Following on from my first post, I want to focus on materials in general (not just course books) and how they relate to, and have an impact on teachers and learners.

“Sometimes institutions can be accused of putting coursebooks and equipment before the students”.
McGrath (2013)

Bolitho (1990) present four visual representations of the relationship between teachers, learners and materials.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3
What I interpret from these three diagrams (of four) is that materials are seen as external entities, and they filter downwards into everything else without collaboration and reflection. There is a danger here of the materials being put on an unchallenged and unevaluated pedestal. The reliability and validity of the content, learning principles, and communicative purposes of the materials must be questioned by all stakeholders (similar to what was mention about coursebooks in my previous post). However, this is more easily said than done. Institutions where the culture is for the syllabus and progress measures to be guided by predetermined materials, teachers and the learners may have little say in the content and methods used. In addition, some teachers may doubt their own authority to challenge these pre-packaged materials that contradict their pedagogical principles. It took me several years to feel comfortable with material adaption. This was in part due to the time it took for me to reflect and develop my own teaching beliefs and principles.

Two of the key considerations why materials are seen as a seperate entities is the time and resources it takes to create them. Teachers don’t have or are not given the space to author their own materials. The culture that I am accustomed to is one where the main battle is a juggling act of responsibilities leaving very little space within the working day to create localised materials. In this kind of climate the coursebook or pre-packaged materials can be viewed as the most economical resource for hard-pressed teachers. Yet this implies, to me, that published materials keep teachers and institutions bound to them and asks them to relinquish their control over input and pedagogy in their classroom. The Internet has provided alternatives to the coursebook and there are more multi-modal options available. However, it still means that the materials (whether they are professional or not) are created ‘off-site’ away from the context and needs of individual classrooms.

What are the roles of the teachers and the learners with regard to materials? McGrath (2013) suggests that it can be separated into choice, control and creativity. Technology has done a great service to enable more choice. This is not a global resolution, but it is becoming more and more common that people have access to the Internet. The wealth of materials found online have been created by professionals, researchers, practicing teachers and most wonderfully students themselves. The mobile phone is seen, by some, as the pariah in the classroom while others see it as the answer to all material conundrums. A device that has images, sounds, video (in the case of smart phones), recording capabilities, and research facilities and using its primary purpose, a tool for communication (text or phone calls). The power to create materials is not only in the hands of the teacher, more interestingly it affords the students the use of all its functions as a means of creating their own materials. This view is perhaps a biased perspective, as I strongly believe that mobile phone technology has unequalled educational affordances.

The development of materials should always be reflected upon as an evolving process, where the choices are controlled by the particular learning situations needs. With needs at the centre the materials, teacher and learner all have input. This is, in some respects, represented in Bolithio’s fourth image.

Figure 4

The teacher should be the one in control or managing what is presented and used in class. That is not to say that student input and materials would not be a welcomed, and a more engaging experience for all involved. Post-evaluative judgements would give a better indications of the outcomes of materials (Action Research). The cyclical nature of figure 4 implies that the reflection and evaluation will involve all stakeholders. This should should mean that the materials evolve more in proportion to the localised context.

The ability to create and adapt materials comes with time, reflection and trial and error. Eventually,  a ‘bank’ of materials can be accrued while teachers’ adaptive skills become more intuitive. Those materials should present and promote the teacher’s principles and the needs of the students within their context. This has been true for myself, I have moved away from the more behaviourist style of teaching using Present, Practice, Produce (P.P.P) method. The methods and materials I used were mainly materials-as-language, where the students practise and discover individual language items. However, over time it has become clear that I have a preference for a constructivist and sociocultural perspective approach to ELT. This uses task based learning and project work (materials-as-content) as the main focus and language is acquired through the process of doing the activity. It is not fair or helpful to try and polarise materials. The need is what comes first and the appropriate material is selected from there. I would not reject a material simply because it does align itself with my beliefs if it is what is required for the student(s).

During our first week of the Materials Design course (TLM25) we were asked to write on the whiteboard what we wished to learn, improve and understand about materials. Among the very good ideas of my peers, the statements that I wrote were:

• Create
• Evaluate
• Recycle
• Humanise
• Localise

These five phrases sum up what I have been discussing throughout this post. Firstly, I need to understand the relationship between myself, the students and the materials. Despite technology allowing for a more economical means of creating and editing materials, adapting and supplementation skills are still an integral element of this course. What has become clear (if it wasn’t before) is the needs of the students that are the central consideration of materials and their design. Materials are not what make a good teacher nor a good lesson. It is an evolving process of evaluation and reflection that aids the development of a teacher, thus, creating stronger relationships with students and more contextually and pedagogically appropriate materials.

References

 
Bolitho,R. 1990 ‘An eternal Triangle? Roles for teacher, learners and teaching materials in a communicative approach’. In S. Anivan (ed.) Language Teaching Methodology for the nineties (pp22-30). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Centre.

Ewer, J. & Boys, O. (1981) The EST textbook situation – an enquiry, The ESp Journal 1.2: 87-105.

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

Mcgrath, I. (2013) Teaching materials and the roles of EFL/ESL teachers: theory versus practice, London, Continuum.

Meddings, L. & Thornbury,S. 2011. Teaching Unplugged: Dogme in English Language Teaching. London: DELTA Publishing

Tomlinson, B. (2011) Materials development in language teaching, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

The main themes of this blog are the considerations of material design for English Language Teaching (ELT). Firstly, I will try to establish the context by what is meant by materials. Then, the focus will be on the issues surrounding the ‘godfather’ of ELT materials, the coursebook. Obviously, there are plenty of resources out there for ELT material that are not the coursebook. However, they are still the staple of input in most institutions and is where most teachers start their ELT journey. The world of ELT is evolving and publishers are starting to recognise the benefits of other forms of media, and there will be more discussion about these in future posts.

What are materials?

McGrath (2013) suggests that if you ask the question “what are materials?” to any number of teachers the answers would be extremely varied, and would represent the individual’s preferences and ideologies of teaching and learning. Considering the idea of materials in its broadest term, Tomlinson (2001) implies they are ‘anything used to facilitate the learning of language’. The idealist in me reads this definition and nods wholeheartedly. The potential affordances that a ‘bus ticket’ has as a material to be used with a group of learners, those in need of communicative competence in public transport discourse is extremely motivating and exciting. In the right hands, all surroundings and objects have linguistic merits and provide opportunities for lessons to be built-upon. The broadest term (for what are materials) would definitely fit into a Dogme movement or method (as championed by Scott Thornbury). The effectiveness of this would depend heavily on the experience and confidence of the teacher. As a graduate of the Certificate of English Language Teaching to Adults (CELTA) course, I remember being terrified to enter a classroom room without at least three hours of preparation for one page of a coursebook, and at least two or three back-up activities if things were not going well.

McGrath (2007) suggests that there are four categories that materials could fall into to:

• Those specifically designed for language learning and teaching (e.g. textbooks, worksheets and computer software)
• Authentic materials (e.g. radio and newspapers)
• Teacher-written materials
• Learner-generated materials

For the majority of this post I will concentrate on the first of these descriptions. As the blog progresses and develops I hope the focus will move toward the other three.

Identifying materials starts with the “whom” and the “why” they are created (their intended audience): Are the materials produced globally or locally? Are they intended for General English/Teaching English for No Obvious Reason (TENOR), or English for Specific Purposes (ESP)? Are they specialised in terms of linguistic focus i.e. language systems, phonology, grammar, and skills?

Further distinctions can be made based on the roles the materials play in the classroom. Here Tomlinson (2001) offers a four-way division:

•  Instructional – inform learners about language.
• Experiential – exposure to language in use.
• Elicitative – stimulate language use.
• Exploratory – facilitate discoveries about language use.

McGrath (2013) offers another definition for two types of materials:

Materials-as-content: is linked to the communicative approach. This is when students engage with language through their desire to understand and to make themselves understood (elicitative). The theory is that engaging content is more likely to stimulate communicative interaction. Therefore, learning takes place through exposure and use (exploratory), or as Tomlinson (2001) says “through experiencing the language or responding to elicitation.”

Materials-as-language: uses reference materials such as dictionaries, grammar books, and student workbooks, where language is the content. Tomlinson calls this the ‘instructional role’. These books are helpful for analytically inclined learners; it needs to be complemented by text-level examples of language use (experiential). Up-to-date natural examples serve as both language samples and where rules can be discovered. Tomlinson describes this as an exploratory role for materials as a model for learners’ own production.

All these descriptions support the idea that Tomlinson describes above. Materials can be presented in numerous ways and should afford at least one of the four functions. Most teachers, I encounter, take an eclectic stance on the types of materials they use and the function they wish them to employ. Commercial materials are accessible on many multimedia formats that suit the modern demand for accessibility and connectivity. However, I will focus on one of the most tried and tested formats of published materials, the printed coursebook.

There are probably debates happening as your read this post between educators regarding the merits and demerits of ELT coursebooks.

The coursebook, for me as a newly qualified teacher, was my saviour. It helped to make sense of everything: planning, aims, procedures, content, and activities/tasks. It gave me the structure and much needed support at the start of my career. Coursebooks were my training wheels for my ‘teaching bike’. Eventually, we started to outgrow each other and those wheels became embarrassing and I wanted them off. That is not to say that coursebooks don’t still play a part in my teaching, they do. I use them sparingly and adapt them whenever it is applicable. They still hold some dependence over me for the more examination based materials that I teach such as IELTS.

The advantages of coursebooks are that they (generally) tend to combine Tomlinson’s four-way-division. There are materials-as-content which have value in the stimulus for communicative interaction. There are also materials-as-language with the provision of information about the target language and carefully selected examples for learners to explore.

One of the key benefits is the timesaving element that coursebooks offer. There are still some who see the coursebook as the work being done for them. Their job is to guide the students through the different stages of each unit. In my experience, the coursebook provides a pre-packaged syllabus and scheme-of-work for the faculty, the teacher and the learner. The goals are clearly defined and presented with progression tracking tasks, and tests running sequentially after each, or several units. Most global textbooks are supported by workbooks, teachers’ books and multi-media supplementary materials to aid and support the teaching and learning of the language at the appropriate level (beginner, lower-intermediate etc.). Sheldon (1988) suggests that “coursebooks represent for both students and teachers the visible beating heart of any ELT programme”. But is this a good thing? Was Sheldon being supportive or damning in this statement?

Coursebooks!!!!!!!!??????

The sub-heading should identify what the next section is addressing. There is as much literature that questions the use of global coursebooks in ELT classrooms, as there are pages of coursebook material. This a tricky section for me and my support for and dissatisfaction with coursebooks sways.

It is clear to most that coursebooks cannot, and do not cater for the whole person, nor do they take adequate account of the differences in learning. McGrath (2013) highlights that underlying the Humanistic approach to language acquisition is the belief that learners must engage on an affective level as well as a cognitive one. This same belief underpins one line of criticism of coursebooks. Tomlinson (2003) seconds this concern by suggesting that coursebooks only concentrate on linguistic and analytical aspects of learning and not through physically doing, feeling emotions and experiencing things in the mind. He suggests that the writers or the publishers of global materials believe that studial learning (where linguistic form and correctness is essential to the input) is preferred.

When addressing the content and contexts of global coursebooks, I have to admit to being slightly naïve and thoughtless about this area of material design. McGrath (2013) highlights the Anglo-centric view of the world and cultural realities some global coursebooks project. In the main, they have little relevance for the majority of learners studying English. Native speaker norms still dominate despite English use being driven by non-native speakers of English. With the vast majority of L2 English speakers use it as a Lingua Franca or an International language seriously questions these anglo-norms. Most of my students will be communicating as an international language and cultural norms (English ones) will not apply to them once they finish their education. McGrath (2013) describes it as “a form of cultural imperialism”. The acronym BANA (Britain, Australasia, and North America) I found rather apt and something that awoke my awareness of my British cultural norm blindness to coursebook content. This is an important issue for me to consider in my understanding and considerations of material design. Cultural icons and historical artifacts can easliy be researched and added into materials in order to engage and motivate the learners in their particular context.

Further criticism is can be aimed at coursebooks for their BANA-centricities and not just for the cultural imperialism they embody. The western values of both content and pedagogical approach can come under fire for their advocacy of particular classroom practice, roles and relationships. This may mean that materials that are culturally adverse will in some circumstances mean that students ‘switch-off’ and retreat into their inner world to protect their integrity (McGrath, 2013).

Teachers should question the coursebooks’ (both global and local ones) rubrics, activities, implicit messages about language learning, and the relationship and roles between learner and teacher. These pedagogical stances presented in the coursebooks rarely reflect the research and perspectives of current second language acquisition (SLA) and language use. McGrath (2013) highlights that numerous reviewers pick up on individual grammar or lexical points found within global coursebooks. They usually critique the authentic use of that language feature. The syllabuses and their pedagogy as a task design have been critically evaluated and call into question the atomistic and Present-Practice-Produce (P-P-P) approach of most textbooks. Meddings and Thornbury (2011) the grammatical ‘McNugget’ culture that books rely on, as it does not support learning at the same speed as delivery. Ewer & Boys (1981) describe coursebooks as having “shaky linguistic foundations”. Twenty years on from this critique, and Harwood (2005) concluded after researching fifty-six coursebooks that “few if any are premised on any type of research-based linguistic analysis”.

Acerbation of the negative view of coursebook comes from the idea that the content and approaches are ‘playing it safe’. The avoidance of reference to P.A.R.S.N.I.P (Politics, Alcohol, Religion, Sex, Narcotics, Isms, and Pork). Global coursebooks need a global appeal and the middle ground does reflect the complexties and rich variety that international communication demands. Inclusivity is understandable, to a certain degree, but this is surely avoiding language that might  be needed for everyday use and purpose (for older learners) (McGrath, 2013).

The feeling among some is that nothing really changes in the delivery of coursebooks even in the face of developments in research, methodology, experimentation or class feedback. There is a feeling that less and less appears to be left to the teacher to decide or leave out of their classroom practice. The coursebook materials structure classrooms and the time spent on activities is imposed from a distance and its presence is felt more and more over time (McGrath, 20130.

The coursebook bashing has come to a close and it is worthwhile to remind ourselves and as McGrath (2013) rightly points out “not all teachers view coursebooks in the same way as monolithic manuals but more as proposals of actions not instructions of use”.

There are more localised and focused resources available to teachers who are in a position to choose their materials. Here is a post from the ELT Jam blog that builds awareness of some of the other coursebook options out there.

ELT Jam link

(As a note, blogs appear to be a great resource for ideas and materials, and I hope, I will be able to research and build more of a relationship with them as the blog progresses.)

Bringing this post to close it is worth reflecting on the future of materials in ELT. The current landscape is still dominanted by printed coursebooks. Yet, these materials are starting to be supported by more multi-modal resources. Publishers are not ‘burying their heads in the sand’ it is more a question of how to best manage the wealth of possibilities that are available. The Internet and technology has come a long way in a short space of time. Print has not run its course and wil not be replaced by touch senstive screens on mobile devices. Access to materials has never been more flexible, global and connected. Teachers and students have the opportunity to work together to find materials and methods that work best in their context (a good example being distance learning). Personally, I feel this post has given me a boost of confidence to think of anything to be a language learning material. At the same time it has given me a timely reminder that there are many considerations to make for design and creation, which mainly centre around the students needs and context.

References

Ewer, J. & Boys, O. (1981) The EST textbook situation – an enquiry, The ESp Journal 1.2: 87-105.

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

Mcgrath, I. (2013) Teaching materials and the roles of EFL/ESL teachers: theory versus practice, London, Continuum.

Meddings, L. & Thornbury,S. 2011. Teaching Unplugged: Dogme in English Language Teaching. London: DELTA Publishing

Tomlinson, B. (2011) Materials development in language teaching, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.