Principles and frameworks for ELT materials design was the title and focus for our second seminar. It became clear from the outset and from pre-seminar reading that such a set of principles and framework for language materials design are in fact absent. There is no published, universal set of principles for materials design and in fact commercial material writers claim to be whimsical in their approach and “follow their intuitions rather than an overt specification of objectives, principles and procedures” (2011 p.5) and “replicating previous materials, adapting activity types that have worked for them before and relying upon creative inspiration” (Tomlinson 2012, p.152). Surely, such a measure of (pedagogic?) success, of what worked for them before, is a contentious issue in itself. If no framework or principles are in place to design materials then how do they measure their success? Sadly, what has worked for them before could simply be referring to what sold and is devoid of pedagogic reasoning.
However, the lack of generic framework and set of principles does not surprise me as perhaps material writers do it subconsciously; driven by a set of principles that are assimilated through experience and knowledge. Furthermore, in a profession where it has become extremely clear that one size does not fit all in terms of teaching methods, learning styles, assessments and teaching materials, I am not surprised that a similar notion would apply for the actual material design. With multi-cultural, international language learners and teachers of varying ages, attitudes, beliefs, experience and expectations of the language classroom – how could there possibly be one framework for all material design?
That being said, Tomlinson’s set of 16 principles (2012 pp. 8-24) responds to the potential need for a framework and presents a clear, robust and potentially universal framework that aligns with theories on Second Language Acquisition (SLA). These principles, based on SLA theories, were selected because he found them to be relevant to material design. If materials are “anything which is used by teachers or learners to facilitate the learning of a language” (Tomlinson 2012, p.1), then this does seem an obvious parallel.
Tomlinson’s 16 principles of material design are:
1.4.1 Materials should achieve impact
1.4.2 Materials should help learners to feel at ease
1.4.3 Materials should help learners to develop confidence
1.4.4 What is being taught should be perceived by learners as relevant and useful
1.4.5 Materials should require and facilitate learner self-investment
1.4.6 Learners must be ready to acquire the points being taught
1.4.7 Materials should expose the learners to language in authentic use
1.4.8 The learners’ attention should be drawn to linguistic features of the input
1.4.9 Materials should provide learners with opportunities to use the target language to achieve communicative purposes
1.4.10 Materials should take into account that the positive effects of instruction are usually delayed
1.4.11 Materials should take into account that learners differ in learning styles
1.4.12 Materials should take into account that learners differ in affective attitudes
1.4.13 Materials should permit a silent period at the beginning of instruction
1.4.14 Materials should maximise learning potential by encouraging intellectual, aesthetic and emotional involvement, which stimulates both right – and left-brain activities
1.4.15 Materials should not rely too much on controlled practice
1.4.16 Materials should provide opportunities for outcome feedback
Tomlinson’s recommended set of 16 principles is based on second language in general and is not context-specific, which suggests that they are universally transferable and applicable to all material design. How they are applied, however, is another issue i.e. to each individual activity in a coursebook, to each chapter or the holistic approach to the whole coursebook. In any case, the principles suggested by Tomlinson are all encouraging and having a material that reflects and adheres to these principles is surely a good framework for producing pedagogically successful materials.
It also became apparent, through class discussion that when we discuss materials, we instinctively think about coursebooks as opposed to any other form of teaching material such as online resources or teacher-made materials. Perhaps our attraction to the coursebook is rooted in our experiences as language learners, where the course book was arguably revered. Perhaps we have never fully distanced ourselves from it, despite our teaching and learning experience and increased critical awareness of its faults and inadequacies. Furthermore, as a non-native teacher, perhaps I subconsciously espouse greater value to it, in absence of native language knowledge. Perhaps.
However, our focus on a book that is removed from the language classroom, its teacher, learners, context and needs, has to be considered. I am aware of the challenges of using such a generic course book, where I have had to “personalise, localise and adapt” (Masuhara et al 2008 in Masuhara 2011, p.262), in order to engage my learners in language learning. Without doing so and simply following it from beginning to end without relating to my context, would be “pointless” (Jolly and Bolitho 2011 p.110) and I most probably would not have many learners left at the end of the 20 week course. This brings Tomlinson’s set of principles into analysis, as there is no specific reference to context. Context is a factor when choosing a coursebook, as it needs to relate to specific course requirements in terms of content, length, activities and methodologies among other factors. That being said, perhaps a universal set of principles such as Tomlinson’s is sufficient if there is no one size fits all and the success of such a material resides in bespoke contextualisation.
Jolly and Bolitho’s chapter in Tomlinson’s Materials Development in Language Teaching (2012) draws on this topic of context, where contextual realisation can be afforded by teacher-made materials. Teacher made-materials have arguably been made in response to the generic coursebook and language learner experience, where materials “outside the cultural experience of (his) students (…) are thus effectively useless” (Jolly and Bolitho 2011, p.108). A deepened pessimistic and troubling view of commercially made materials that makes me question – why am I using a coursebook? Feedback from my learners has rarely been negative of the coursebook, although requests for further practice, differentiated activities and more tests are common.
Contextual realisation in terms of materials is therefore only achievable by teacher-made materials or potentially by a heavily adapted, localised and personalised coursebook. Commercial material writers simply could not reflect and fulfil specific contextual criteria if it were to be sold internationally, to different courses. That I do fully appreciate. How then though are coursebooks so popular if, as Jolly and Bolitho suggest: “the further away the author is from the learners, the less effectively the material is likely to be”? Perhaps it is because of the teacher who, in having to “personalise, localise and adapt” (Masuhara et al 2008 in Masuhara 2011, p.262) them, in turn makes them a secondary author and in doing so, renders the material more effective. This is arguably why my learners do not complain about the book, because I strive to adapt it and create bespoke materials that reflect them as learners within their given context. How commercial material writers evaluate “activity types that have worked for them before” in terms of pedagogic success seems even more incredulous now, in light of such personalisation.
The material design process of teacher-made materials is a similarly chaotic process, where “the writing of materials is rarely a neat, self-contained, linear process, but an activity which is intimately bound up with all questions that teaching itself raises” (Jolly and Bolitho 20122 p.126). Bound up with all questions that teaching itself raises could in turn relate directly to Tomlinson’s 16 principles based on SLA theory and reiterates the subconscious principles we hold as experienced teachers and material writers. Jolly and Bolitho (2011 in Tomlinson 2012, p. 127) outlined a smaller 5 point framework for teacher-made materials that emphasises the importance of context and includes:
1) Materials writing is at its most effective when it is turned to the needs of a particular group of learners
2) Teachers understand their own learners best
3) All teachers need grounding in materials writing
4) All teachers teach themselves
5) Trialling and evaluation are vital to the success of materials
A lasting statement by Jolly and Bolitho that “learning to write materials is, inevitably, a matter of trial and error” (p.130) seems to echo that of the commercial material process but where material cost is not an issue and re-working materials is bound into the reflective learning cycle of a good teacher; a reflective practitioner (Schon 1983). However, Jolly and Bolitho’s principle 1, although is contextually situated, still suggests that a group of learners’ is homogenous, when this is not true. Learners are diverse. Perhaps “materials writing is at its most effective when it offers choice to meet the needs of all learners of a particular group” would be a more effective principle, echoing the differentiated instruction styles of Tomlinson (1999, 2014), Blaz (2006) and Heacox (2012).
On reflection of what we had read, we worked in groups of four to compile a list of principles for materials design that reflected our values and beliefs and attitudes to those of Tomlinson and Jolly and Bolitho. We discussed what materials should and shouldn’t, must and mustn’t do, have and be. Again, the material referred to was the coursebook, even though we didn’t ask each other if we all used a coursebook. It seems we are inevitably conditioned into believing coursebooks are ubiquitous.
The task was interesting in that all of our responses were equally as global as those from Tomlinson’s 16 principles and the second task of reducing thirty plus responses down to twenty was not too difficult. The third task of comparing our principles to those from recent literature and again selecting a total of twenty principles from both sets was not too arduous as there were many similarities. In fact, our final list of principles included 6 teacher principles and 14 from literature, including: “materials ought to be adapted, localised and personalised to reflect the context”, which reiterates our understanding of contextual realisation (Jolly and Bolitho 2011, p.108) and that in order for materials to effectively “facilitate the learning of a language” (Tomlinson 2012, p.1), no matter how loyal they are to the other principles, they will still appear to require modification, adaptation and personalisation. Nonetheless, the similarities are perhaps due to the pre-seminar reading that influenced our ideas but perhaps these principles are intrinsic, developed over time through experience of teaching with and learning from materials. Perhaps it is only when we write down our beliefs/attitudes/principles down that we realise that we too do subscribe to a set of principles or “implicit theories” (Richards 1998) that affect how we teach and what materials we use to teach.
Following this week’s seminar and in depth practical discussion and activity, I am really interested to find out:
- How my material design reflects the twenty principles that we advocated
- How my two French colleagues adapt, localise and personalise the same material that I use
- How I evaluate the success of commercially made and teacher-made materials in my classes.
Blaz, D. (2006) Differentiated Instruction: A guide for foreign language teachers. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.
Heacox, D. (2012) Differentiating Instruction in the Regular Classroom: How to Reach and Teach All Learners.
Jolly, D. & Bolitho, R. (2011) A framework for materials writing. In: Tomlinson, B. (ed). Materials Development in Language Teaching. (2nd ed) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.107- 134.
Masuhara, H. (2011) What do teachers really want from coursebooks? In: Tomlinson, B. (ed) Materials Development in Language Teaching. (2nd edn) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 236-266.
Richards, J.C. (1998) Beyond training: perspectives on language teacher education, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tomlinson, B. (2011) Introduction: principles and procedures of materials development. In: Tomlinson, B. (ed). Materials Development in Language Teaching. (2nd ed) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.1-31.
Tomlinson, B. (2012) Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching 45 (02): pp. 143-179.
Tomlinson, C. (1999) The differentiated classroom: Responding to the Needs of all Learners. New Jersey: Pearson.
Tomlinson, C.A. (2014), The differentiated classroom: responding to the needs of all learners, 2nd edn, Pearson, Boston.