TE714 Robyn Moallemi's blog

Coursebook adaptation was the topic of our fourth seminar and reinforced my belief that material creation, choice and adaptation are all “inevitably subjective” (Tomlinson 2012, p. 148). We as teachers all have our own “implicit theories” (Richards 1998) and principles that “function like rules for best behaviour or maxims and guide many of the teachers’ instructional decisions” (Richards, 1995 p.281), including what materials we use and how we use them.

Everyone has their own subjective interpretations, situated in their experience and context and adaptation is one reaction to a coursebook’s evaluation – whether this is formal (using a clear framework) or informal (using one’s intuition). How we see adaptation and how we adapt materials is deep-rooted in us, as teachers; who we are, what we believe and what we want – our “preference, despite the fact that it may not be necessary, obligatory, encouraged or assumed” (Masuhara 2012, p. 243). We have a clear idea of how we want our classes to be and this idea is equally rooted in and influenced by the context in which we teach.

According to McGrath (2016, p.64) the adaptation process includes: 1. Selection 2. Deletion 3. Addition and 4. Change (McGrath 2016). All of which will have consequences, especially delete, which would arguably upset the coherence of the coursebook and potentially omit “subsidiary items of language which are embedded in the materials and potentially relevant” (McGrath 2016, p. 67) and in doing so, make the teacher’s job a lot harder by creating a potentially bigger knowledge gap. So, even if the teacher is adapting the coursebook to maximise appropriacy, the coursebook was created with a natural order, process and format and missing out a section completely could actually be disadvantaging as well as making them feel that they are not achieving value for the money they spent on the coursebook. This I can personally relate to, where in classes where students don’t even like the coursebook, the fact I have missed a page or deleted an activity has caused upset with my learners who felt as though I had cheated them. Perhaps this thinking is embedded in their perceptions of the coursebook from previous language learning experiences where “in many schools the textbook provides the main basis for the curriculum” (Richards 2015, p.594). However, severe adaptation for some could be the teacher’s reaction to the “constraining effects of materials on the freedom of action of teachers” (Maley 2011, p.379). A plight to re-empowering themselves.

The seminar was interesting because it seemed that all of us adapt the coursebook to one extent or another, depending on the context and all of us saw the value in doing so. This is primarily because we acknowledge that coursebooks for general use are created to have a universal target audience, irrespective of the course, the learner levels, the L1, the context or the attitudes and beliefs. Therefore, they need to be adapted in order to respond to the variety of these factors, which are paramount in the language classroom, cannot be avoided and must be considered in order to “stimulate motivation” (McGrath 2016, p. 69) and engage learners in language learning.

In order to adapt the coursebook effectively we acknowledged the importance of understanding the context and exactly who the learners are and their needs. One way to achieve this is to carry out a needs analysis to identify some of these key factors and in turn respond to them. However, in a class with 20 students, all from different language backgrounds, educational experience, interests, motivations and ages, it would be extremely difficult to respond to each and every learner factor by adapting each and every activity from the coursebook. It would in fact be an impossible task.

Differentiated instruction could be key to using the coursebook as “a potential resource, a support for teaching and learning” (McGrath 2016, p.65) and then extending (McGrath 2016, p. 70) the material to meet the learner needs, personalise the material and enhance learning by offering choices. In addition, setting goals for individual learners based on pre-assessment of their homework and/or contribution to class could complement and contribute to the success of differentiated instruction. The goals would act as sign posts for the learners, signalling to the learners where they need to improve and what to focus on. Offering them a strategy of how to develop and progress and then affording them opportunities to do so formally in the classroom through differentiated instruction but also informally out of the classroom. This is definitely something that I want to pursue.

The pre-seminar task involved evaluating how I adapt coursebook materials. I carried out several processes to do this:

1. I chose a topic from Unit 7 from Palgrave French 1, edition 2, which happened to be on personal descriptions.

2. I also used McGrath’s four-adaptation process: 1 Selection 2 Deletion 3 Addition and 4 Change (McGrath 2016, p.64) to clearly demonstrate how I adapted the coursebook. (See below)

3. I revised my Principles for materials design from week 2, which also featured in the evaluation framework for materials and made a checklist framework for any adaptations. (See adaptation framework checklist below)

4. I created a learner feedback sheet for the lesson in which I taught this unit, in order to gain feedback on the materials used (see learner feedback)

Maley suggests that teachers adapt materials to have greater “control over four major factors in the classroom: content (what) order (when) pace (how fast), procedure (how)” (2011, p.385). I adapted the coursebook, not because I dislike the coursebook but because I feel it was limited in content, the order wasn’t very helpful and the activities were too short and lacking in interactional and enquiry based tasks. In brief, the section of materials was not stimulating or interesting enough and I hope that my adaptation demonstrates my principles and “implicit theories” (Richards 1998), where I adapted in order for greater personalisation of responses, variety of and engaging activities:

1 Selection

2 Deletion

3 Addition

4. Change

To evaluate the effect of the coursebook on the learners, I asked all of the learners to complete a feedback form with a likert scale and comments box for each activity. The results were positive with only the BBC Languages video receiving the lowest rating, arguably because of the poor equipment in the class. All of the other activities were rated highly, acknowledging all activities equally. This could be because the activities all form part of one worksheet and are embedded within a PowerPoint presentation and as such, there is coherence and structure within the lesson. The coursebook’s activities are embedded in both the presentation and the worksheet.

Adaption evaluations completed by the learners: adaptation learner evaluations-w5t61s

My learners’ responses, as beginners, could also reflect their potential positive experience of a coursebook as “beginners have predictably similar needs, which can be met by a coursebook” (Haycraft 1978 in McGrath 2016, p.67). I agree to the extent that they are all beginners to start with and should, in essence, arrive on day one with limited or no knowledge of the TL. However, as the weeks progress, so do the learners and at differing levels and therefore differing learner needs emerge quite swiftly. Not only that but Haycraft’s analysis seems somewhat simplistic in suggesting that the only needs a learner has and that the teacher need respond to, are their learning needs and avoids other learner factors such as identity, motivation, learner styles, interests, etc. That being said, I do agree from experience that coursebooks for beginners’ classes are really well received. Perhaps this is because the learners have no knowledge of the language, they see it as a motivational and supportive resource – a more knowledgeable other (Vygotsky ibid) – to scaffold their learning so they can see where they are going but equally look back on what they have learnt.

Reflecting back upon the same lesson where I taught this unit. the lesson started and ended with ‘games’: speed dating and a language noughts and crosses game. I extended (McGrath 2016) the coursebook by including games, not as “cosmetic entertainment” as part of the “Give it a rest strategy” as suggested by McGrath but because I sincerely believe in their validity in the ultimate goal “to enhance understanding or learning” (McGrath 2016, p. 70). My learners are beginners and I feel that they need fun to motivate them and I know that with most of my leaners’ “engagement and motivation are what causes” them “to put in effort necessary to learn well” (Prensky, 2010, p.04). Not only that, but they all leave the class happy, knowing that they have learnt something new and applied that learning in a fun way.

The coursebook chapter was adapted to relate to my context but equally to reflect my teaching styles and attitudes to language learning. Adaptation “normally has a creative as well as an evaluative side” (p.64), which allowed me to be both responsive and resourceful in the task design. As McDonough et al. state, we adapt coursebooks to “maximise appropriacy of teaching materials in context, by changing some of the internal characteristics of a coursebook to suit one particular circumstance better” (2013, p.67). With regards to unit 7 and the topic of descriptions,  the coursebook had only black and white images that did the topic no justice and restricted the visual representations of colours. With the use of an IWB and adding to the coursebook’s activiites,  I incorporated new and colourful images to truly represent peoples’ physical descriptions and engage the learners. In addition, the activities that I added encouraged conversation, which reinforced the course’s weak communicative approach (Howatt, 1984, p.279) and my principled belief in learning a language through meaning-making and ultimately the process.

According to Madsen and Bowen (1978 in Tomlinson 2012, p. 143) adaptation is something that “good teachers” do, suggesting that adaptation is perhaps not a skill or practice yet acquired by inexperienced, novice teachers. With over five years language teaching experience I feel I have much more confidence than on my first day teaching this course. I am confident in myself; language teaching methodologies and I have an awareness of learner diversity that I need to respond to continually in order to meet my leaner needs. Experienced and perhaps moreover responsive teachers – teachers who conscientiously strive to meet their learners’ needs and the learning outcomes – are “always adapting the materials they are using to the context in which they are using them in order to achieve the optimal congruence between materials, methodology, learners, objectives, the target language and the teacher’s personality and teaching style” (Madsen and Bowen 1978). This is why no two lessons should ever be exactly the same if they are truly to respond to specific contexts and learners needs. However, this arguably only purposefully happens with experience as teacher knowledge is “socially negotiated and contingent on knowledge of self, students, subject matter, curriculum and setting” (Johnson 2009, p.20). Even as a novice and in-experienced teacher, where I used the coursebook the majority of the time, lessons still had to be adapted in response to learner questions or extemporisation (McGrath 2016). Reflecting-in action (Schon 1983) when something didn’t go as planned or the materials didn’t in fact fulfil the learning objectives as evaluated in-use, in the class. In this sense, adaptation is not only for lesson planning but very much embedded in each and every lesson by the teacher and the learner who responds individually to the materials. Consequently, I feel more confident in knowing when and why materials need adapting and how.

Framework for adapting materials: Framework for adapting materials-2421gff 

Adaption evaluation criteria: adaptaion evaluation-1nrky5p

References:

Howatt, A. (1984) A History of of English Language Teaching. 1st Edition. Oxford: OUP

Maley, A. (2011) Squaring the circle- – reconciling materials as constraint with materials as empowerment. In Tomlinson, B. (ed) Materials development in language teaching (2^nd Edn) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 379 – 402

Masuhara, H. (2011) What do teacher really want from course books? In: Tomlinson, B. (ed) Materials Development in language teaching. (2nd edn) Cambridge; Cambridge University Press. Pp.136-266

McGrath (2016) Materials evaluation and Design For language teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Pp. 69 – 78

Prensky, M. (2010) Teaching digital Natives: Partnering For real learning. Sage Publications: London.

Richards, J.C. (1996), “Teachers’ Maxims in Language Teaching”, TESOL Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 281-296.

Richards, J.C. (2015) Key issues in language teaching, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith

Tomlinson, B (2012) Materials Development for language learning and teaching. Language teaching 45 (02): pp. 143 -179