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