Seminar number two was primarily a task-based experience; we were charged with the task of coming up with some principles of ELT practice that we believed to be central to our beliefs about how languages are learned (Hall 1995 in Tomlinson 2012) and upon which we would base our (theoretical) framework for materials design. Individually we produced our lists and then shared these in small groups and compared our findings. They were not wildly different but neither were they exactly the same. To complicate matters, a further layer of published ‘design principles from the literature’ was added to the mix and we were asked to eliminate the duplicates and arrive at a list of 16. We were polite with each other, listened to each others’ points of view, made our cases for different elements and compromised in places. It wasn’t easy and certainly provoked much discussion.

The process we experienced seemed to aptly reflect the essential nature of trying to find ‘universal principles’. We all had different backgrounds – in English language teaching; in our experience of this course and our reading so far for this module; in our own educational and language learning experiences; and in our ages and countries of origin; (to name just some of the key variables). In other words, we all brought different ‘contextual’ baggage with us to the table of principles selection. This was the fundamental idea I took away from this seminar, that yes, universal principles based on second language acquisition theory and pedagogic theories can be devised, honed and prioritised, but as teachers we all have different ideas about those priorities and different teaching situations in which we see ourselves applying them. An effective design framework, for a ‘constituency bigger than just me an my learners today’ – and I think these were Paul’s words, needs to capture the most salient ‘universal’ principles and allow for ‘contextualisation’ – or adaptation to local issues. In Tomlinson’s view, (State-of-the-Art Article 2012: 153):

“The ongoing evaluation of the developing materials should be driven by a set of agreed principles, both universal principles applicable to any learning context and local criteria specific to the target learning context(s).”

In that same publication he reviews how some authors set out principles on which to develop materials. Flores, (1995) used 5 principles, Penaflorida (1995) 6, while Tomlinson (1998b and 2011b) suggested 15 principles based on SLA theory and his experience of teaching. To what extent though, have the majority of materials developers used design frameworks based on these or other principles? Disappointingly, not much, according to the literature. Historically, it seems, the main ‘tools’ for materials design have been to replicate or adapt previous materials, to rely on creative inspiration during the writing process, and to refer to individual repertoires of ‘what worked for them’. Our class discussion on this issue left some of us wondering if they used principles at all, in the absence of any explicit reference to them. However, perhaps giving them the benefit of the doubt, we concluded that, as expert material writers who were also (or had at some point been) teachers, their principles had become internalised or implicit. This conclusion was supported with subsequent reference to Hadfield (2014; 320-359) who examined and reported on her own and other materials writers’ experiences, finding that just because these principles remain unarticulated does not mean they don’t exist. Furthermore, while the expert writer might not use an explicit set of principles,  novice and developing writers would find having them invaluable.

Writing on task design, Johnson, K. (2003) draws from specific research to identify what makes an ‘expert’ materials writer, identifying the following key behaviors:

• Concrete visualisation of activity for student and teacher
• Ability to abandon what’s not right
• Does things one at a time – and spends time analysing the problem and reviewing it
• Highlights important considerations (principles)
• Looks at breadth first, then depth in design
• Makes higher level decisions before lower ones
• Identifies consequences
• Constantly reviews, with a view to reject, fix or maintain
• Is sensitive to learner context
• Explores post task types
• Uses repertoire
• Creates choice possibilities
• Complexifies task beyond necessity

From his analysis we can see that expert writers approach design in a way that draws on their implicit knowledge and results in a patten of behaviors with which they tackle design problems. Some of them also reflect principles more overtly – such as being sensitive to learner context.

Tomlinson’s key principles based on SLA research findings and taken from Tomlinson (2008b) include:

• the language experience needs to be contextualised and comprehensible
• the learners need to be motivated, relaxed and positively engaged
• the language and discourse features available ….need to be salient, meaningful and frequently encountered
• the learners need to achieve deep and multi-dimensional processing of the language

In Tomlinson (2013) these were listed:

• meaningful exposure to language
• effective and cognitive engagement
• mental resources used in L1
• noticing how L2 is used
• contextualised and purposeful communication
• interaction encouraged
• focus on meaning

Coming into this seminar I had just read the papers in which these principles were discussed. I had recently completed the second language acquisition and methodology modules of this course and I have 5 years of my own teaching experience to draw from. This all fed into the task we were set in class as I produced my own list and reviewing the ‘design principles’ supplied.  I’m not sure which aspect influenced me the most – but then that’s the nature of schema.  A bit of this and that is added to what’s already there to build a new set of understandings.  And this is one reason why no two individuals’ ‘sets of principles’ will ever be exactly the same. So, not surprisingly, my group’s (eventually agreed) list of  principles was different to the other groups’ lists  and theirs to each others. Here for the record, is my group’s list which was just 15 in the end: 

•  have engaging content
• be authentic and relevant to real life
• challenge students
• be flexible
• recognise the need for long-term goals
• well presented
• Student centred
• integrate skills work
• Meaningful and accessible
• take into account that learners differ in affective attitudes
• require and facilitate learner self investment
•  give multiple examples
• direct learners’ attention to linguistic features of input
• provide opportunities for outcome feedback
• reflect the complex nature of the learning task and made manageable

Where to from here?  Given the unlikelihood of finding a comprehensive list of principles that suits all circumstances, it is perhaps equally important to focus on the process of deciding upon those principles suited to the time, place and purpose of use.  This is the essential idea behind a framework for materials writing, and Jolly and Bolitho (2011) set out a ‘principled, practical and dynamic framework‘ as a guide to this process.  This starts with the identification and then the exploration of needs in which the objectives of the materials need to be clearly defined; it continues with the contextual and pedagogic realisation of materials, such as cultural appropriateness and how the learners might use the materials; followed by production and student use, covering issues of trialling and piloting; and finally (but that’s not actually where it finishes) evaluation against objectives.  There isn’t really a ‘finally’ because once the evaluation stage is reached the process starts over again from the beginning – it’s iterative.  Our seminar slides flesh out this process  (week 2 in class presentation slides 45-61:) as does the literature in which it was reported (Tomlinson 2013).  In week three we deal more thoroughly with frameworks and process as they relate to EVALUATION.  To prepare for that we were put into new groups and given the following question and task:

•  What framework most clearly reflects your approach to materials evaluation?
• Arrive at a materials framework and apply that to a coursebook.

References:

Johnson, K (2003) Designing language teaching tasks.

Tomlinson, B. (2012) Materials development in language learning and teaching. Language Teaching 45.2.

Tomlinson, B. (2013) Developing principled frameworks for materials development, in Tomlinson, B (ed)  Materials for language teaching (2nd ed).

Hadfield, J. (2014) Chaosmos: spontaneity and order in the materials design process., in Harwood, N. (ed) English language teaching textbooks: content, consumption, production.