If ELT materials are indeed based on principles which underpin beliefs stemming from years of research on language learning & teaching including SLA theories then, ironically, in principle, those should naturally be extremely effective learning and teaching tools. Unfortunately, as Tomlison (2012) concluded, the process of materials design is far more ad hoc and unstructured than most of us assume. However, Mishan and Timmis (2015) mention several attempts of standardising design processes across the literature. Those include Richards (1995), St Louis et al. (2010) , Prowse (2011) and Stoller and Robinson (2014). A process I found most relevant was one by Jolly and Bolitho in Tomlinson (2011):

It reminded me of a process-focused approach to developing writing skills we discussed during one of the Methodology sessions. In quite similar fashion, materials design process is one far from linear. Its stages are rather fluid and of a cyclical nature. Its key features involve needs analysis, contextual relevance and an ongoing evaluation. To some extent it also resembles the way most teachers I work with select and adapt material. With a lesson and students in mind they flick through folders they accumulated over the years, browse through online worksheets or even type something up from scratch. Students’ needs as well as their abilities, motivation and learning styles are always at heart of their final decision. If a lesson goes well they tend to keep whatever they used for future purpose. I have learnt to do just that as my teaching context of short course monolingual teenage groups expects us to come up with a weekly ‘syllabus’ to include specific topics, skills and grammar points. I tend to keep materials I use in folders for various levels as well one organised into most popular topics. During my lessons I often make notes on worksheets and aim to amend them afterwards. I can therefore say that I can relate to this design process when it comes to worksheets. In my opinion situation gets a little more complicated when it comes to coursebooks. As we read teacher and student comments in the article by Jolly & Bolitho ( in Tomlinson 2011:108-11), both parties often find published material irrelevant to their individual contexts, oversimplified or meaningless. I would argue that it is probably rarely possible to achieve all the above. Each group of students would have a slightly different sets of needs and abilities which would also sit in a slightly different context. In an EFL context I am most at home with which is often about international classes of short/long-term students of mixed ages and backgrounds, there will always be something which someone finds  irrelevant, oversimplified or lacking meaning. Having studied English from coursebooks as a teenager in Poland I could most definitely say, as a learner, I did not find any of the input remotely relevant or meaningful. However, I cannot describe it as completely useless. I strongly believe that years of somewhat unreal language practice I got back then has most definitely served a purpose. It allowed me to notice differences between language I had studied and language which surrounded me when I moved to the UK 11 years ago. This is why I would challenge the need for materials to always provide meaningful practice. However, it is not to say it that language we expose our learners to should never satisfy this need. In example given by Jolly & Bolitho, where students end up producing correctly formed yet random sentences, I clearly see value but with a slightly different focus. In my opinion, meeting set objectives may have failed but it still allowed students to produce accurate comments in response to this scenario. Teacher could have met his/her aims by introducing clues to the scenario which would then encourage students to vary the modal verb used or changing the adverbial. As an example from my own practice would be use of very basic sentences when reviewing tenses. Picking a frequent verb such as ‘eat’ or ‘read’ and taking it through tenses may seem rather explicit but, in my opinion, appreciated if not needed by students. As far as production of language goes this would most definitely be considered a task carrying little meaning and one unlikely to be performed in real life. To my mind, providing such practice gives students opportunity to get familiar and comfortable with verb forms/patterns as well as word order. Such practice primes them for noticing similar patterns in spoken or written English .

In my opinion, the publishers in the current market shy away from clearly labeling the principles behind their products and tend to use rather vague and fluid terms such as motivating, real-life or communicative. In my experience, I have always struggled to see those huge claims used to market the product being effectively utilised in a coursebook. One could argue, just as we learnt in the previous session, that it is, to vast extent, our experience which shapes the way we teach. What’s more, the above ‘slogans’ came up during our session when brainstorming what materials should actually be. As it appeared those universally desired values used for marketing new coursebooks would surely lure any teacher into giving it a go.

On our table we mostly agreed what we wanted from a coursebook but this may have been just because we all shared a similar teaching background. McDonough & Shaw (2013) suggest that the shape materials take hugely depends on the contexts they are designed for. Though the actual process may not follow a rigid structure, the sheer need for a wokrsheet or whole textbook is what forms underpinning principles, whether they are voiced or not. McDonough et al. (2013) argues that establishing learner’s and teacher’s contexts, which I interpret as principles, derive from not only careful examination of our audience but ,more importantly, from writer’s experience of recycling and adapting materials they had previously used. So seemingly vague term of ‘real-life’ could be teacher’s answers to an unnatural format of certain or all input tasks he or she had previously been forced to adapt or abandon.

In our group discussion we had to compromise on a couple of principles we have either come up ourselves or been given by Paul. This exercise was really interesting as even though our contexts were similar at first glance, what we prioritised individually was influenced by type of learners we tend to have but also our teaching styles and level of freedom we had experienced. Interestingly, my rather hostile attitude towards ‘slogans’ describing new EFL publications proved to be hypocritical as our group too wanted materials to challenge to think, encourage communication and achieve all this in a culturally relevant fashion.

Though this exercise generated several interesting discussions I struggled to remember what our final principles were at the end of the day. We ‘narrowed’ the selection of over forty to just 16. Each statement seemed important enough to be included and many overlapped in meaning. Below I would like to discuss principles which our group came up with, shared and discussed.

Materials should:

• 1) be relevant

This point is one which can be very hard to achieve in a diverse group. Though relevance is to large extent subjective, it has the potential to drive learners’ intrinsic motivation. This is where needs analysis (as per materials design process) comes into place. Finding common ground, or rather shared relevance will grant learners’ engagement with materials

• 2) challenge students

We all agreed that finding well balanced material was quite important in keeping students interested. Setting them achievable yet challenging tasks would help stimulate them into reaching their full potential.

• 3) link to real life & meaningful

This principle was inspired by our session on task-based learning. However, on reflection, we found it would be unrealistic to include a real-life task in every lesson. What’s more, as mentioned with regards to my own experience, I believe that there is room for somewhat ‘unrealistic’ language practice when it comes to learning L2.

• 4) be current

We found that a very common problem with published material we are made to use during peak season. Potentially this is something which could be addressed as EdTech is evolving. Also publishers and materials writers should pay more attention to topic or image selection for various target groups. As an example, I have recently been given an intermediate book designed for young adults. Although New Framework was published in 2009 (which in EFL world still passes as fairly recent) it included photographs of celebrities well into their 50s ( so 60s today). Those images failed to establish context among young adults who struggled to recognise them. Similarly it included a whole unit on refugees which in the current climate would be considered controversial, as several of our Austrian groups clearly request this topic is not discussed in lessons.

• 5) be authentic

Given students’ unlimited access to authentic input through the internet, it goes without saying that including ‘purpose-written’ materials would feel like some kind of deceit. Several titles such as Life, Speakout or Keynote have started a trend in using authentic input in coursebooks. In my opinion, this is not only becoming learner’s expectation but also enables the teacher to further adapt and supplement it with widely available real-life materials ( articles, news clips, documentaries, interviews, comics etc.).

• 6) encourage communication

In order to truly embrace the communicative approach we need ensure our materials encourage students to express themselves. Arguably, this could be achieved with teacher’s instruction but input which is somewhat ‘malleable’ is far more engaging for both learners and teachers.

• 7) give multiple examples

This point resonates with a comment by a Croatian teacher ( Jolly & Bolitho in Tomlinson 2011). Published materials tend to organise language into ‘edible’ chunks such as topics, functions or grammar items. Personally, I believe it’s the teacher’s role to take learners beyond that. Simplifications serve a purpose for lower levels but should be most definitely explored and questioned with stronger students.

• 8) be varied

Most coursebooks these days follow a classic PPP format. In my opinion, this works well as enables students to know what to expect. However, no two lead-ins should be the same. Even the most creative activity can prove boring if repeated too many times. Introducing variations in task types, interaction patterns or prompts used would keep students engaged throughout.

• 9) be visually appealing ( New Principle added 27 February 2016)

Having created a framework I would like to use to evaluate materials I decided to add another principle to my existing list. I decided to acknowledge the visual aspect of material which I personally find extremely important. When flicking through the coursebooks it’s the images which jump out at you first and make the very important first impression on you and the student.

• 10) be flexible to adaptation and supplementation (New principle added upon reflection on 27 February 2016)

Having experienced teaching several levels in one class yet being restricted to one book, this criterion emerged as crucial to my teaching context. Task which enable the teacher to pick and choose, skip and adapt would allow for differentiation in lessons.

I am going to have to agree with McDonough & Shaw (2013)  and Jolly & Boliho (2011) that materials design process is to large extent interlinked with materials evaluation. Our group’s principles came out of years of using textbooks which dated before they had been published or focused on UK-centered topics which seem highly irrelevant in the context of international world of English. As weeks on this course go by we hope to explore how our principles change as we get to look at designing and evaluating our own and published material.

References

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

Mishan, F. & Timmis, I. (2015) Materials Development for TESOL, Chapter 2; Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press

Tomlinson, B. (2011) Materials development in Language Teaching, Chapters  1 & 5; Cambridge University Press