Material Design Frameworks (Pt2)

Once a teacher has established and articulated the principles providing the roots of the materials, it is important that the author creates a framework to support the different stages of development. This, in theory, is sequence of steps and stages that allows the author(s) to evaluate and adapt the materials in-line with the aforementioned principles.

This is exemplified by the diagram below in Jolly & Bolithio’s chapter cited in Tomlinson (2009).

Untitled.png2

This shows that to identify a need is the starting point from which all things follow. This is a logical starting point and something that I must make sure I apply to my own materials. The concern I have is that I might be distracted by novelty and pleasing aesthetics rather than the pedagogical need of my learners. One of the main principles from my last post was engagement; there may have been occasions where my inclination has been to prioritise engagement and cosmetic motivation, while not asking myself “what will my students take from this?” Is being engaged enough? Was I pandering to the students’ approval? If the activity is involving and it encourages receptive and productive use of English then its merits as a pedagogical task cannot be questioned.

In my day-to-day interaction with materials, it is normally the case that I adapt something from published or  shared peer materials. This in turn means that upon discovering a task, or a suitable piece of input, it might be the pedagogy or the context that draws my attention and I would work backwards from there.  It is rare that I will have the time to carefully consider each one of the steps in the diagram and create my own materials. However, whatever I create or adapt needs to be part of the overall curriculum. It needs to recognised that individual materials are micro-considerations in the grand scale of a course. The macro-perspective is the desired aim of the students e.g. coursework or tests.

“Material writing is regarded as an end in itself, teachers believe that they can just write materials and not teach. The writing process is pointless without constant reference to the classroom.” Jolly and Bolitho (2009)

A critique of the diagram above is that it is a sequential and a rather undynamic illustration of what it takes to produce good materials. Jolly and Bolitho (2009) admit that this particular diagram is a simplified version of the ‘real’ process. The chronological simplicity may work for some or on occasion, but in reality it does not mirror the complexity that learning and teaching demands in the adaption and fine-tuning for the various context and needs materials could be used for.

Untitled.png3

This diagram can be considered as more dynamic and self-adjusting in its approach to the process. The idea of flexibility appears to run through the core of material design and a framework should reflect that. In addition, Jolly and Bolitho (2009) point out “the human mind rarely works in a linear fashion when attempting to solve problems”. A flexible framework visualises a variety of optional pathways or feedback loops, which make the process dynamic and self-regulating. Doing an evaluation after classroom use means authors can check if they have met their objectives. Failure to meet objectives could be attributed to any or all of the preceding phases.

There are other factors that may affect outcomes when evaluating the success of materials that are outside of the framework, such as classroom management. In fact some form of analysis and/or pre-evaluation should take place at every stage of the process in order to allow the original principles articulated by the writers at the start to inform adjustments.

Pardo and Téllez (2009) use Graves’ (1997) non-sequential framework, which looks at the essential components in the process of creating and adapting didactic learning materials.

Untitled.png4

Graves’ diagram is an interesting framework because it is not one of equal or sequential parts but rather one in which each individual’s context determines the process that needs more time and attention. It shows the seven essential components that make up the framework:

  • Needs assessment
  • Setting goals and objectives
  • Content
  • Developing and selecting materials and activities
  • Organisation of content
  • Evaluation
  • Resources and constraints

The telling aspect of this diagram is that it still has setting assessment needs at its core. It is clear that materials development (in the view of the experts) is at its most effective when it is tuned to the needs of a particular group of learners. Therefore the people who understand their learners are those who should be responsible for the principles and frameworks that are used to develop the materials used in their classrooms. All teachers who want to create and adapt materials that match their own principles need a grounded understanding of material frameworks. Knowledge of frameworks will assist in the evaluation of other people’s materials.

Materials writing raise some of the issues important to learning:

  • Selection and grading of language
  • Awareness of language
  • Knowledge of learning theories
  • Socio-cultural appropriacy

All teachers who endeavour to author their own materials will in fact start to learn their best methods and start to teach themselves. The process of trialling and evaluating are vital to the success of any materials (Tomlinson 2011)

This extended model for designing materials provides a coherent framework for the integration of various aspects of learning while at the same time allowing enough room for creativity and variety to flourish.

Hitchison and Waters (1987), as cited in Tomlinson (2011)

Untitled.png5

  1. Input may take the form of a text dialogue, video-recording diagram etc.

It provides:

  • Stimulus to activities
  • New language items
  • Models of language use
  • Topic for communication
  • Opportunities for learners to use information-processing skills
  • Opportunities for learners to use existing knowledge both of the language and the subject matter.
  1. Content: texts convey information and feelings; non-linguistic input, and can be exploited to generate meaningful communication.
  2. Language: learners need language to carry out communicative tasks and activities. Good materials allow learners the opportunities to analyse language of the input, study how it works, and then practise putting it back together again.
  3. Task: since the ultimate purpose of language learning is language use, materials should be designed to lead to toward a communicative task in which learners use the content and the language knowledge they have acquired in the previous stage. (Hitchison and Waters,1987)

There are limitations to this framework as it lacks analysis of the learner’s current knowledge. Also, there is an assumption that productive competence is the only aim of a language learner and as Harwood (2010) rightly points out, there are a great number of learners (outside English speaking countries) whose primary/study objective is reading knowledge/competence. Therefore there is no reason why the final/main task should not be a receptive one (listening and reading).

Having examined several framworks it becomes clear that they all have their pros and cons. The process of designing materials is perpetual cycle that is informed by so many factors. Flexibility and reflection, i.e. evaluation at all stages, seem to be the key terms when constructing a workable framework. I feel quite privilaged to work in an environment that encourages the sharing of materials and ideas amongst its peers. In general, there is a supportive dynamic and the feedback loop is always available for ideas to be discussed and developed. In addition, I feel confortable to ask my students for their thoughts and feelings toward materials, as well as analysising their actual output.

 

References

Harwood, N. (2010) English language teaching materials: theory and practice, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Pardo, A. N. & Téllez, T. (2009) ELT Materials: The Key to Fostering Effective Teaching and Learning Settings Materiales para la enseñanza del inglés: la clave para promover ambientes efectivos de enseñanza y aprendizaje. Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 11, 171-186.

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

Principles of ELT Materials Development (Pt1)

This week we looked at the principles of developing materials. In this post I will look at the approaches and methods of the experts. Then I will analyse the top 5 principles of teaching and learning that I arrived at during our seminar discussion.

Firstly, let me address the term materials development. Pardo and Téllez (2009) offer a definition (for materials development) that they say is most apt due to its inclusivity. “It includes adaption, creation of learning and teaching exercises, a task, an activity, a lesson, a unit, or a module composed of several units.” They support this with a quote from Low (1989) who says:

“Designing appropriate materials is not a science: it is a strange mixture of imagination, insight and analytical reasoning.”

During our seminar presentation materials development was described as a field of study and a practical undertaking. As a field, it studies the principles and procedures of the design, implementation, and evaluation of language teaching materials. As a practical undertaking it is anything where writers or learners provide sources of language input, and exploit it in ways that maximise the likelihood of intake and stimulates output.

What I comprehend from these descriptions is that material development is a process guided by rules and responsibilities, but the criteria and parameters are self-constructed. This is allows the teacher to promote their values and beliefs in whichever creative, or pragmatic way they wish.

How do experts author their materials?

In Tomlinson’s (2012) State-of-the Art article, he describes experienced writers as those who use their instincts and prior-knowledge as the main influence on their process. Repertoire and creative inspiration are terms that are utilised, but principles and frameworks are referred to less so. This may be because experienced authors have ingrained principles and are intuitively considered.  Tomlinson (2012) mentions that experts plan and draft their materials, while also waiting for inspiration. What really jumped out at me in his description was: “experts have clear and well-supported concepts, while designing in opportunistic ways that always consider the students’ needs first”. Once again it is the need that is the jumping off point for material design.

As mentioned in my ‘Materials Now’ post, one of the other ingredients for principled materials development seems to be experience. To be able to differentiate and pre-empt possible needs and learner difficulties can only come with an understanding of Second Language Acquisition. Awareness of these potential issues from the inception of the materials development process are a real advantage. Tomlinson (2012) expresses his preference for materials development as an on-going process of evaluation driven by a set of agreed principles. Both universal ones applicable to any type of learning context and then local criteria specific to the target language context.

Tomlinson (as cited in Harwood, 2010) advocates a principled development of materials through coherent applications of:

1. Theories of language acquisition and development.
2. Principles of teaching.
3. Current knowledge of how target language is actually used.
4. Results of systemic observation and evaluation of materials in use.

These applications would come under the universal criteria. Each application opens up a series of questions. Tomlinson (2012) expands on this by saying that materials should stem from SLA theory, leading to universal principles that in conjunction act as tools for development and evaluation.

Based on Tomlinson’s four decades of experience of teaching English he offers his proposed principles for ELT materials:

1. A prerequisite for language acquisition is that learners are exposed to a rich, meaningful, and comprehensible input of language use.

● Plentiful of spoken and written texts providing language useage from a variety of text types and genres relating to different topics, themes, events, locations, targeted to learners

2. To maximise learner exposure to language in use, they need to be engaged both affectively and cognitively in the language experience.

● Thinking while experiencing language helps deeper processing for effective durable learning plus higher-level skills e.g. predicting, connecting, interpreting, and evaluating second language use.

3. Learners who achieve positive effects are much more likely to achieve communicative competence than those who don’t.

● Texts and tasks must be interesting relevant, and enjoyable

4. Learners using materials resources typically that are also utilized when acquiring first language.

● Help learners reflect on their mental activity during a task, and then make use of mental strategies in similar tasks.

5. Learners can benefit from noticing salient features of input.

Apprehend before comprehend and intuit before explore. Using an experiential approach, where a student is engaged holistically and they learn implicitly. Later they revisit and reflect paying conscious attention to features in order to explicitly learn.

6. Learners need opportunities to use language to try to achieve communicative purposes.

● Learners produce language in order to achieve intended outcomes

Hall (1995) as cited in Tomlinson’s chapter on Principles of Effective Materials Development (2010) insists the crucial question is: How do we think that people learn languages? He lists the principles that he believes underpins everything we do in planning and writing of materials:

● Need to communicate
● Need for long-term goals
● Need for authenticity
● Need for student-centeredness

There is a magnitude of literature that proposes beliefs and principles and the lists could go on. The examples I have put on the post thus far are not by any means conclusive. That is in some respects is an impossible job without consideration of the learners’ need, the learners’ background, the timing and the teachers’ beliefs.

However, as mentioned at the top of the post I will discuss my five beliefs of ELT. The method to which I came to finalise these principles was through discovery, rather than a prolonged and agonising internal debate. A detailed and fruitful exercise that my peers and I participated in enabled us to reveal our five core beliefs for the learning and teaching language.

The sentence head for the tasks was:

Materials should…………

From there we wrote down our ideas. These declarations were then incorporated with other professional examples from other authors in the field. After deliberation and peer discussion, we whittled our way down to a personalised final list. Therefore, there may be some reliability issue due to the influence of others, but in general I would say that it does reflect a lot of who I am as a teacher and what I want as a learner too.

Eventually, my final five read like this:

Materials should:

● Engage students
● Encourage leaners to apply their developing skills to the world beyond the classroom.
● Be perceived by learners as relevant and useful
● Provide opportunities to use the target language to achieve communicative purpose.
● Take a balance of approaches in the way things are covered, inductive, deductive, and affective approaches to grammar, fluency and accuracy work.

 

Untitled

On the whole, I am fairly satisfied with the results of this exercise as it does support my sociocultural and constructivist hypothesis for learning language. These theories apply themselves to idea that learning is about communication and using the language for a purpose. It is exposure to the language through doing that allows acquisition to take place. Relevance and use are connected heavily to a communicative purpose. If a learner has a goal they will be engaged in the process of achieving that goal. They will practice and recycle their language and expose themselves to as much of that language as they can to achieve that aim. This in turn will allow for an eclectic approach that is concerned with achievement and not just accuracy.

References

Pardo, A. N. & María Fernanda Téllez, T. (2009) ELT Materials: The Key to Fostering Effective Teaching and Learning Settings Materiales para la enseñanza del inglés: la clave para promover ambientes efectivos de enseñanza y aprendizaje. Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 11, 171-186.

Tomlinson, B. (2010) Principles for effective materials development. In (Ed) Harwood, N. (2010) English language teaching materials: theory and practice, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Tomlinson, B. (2012) Materials Development for Language Learning and Teaching. Language Teaching, 45 (2), 143-179.