N.
Teacher’s Pack Clementon, T. & Gray, L. & Smith, H.

Collaborative work

I found several intrinsic difficulties in creating a framework for language book evaluation (titles listed above). For the course TE741 we have to prepare an oral presentation in a group of three. The participants in my group are from different backgrounds. One is from Kuwait, one from England and I, a naturalised Argentinian. Before the task, we met to discuss our assigned readings. Later we decided on what was going to be the best framework for the evaluation criteria for the given book, which was the course pack English Unlimited B1+ Intermediate.

We compared and adapted the Materials evaluation from the literature and we were confronted with a wide range of frameworks. After consultation, we decided to base our framework on selecting aspects of the criteria used for evaluation by the following researchers; McDonough &Shaw (1993). Sheldon (1988), Roberts’ (1996), Tomlinson (1998) and Reinders (2011). We identified which criteria on the basis that we all utilise constructivist approaches in our work as a preferred method and also one colleague suggested to take Demir & Ertas (2014) framework of evaluation based on who they considered to be the most relevant writers.

Different evaluation approach

Tomlinson (2012:148) cited Mukundan & Ahour (2010), whose studies inferred that

“a framework for creating clear, concise and flexible would be more useful than detailed and unbending checklists and that more attention should be given to help teachers to evaluate the effect of the materials they are using and modify.”

Also, we compared and analysed which would improve our evaluation. Gutiérrez Bermúdez (2014) had followed Sheldon’s (1988) and Roberts’ (1996) evaluation to develop some criteria to conduct his research with, qualitative evaluation of the material given. The evaluation purpose was to gain a picture of materials’ effectiveness in the Latin American context. Gutiérrez Bermúdez (2014:110) results:

“Underscored the need for the establishment of solid evaluation criteria that is to be established in case to case basis, considering the needs of the particular context and parties involved, students, instructors or policymaker at a school.”

This prompts to evaluate materials as he mentioned by closing the gap between the theory that feeds to produce materials and the teachers’ classroom realities. As a group we found it an interesting challenge to merge all this research and tried to follow a constructivist approach in our evaluation.
According to Reinders (2011) the suggested framework helps teachers to highlight issues with materials and resources.

Eight stages self-evaluating materials by Reinders (2011:185)
Reinders identified eight stages self-evaluation. Eight stages of self-evaluation materials by R.H(2011:185) Reinders (2011:183) states;

“Materials for autonomy intersperse opportunities for reflection throughout learning process, as the ‘glue’ that holds all the together.”

With this framework the teachers can decide what is best and adapt the materials for teachers practice. As a practitioner I was inclined towards Reinders’s framework evaluation that encourages learners’ autonomy.

“Autonomous language learning is an act of learning whereby motivated learners consciously make informed decisions about that learning” (Reinders 2000:25).

We consider some of the stages as well as another participant of the group suggested partiality towards McDonough &Shaw (1993).

Our framework’s aim was to conduct an evaluation of a given material to find if the materials were going to strengthen the language learner autonomy. Also, if the materials were following the guidelines by the establishment of a Common European Framework of Reference for languages (2011).

Our result was an approach that combined the most important issues that had been already established because of published research. (Fig. Table 1)

Tomlinson argues (2012:148) in Tomlinson (2003b) that is necessary for

“evaluators to develop their own principled criteria which considered the context of the evaluation and their own beliefs.”

My reflection is that our own individual research and group research has given us the opportunity to create a framework, which has allowed us to restructure a checklist for book evaluation. We also had to re-write each question to assess the utility of each book, and how these books were fostering students’ autonomy.

PowerPoint presentation in class:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ldDfGHKc1YB-Vj8pYdxNofxuQiBJvWFtRnhZj_z8HtA/edit?ts=56ceed58

 

Reference
Benson, P. & Reinders, H. 2011, Beyond the language classroom, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Demir, Y. and Ertas, A., 2014. A Suggested Eclectic Checklist for ELT Coursebook Evaluation. Reading, 14(2).

Gutiérrez Bermúdez, J. F. (2014). An exercise in course-book evaluation: Strengths, weaknesses and recommendations regarding New English file: Elementary. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 7(1), 98–111. doi:10.5294/laclil.2014.7.1.6 eISSN 2322-9721.

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

Roberts, J. T. (1996). Demystifying materials evaluation. System, 24(3), 378–389

Sheldon, L. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42(4), 237–24
Tomlinson, B. (2011) Introduction: principles and procedures of materials development. In:
Tomlinson, B. (ed). Materials Development in Language Teaching. (2nd ed) Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45, pp 143-179. doi:10.1017/S0261444811000528.
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (2011) Available <https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf>22/02/16
The English edition is published by Cambridge University Press. ISBN : HB 0521803136 – PB 0521005310 www.uk.cambridge.org/elt

The seminar for Teaching Materials TE714 on Monday the 18th February was about Principles and Frameworks for material design. This session was based on our reading list and our discussion was in reference to the reading of Materials Development in Language Teaching. Our course tutor gave us more than 30 statements of design principles for ELT (English language teaching materials) and we were instructed to first-rate them in order of importance.

These principles for ELT materials were from the taken from the following authors;

(A)Tomlinson, B. (2011)
(B)Bell, J. & Gower, R. (1998)
(C)Nunan, D. (1988)
(D)Hall in: Hidalgo, A.C., Hall, D., et al. (eds) (1995).
(E)Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1987)
We selected the statements with the purpose of gathering some specific principle criteria. This was not a fast selection process, because of we had to elaborate on why we had chosen some given statement criteria. As there were four of us in our group of different nationalities, (Anglo-Japanese, Italian, Angolan and I am an Argentinian (UK resident), we decided to analyse each statement in relation to our personal beliefs. Some of these statements were more relevant than others, however we selected the one that each individual considered imperative according to our context of work. Then we compared the provided statements with our own written statements. As a group we immediately agreed on the following criteria, shown in fig.1 below.
This activity has given me opportunity to reflect in terms of how essential it is to acquire knowledge from expertise, and how to follow certain principles and criteria. The principles for materials design can be taken as a foundation for book evaluations. In the literature above researchers analyse book evaluation criteria to validate their utility. These evaluations are an ongoing development. As educators, we need to understand the procedure when considering the evaluation of our materials, as well as to take them as part of our continuous professional development. During our seminar, as students, we tried to generate a list of the best principled criteria. While we were creating our list, we talked about the article State of-the- Art, Tomlinson (2012:148), who proposes in Tomlinson(2003b) “a processes for generating principled criteria instead of an unrealistic set of criteria for all contexts.”

 

Therefore, we approved a selection of statements. Nonetheless, we thought that the chosen principle from the list would not be necessarily applicable for each individual’s cultural context. Furthermore, there is a differentiation between universal and local criteria according Tomlinson (2012:148)

“to generate these criteria he advises evaluator to brainstorm a list of principles beliefs that they hold about how languages are most effectively acquired and then convert these beliefs into criteria for evaluating materials, such as ‘Are materials likely to archive affective engagement? (Tomlinson 2003b:28)

As an educator I select teaching language materials from those available, those endorsed by the local education authority, also those recommended by other teachers which are suitable for adaption. However, with the guidance of the design principles listed above it could be useful to adapt further and highlight evaluation criteria. It is valid to recognise that for materials evaluation a specific discipline is required to be able to assess the best materials for learners.

Fig. 1
The criteria of how to evaluate a teaching materials for ELT it is a challenging learning experience.

Reference
Bell, J. & Gower, R. (1998) Writing course materials for the world: a great compromise. In:
Tomlinson, B. Materials Development in Language Teaching Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hall, D. & Hewings, A. 2001, Innovation in English language teaching: a reader, Routledge in association with Macquarie University and The Open University, London.
Hidalgo, A.C., Hall, D., et al. (1995) Getting Started: Materials Writers on Materials
Writing. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1987) English for Specific Purposes: A Learning-centred
Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1988) Principles for designing language teaching materials. Guidelines 10 pp.1-24.
Tomlinson, B. (2011) Introduction: principles and procedures of materials development. In:
Tomlinson, B. (ed). Materials Development in Language Teaching. (2nd ed) Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45, pp 143-179. doi:10.1017/S0261444811000528.

My name is Adriana Paez de Blair, currently studying MA TESOL at Brighton University. I have to admit that a task of writing a blog is a new learning curve for me, especially on the use of technology. This is a concern but at the same time a challenging experience in learning. For that reason, I read some blogs in advance before even considering starting it. In such a short time, I found several blogs of innovative researchers who blog about teaching and learning practices.

As a postgraduate student the purpose of this blog is to strengthen my teaching and learning experience. During this process, I found many teaching materials posted in educational blogs such as; TES Big Ed Blog, Tom Sherrington blog or headguruteach-er.com. In the past, every time I found resources I copied and pasted them in my cloud Diigo (a website that works like a library) and they would be forgotten. Therefore, I will use a different approach this time; I will assess teaching materials and put them into practice. This blog will have an audience of course colleagues and tutors from Brighton University.

Event + workshop/ tasks

As part of a module called Teaching Materials for my MA TESOL, we could attend an event named Interfacing with Public Space: Embodied language learning with mobile technologies. Paul Driver was the speaker, on Saturday 13th February, at the University of Brighton’s Grand Parade Building. Paul Driver is a language teacher, educational technologist, who presented some of his dazzling materials for Second Language Learners of English. As well as this he gave an interesting talk about the in-depth analysis behind his work.

This workshop was inspirational since it motivated my colleagues and I to create tasks for ELT learners. Our group created a first project named ‘A missing person in Churchill Square’ with the aim to teach directions and personal description to intermediate level students. Thus, the materials suggested for this project were mobiles, iPad, and photographs. This idea was based on Driver’s project called ‘Spy Walk’, which is a location-based urban game designed to link the affordance of physical setting. By choosing Brighton as a setting this allows students to interact with each other and locals in the given environment.

Our second task was named ‘Online Antique Museum’, also set in Brighton. We suggested the use of the Google Tour Builder and transmedia storytelling. This was also based on Drivers’ tasks of experimental location-based interactive story, with the description. In our case, the learning outcome would be to ask students to write a description of antiques, with the history behind each object. The students’ movement around Brighton antique shops would allow them to write about their findings in detail. All this preparation made us discuss and learn how to frame these tasks to support EL learners, with the idea of location-based experiences to motivate them. Thus, in our practical workshop we achieved with collaboration and a with productive learning result.

 

 

Theory Behind Technology Materials

I have to recognize that this event not only helped me to gain practical knowledge about innovative materials, but also aided me to learn about in-depth theoretical knowledge. This was due to Paul’s teaching approach with many technological resources. He pointed out that is not a question of having resources to be able to use in the high-tech environmental class-room, but it is about using those materials within the environment given space-task base. Paul called this ‘hands in action’. The teaching materials for ELT classroom given by Paul included the use of; augmented reality, green screen and digital video production, GPS-based pervasive games, project based learning and tactical urbanism. All of these resources could be found in his blog: Digital Blog-Digital Debris.
Digital materials are used in education because of their advantages in creating stimulating learning environments for students. Cuendet et al. (213:557) argues

“Augmented reality (AR) allows learners to interact with the real world in ways that were not possible before.”

The term AR, and Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs) refer to technologies that project digital material onto real world objects. According to new research on AR-Based Simulators as Discovery Learning Tools of Ibáñez et al (2014), there are benefits of adopting these materials. Ibáñez et al (2014:208 ) argue that AR and TUIs provide

“contextualized information and allow the visualization of invisible phenomena and the interaction with 3-D objects in real-time.”

Beyond what has been said, teaching tools that heighten the learners’ experiences could be found in Drivers’ blog. Alternatively, in reading his paper on Pervasive Games and Mobile Technologies for Embodied Language Learning (2012), I have encountered how Driver explores the benefits of technology-enhanced pervasive urban games for L2 learning, by addressing their pedagogical and philosophical origin. In this paper, there are some examples of location-based research projects, that he has updated throughout the years. During the aforementioned event, Driver said that certain researchers and philosophers, had inspired him in creating his work such as; Dewey, Heidegger and Dourish. I would agree that some of those names are always in the education literature such as Dewey, J. (1997:30). In Experience & Education, he argues that:

A coherent theory of experience, affording positive direction to selection and organization of appropriate educational methods and materials, is required by the attempt to give new direction to the work of the school. The progress is a slow and arduous one.

 

There are emerging changes since Dewey (1938) said this, with the implementation of technology in education. Besides, Dourish’s (2001) paper is based on human and computer interaction. Dourish (2001:229) research on Seeking a Foundation for Context-Aware Computing argues:

“the context-based computing should be extended to include not only ubiquitous computing, but also recent trends in tangible interfaces, as well as work on sociological investigations to organize interactive behaviour.”

There are some factors that ought to be highlighted such as the context that surrounds the human and computer interaction. The context-aware computing has been an opportunity granted by falling cost of computational devices, with the advances in sensor technology. This has allowed us to develop new forms of embedded interaction. According to Dourish (2001:229), there is increasing understanding among developers that humans are enmeshed in various practices and relations that make them meaningful.

Writing this blog has motivated my learning and helped me to expand my knowledge. As I read from others, such as Hsu and Lin (2008), who state

“developed a model of motivation for participation in blogs, focusing on technical acceptance, knowledge sharing, a social influence.”

I will be more into blogging. The contribution of the event and recent research has helped me to develop a deep understanding of theoretical knowledge. This is vital to grasp why and how to incorporate Teaching Materials in Second language practices.

Reference

Cuendet, S. Bonnard, B. Do-Lenh, S, Dillenbourg, P. (2013) Designing augmented reality for the classroom. Journal SciVerse ScienceDirect. Computers & Education 68 (2013) 557–569 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.015.

Dewey, J. (1997) John Dewey Experience & Education. New York: Touchstone.

Diigo (2005)- Diigo Inc., United States. Available <https//www.diigo.com> accessed 12/11/2015.

Dourish, P. (2001) Seeking a Foundation for Context-Aware Computing. Human-Computer Interaction. 16, 2-4, 229-241, Dec. ISSN: 07370024.

Driver, P. (2012) “Pervasive Games and Mobile Technologies for Embodied Language Learning,” International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT) 2 (2012): 4, accessed (February 15, 2016), doi:10.4018/ijcallt.2012100104.

Driver, P. (2016) Digital blog-Digital Debris. Available<digitaldebris.info/digital-debris/>Access 13/02/2016.

Hsu, C-L., & Lin, J.C-C. (2008). Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of
technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation.
Information & Management, 45(1), 65–74.doi:10.1016/j.im.2007.11.001.

Ibáñez, M., Di-Serio, A., Villarán-Molina, D. and Delgado-Kloos, C. ‘Augmented Reality-Based Simulators as Discovery Learning Tools: An Empirical Study’. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 58, NO. 3, Aug. 2015. DOI:10.1109/TE.2014.2379712

Sherrington, T. Blog (2012) Available <http://headguruteacher.com/2016/01/10/principles-of-effective-teaching/>access 13/02/2016.

Shklovski, I., Troshynski, E. and Dourish, P. (2015), Mobile technologies and the spatiotemporal configurations of institutional practice. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66: 2098–2115.doi: 10.1002/asi.23321.

TES Big Ed Blog (2013) Availa-ble<https://www.tes.com/article.aspx?storycode=6312965>access 13/02/2016.