Before this session myself and my colleagues on the course got into some interesting discussions over readings we did. Though part of the pre-task was also to come up with an evaluation framework we ended up with a rather petty and unfinished consensus.

Literature offers an array of various approaches, checklists and guidelines. McDonough and Shaw (2013) suggest two stages of evaluation: external and internal.The first one briefly looks at what the coursebook claims to offer in terms of context, level, principles as well as type of audience is it aimed at. This phase is to identify titles we would like to investigate in more detail. During internal evaluation author’s claims are put to a test. This is achieved through use of questions about presentation, grading, appropriacy, suitability and authenticity. Though the evaluation framework seems rather universal McDonought et al. (2013) also point out that ‘criteria often are very local’. In other words questions for evaluation are best identified by the evaluators themselves in order to cater for a specific audience and context. Tomlison (2012) also stresses the importance of not only the context but also ones own beliefs when generating criteria for the evaluative process. In addition, he highlights the need for the framework to be flexible and monitored throughout. Given the subjective nature of each evaluation it is essential not to focus on its limitations but on its original purpose, which would always be context-specific, and therefore context-relevant. As McGrath (2013) reminds us that evaluators ‘use the lenses of (their) experience and context to evaluate’ coursebooks, which might suggest that all evaluation criteria are partly shaped by ones experience. Given the size of the EFL/ELT industry and so many contexts English is now being taught and learnt it surely seems close to impossible to have ‘one size fits all’ evaluation framework. An interesting study by Johnson et al. (2008) also highlighted differences in teacher’s expectations evolving with years of experience. This suggests that the same book would score differently depending on its evaluator’s expertise. Both McGrath (2013) and Mishan and Timmins (2015) talk of the evaluation model as a cyclical one. In other words evaluation is an ongoing process. We evaluate before we teach, while we teach and again after we finish teaching. This approach will give us most accurate picture of a coursebook and its effectiveness in achieving aims and objectives. What’s more McGrath (2013) also stresses the importance of learner input in this process. Students’ opinions can shine a different light on teacher’s perceptions and add valuable point to the process.

In class presentations evaluating same coursebook followed by a talk with its author Theresa Clementson were very interesting as there were differences between both groups which confirmed how subjective the framework can be. Theresa Clementson, the author of English Unlimited admitted she wrote her coursebook to have something she enjoyed teaching from. She has also reassured us all and given validity to experience and intuition as teacher’s tool to facilitate learning with materials available to them. The principles we were all expecting to be backed up by research and theory turned out to be very similar to ones which we discussed during our brainstorming session. Her talk has definitely instilled some confidence in me as a fairly experienced teacher capable of making judgement calls on utilising materials as and when needed.

***

Having gone back to my post about Principles and revisiting my notes from SLA I have finally come up with a framework I would like to use to evaluate some of the published materials I use at my school and also ones I aim to create as part of this module.

Materials Evaluation Framework

Below I will explain how each question linked to my principles.

Principle  4: Materials should be current

As majority of my students were born in the noughties, being current is plays a huge role in establishing the rapport. Being current, to me, is trying to find common grounds and show respect for their interests.

Principle 1: Materials should be relevant

This criterion links to the process of materials design. Though many coursebooks aim to cater for widest possible audience it is important for this audience to be identifiable. Teenage students coming to the UK for summer holiday course would most likely not appreciate a business coursebook

Principle 8: Materials should be varied

I often find students huff at the instruction ‘Now turn to page ..’. Varying materials caters not only for various learning styles but enables the teacher to ‘channel’ input through various media and change interaction patterns.

Principle 1: Materials should be relevant.

This is a slightly different angle on relevance. The second criterion looks at the learning context and whether it fits learner needs, whereas this point carefully considers learner profile.

Principle 3: Materials should be realistic.

Principle 5: Materials should be authentic.

Principle 9: Materials should be visually appealing.

Though I have previously considered realism as a principle, I later realised how visual attractiveness ties in with this. If the purpose of visuals in published material could be seen as a tool to get students to voice their opinions, speculate and brainstorm then it goes without saying that those should be far more than just realistic. Authenticity, in my opinion, makes the book more appealing and stimulating. As discussed earlier with regards to not all practice needing to be meaningful I would say the same about the limited necessity for authenticity. To some extent, authentic material most definitely allows learners to immerse themselves into L2  without leaving the classroom and prepares them for this eventuality.

Principle 6: Materials should encourage communication.

This criterion is particularly close to me as a non-native speaker. As a student of English I rarely got the opportunity to communicate in English. Though I have developed good all-around knowledge of how English language is formed we hardly ever got to actually speak it. Materials should strive to encourage this from their learners. Tomlinson (2011: 15) recognised this principle as stemming from SLA research as : Materials should provide the learners with opportunities to use the language to achieve communicative purposes. It reminded me about one of the most common reason students mention in their needs analysis – travel. English can easily be seen a must have to pack for a holiday, a gap year, volunteering trip, work experience and so much more. It is both teacher’s and materials’ role to enable our students to feel confident in those contexts.

Principle 8: Materials should be varied.

As with the previous question this is to ensure our learners get to explore the language on many levels. Language is conveyed across multiple medias and it should therefore also be taught and learnt this way.

Principle 10: Materials should be flexible to adaptation and supplementation

How rigid is the order or layout of the material? Does it cater for different learner types and needs allowing the teacher to adapt activities to individual characteristics of the class? Is the language taught feasible to supplement and therefore provide learners with required practice?

Principle 2: Materials should be challenging.

I truly believe that though explicit teaching has its place in EFL it can only be validated if used to encourage learners to notice what they have been exposed to through input analysis.

I hope the above framework will help me to evaluate and improve on materials I use and produce in my teaching context. Designing the questions enabled me to revisit my principles in context of materials design as well as learners I tend to teach.

Determined to use is I had a go at evaluating a coursebook we often use for our teenage summer holiday students. Given this is a ‘teen’ title let’s see how highly will it score…

References

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

McGrath, I. (2013) Teaching Materials and the Roles of EFL/ESL Teachers: Practice and Theory.London: Bloomsbury.

Mishan, F. & Timmins, I. (2015) Materials development for TESOL, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press

Johnson, K., et al. (2008) A step forward: investigating expertise in materials evaluation. ELT Journal 62 (2): pp.157-163.

Tomlinson, B. (2012) Materials development in Language Teaching (2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press

Tomlinson,B.(2012) Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching 45 (02)