Welcome to my English Language Teaching Materials blog. Find out more about me in the pages.
To begin our exploration into the world of teaching materials, we were asked to think about three questions before our first lecture.
1. What are materials?
2. What materials are available?
3. What are materials for?
Perhaps materials are just the activities the teacher uses in the classroom. One could then make a detailed list describing coursebooks, grammar exercises and reading extracts, but does it stop there? Lastly, their purpose, are they made to help the teacher or the students?
At first glance, the above questions may all seem to require different answers. I like to think that they can all be answered in one simple statement: materials are everything and anything that can be used by the teacher to transmit knowledge and by the student to acquire language. Although Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018) propose that materials can be described as anything that a learner uses to facilitate their language learning, I personally feel that it is useful for the teacher to remain included in the description. It is true that anything can be a teaching material, for example, an orange. However, that orange simply remains an object until a teacher (or a materials writer, or the internet) gives it a referent. Another researcher, Brown (1995), describes materials as the exercises and techniques found in classroom teaching. Again, this description falls short for me, failing to include the student in the learning process this time. That said, these are my preliminary ideas on the subject and I am very prepared to be proven wrong.
With my fellow student teachers, we discussed how context could dramatically change what constitutes as a material. A teacher from the Ivory Coast told us that, in his context, the government dictated what teachers were permitted to use in the classroom as a material. He reported that, in state schools, both teachers and students had very little autonomy, in this respect. Another peer talked about the rise of the internet and how it has changed the way that teachers search for materials. She pointed out that perhaps whether you completed your training pre- or post-internet affected this more than age, as a teacher that trained in 2015 might be more likely to look for materials online that a teacher of the same age that trained in 1990. We had an interesting discussion as to how arts-based activities (such as drama, music and the visual arts) are now considered teaching materials, whereas, before, they probably would not have been. I posed the question as to whether we could potentially differentiate between a language acquisition tool and a material, for example, Padlet. Padlet is an online application that allows users to post ideas anonymously onto a digital wall. One could say that students and teachers provide the material by posting on Padlet and that the program itself is simply a means to support such material. This discussion was inconclusive. I think it would be interesting point for further research.
Tomlinson (2012) proposed five groups within which to classify different varieties of teaching materials. I think that often materials can be classified into multiple groups.
Materials can be informative (in that they inform the learner about the target language), instructional (in that they guide the learner to practice language), experiential (in that they provide the learner with experience of the language in use), eliciting (in that they encourage the learner to use the language) or exploratory (in that they help the learner to make discoveries about the language). (Tomlinson, 2012, p.143)
I believe that for effective, timely language acquisition, all five types of materials need to be regularly used in the language learning process. That’s not to say that language acquisition cannot be successful using just one or two methods, however, the acquisition rate will be much slower, likely causing frustration and boredom for the learner.
Coursebooks
Coursebooks are often a central part of both language teachers’ and a students’ lives. It appears that the debate surrounding the usefulness of coursebooks is ongoing (and heated!) with some claiming that coursebooks are an organisational life-saver for busy teachers and others deeming them classroom dictators that only provide effective education for one ‘type’ of learner (Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2018).
We were asked to make use of a university discussion board to post about our own experiences with teaching materials. I chose to comment on my use of coursebooks:
The degree to which I rely on a coursebook depends largely on the context. I have worked in a variety of roles including as an employee at a private academy, online for a Chinese company, one-to-one private classes and running my own group classes. Whilst working at the academy, I relied on a coursebook to give structure to my lessons and to the year overall. Although I was free to plan my own classes, the academy owners expected the students to have covered all the topics in the book over the course of one academic year. I usually used about 60 percent of the activities in a given unit and then supplemented the classes with materials I’d found or made myself. Within this, I included some task-based learning activity classes, like baking or painting etc. but I was obliged to keep at least loosely to the coursebook. In contrast, with my private classes or my own group classes, I hardly use a coursebook at all. I search for the materials that are the most appropriate for what I want to teach or I often develop something new. I find this approach much more liberating but simultaneously a bit anxiety provoking! Sometimes it’s hard to keep on track. When I teach online for the company in China, every teacher is required to keep exactly to the courseware provided, not to go off script and even to all ask the same comprehension and expansion questions. The company trained everyone to (in theory) teach in the same way as they want all their students to receive exactly the same education. Although frustrating (as the courseware often includes errors or is badly thought-out), it does mean that planning time is minimal, as you only have to think about delivery.
It was particularly interesting reading my peers’ posts and discovering that many of us have had similar experiences. One classmate commented on my post and said that he had also found preparation without a coursebook difficult. In her own post, another classmate said that she also used a coursebook to guide her but included many of her own materials. I was pleased to see that our experiences as real, live teachers genuinely seemed to reflect what was being written in the literature: Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018) state that most teachers supplement the coursebooks that they are obliged to follow with extra material to make their lessons more suitable for their students.
The chapters from their book also include discussions on digital and supplementary materials. Please see my reflection on Dorothy Semak’s plenary talk “Sausage and the law: how textbooks are made” for more on this.
More teaching methodologies
As mentioned here, one of my motivations for taking this module was to learn how to create effective task-based lessons and reading/video lessons, whilst also ensuring that the students acquired the grammar and vocabulary necessary at each level. This way of teaching really interests me, partly because I do not 100% believe that it can possibly work! My own teacher beliefs, probably acquired during my own education, lead me to think that at least some formal grammar instruction must surely be necessary, mustn’t it?
I already use elements of task-based learning, content and language integrated learning, total physical response and extended reading in my lessons, but I often find myself falling back on the traditional presentation, practice, production (PPP) method for teaching grammar and vocabulary. Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018) note that coursebooks would benefit with a wider variety of teaching methodologies included in their activities and I agree. I am particularly interested in task-based learning and extended reading and would like to explore these areas further [for more on TBL, and to hear me admit that I was wrong, jump forward to week 9].
Bolitho and agency in the classroom
In today’s session, we also dedicated some time to the exploration of agency in the classroom. It is often thought that agency flows from materials to student in a rather linear, unidirectional fashion.
Diagram 1
In his 1990 publication An eternal Triangle? Roles for teacher, learners and teaching materials in a communicative approach, Bolitho introduces four diagrams that could (or should) represent the movement of agency and knowledge in the modern day classroom. Below, I will comment on what each one represents, for me.
Diagram 2
Diagram 2 is definitely an improvement on the original. The teacher can be seen working on the same level as the materials. They affect one another, probably influencing the ways in which they teach or are developed, respectively. In this way, the diagram better represents my view of materials development and its relationship with the classroom. Teachers and teaching practices need to be consulted to produce good quality materials, good quality materials enable a teacher to facilitate learning. This diagram suggests that this combined knowledge is then passed on to the learner, who acquires the target language and that’s that. End of the line.
Diagram 3
Diagram 3 suggests that each party is affected by and affects all other parties fairly equally. I like this diagram, this is how teaching should be, a constant flow of feedback and improvement. Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s very representative of the typical EFL classroom. Perhaps teachers can have an effect on how materials are developed (after all, teachers often go on to write materials), but I don’t feel that the materials industry is exposed to a sufficient number of learners on a regular enough basis for their most current needs to be accounted for in such a balanced way, as this diagram proposes.
Diagram 4
This diagram probably best represents my view of how agency works within the ESL industry. Learners and teachers are seen to have an affect on each other, on an equal playing field. Although it may often be the teacher deciding what is being taught, the type of learner, context and individual learner preferences are often considered (in the teaching contexts I have experienced – however, as mentioned above, this is not the case for all teachers on the MA course). Here, we can also see that both teachers and learners are certainly able to affect the ways in which materials are developed. Unfortunately, the positioning of materials at the ‘head’ of the triangle demonstrates the difficulties in developing any truly equal relationship between the three parties.
Diagram 5
Diagram 5 places learners at the ‘head’ of the triangle, proposing what I deem to be the most student-centred view of how language teaching works. The learner directly affects both the teacher and the materials development (albeit more loosely) and reigns over the two. The learner should have the biggest affect on the content and methodology of classroom teaching. As with diagram 3, I fear this view may not take into account some of the challenges faced when keeping learners at the head of the table. It would require constant investigation and research on both mass and individual scales, which would be a wonderful idea if only someone else provided the time and resources.
I tasked myself with creating some more diagrams to represent agency in the classroom. As I channeled my inner Bolitho, I realised that this task was actually much more challenging than I had expected. Bolitho had already taken into account many different representations of agency in the classroom. However, two of my many attempts are worth publishing here.
My Diagram 1
With this first diagram, I have gone slightly off-piste. We use the words “student-centred” frequently in ELT and so I thought that physically putting the learners in the centre of this diagram might be a a good idea. The teachers come next, as they have the biggest influence on the learners. Lastly, the materials encircle both the students and the teachers. This diagram is not attempting to say that the materials are the most important because they occupy the biggest area. The diagram evolves outwards in this way because one student has access to many teachers and even more materials. The materials do not encircle the other agents because they control them, rather because they need to take into account their needs. On reflection, I feel that this could be easily misconstrued in this diagram. Therefore, in representing agency in the classroom, I would use one of Bolitho’s diagrams instead of this particular attempt.
My Diagram 2
Here, I have reverted back to the traditional Bolitho-style triangle. The angle that the triangle sits at is important. I wanted to represent the way in which both learners and teachers affected materials writing, but that learners should be more important than teachers (aka their needs should have more of an effect than teachers’ needs). This is done by placing learners firmly at the top of the triangle. The distance between the learners and the material writers is also shorter, again suggesting that that they have more influence over the materials than the teachers. However, in contrast to Bolitho’s diagram 3, the teacher and materials are not on the same level. Perhaps because I am a teacher, but I believe that a teacher’s wants and needs should also be considered in the learning process, not only those of the student. There is little point creating materials that are continually nightmarish for the teacher to orchestrate but fun for the students. At the end of the day, the teacher will simply stop using those materials. The addition of the double arrows suggest that the agency moves both ways but that the materials should exert a weaker influence than they receive. This diagram is perhaps a good contender for the representation of agency in the classroom.
“Sausage and the Law” by Dorothy Zemach
I have returned to write this part of my very first blog post almost eight weeks later. Some might say that it’s not advisable to leave such a large gap between viewing a text and commenting on it. In some respects, they’re probably correct: I might have forgotten some of the finer details of this speech made by Dorothy Zemach. However, when I watched her speaking, there were other details that stood out so clearly that they will probably never be forgotten.
Zemach talks about the publishing industry within ELT. She is a very fine speaker and manages to make what could be a dull topic extremely engaging. Zemach’s speech focuses on the changes that have happened within the ELT writing and publishing industry since she began her career. She states that back then wages were not high but they were decent enough. One could live from their job as a materials writer. This appears to be contrary to today’s experience as a materials writer. Zemach suggests that, often, writers need to have a day job and write in their “free” time. The concept of teachers (or writers) doing things in their free time is one of my pet peeves. For me, it is extremely obvious that, within the capitalist system that we live in, if you stop compensating someone for the work they do (for example, only paying for taught classroom hours and not recognising the time that goes into planning) they will, in turn, perform worse. Similarly, if a material writer’s wage has reduced so much that they now need a second job, they will also likely perform worse. Coursebooks will be rushed jobs and “student-centred” might end up a distant hope.
Zemach explains that this is probably due to the added costs that go into coursebook publishing these days. According to Zemach, coursebooks are expected to come with a number of costly add-ons with a price tag that does not necessarily reflect this. Whereas, before, you would have received a CD and a teacher’s book, now, consumers demand a workbook, DVDs, CDs and access to online material through an app or website (though, in my experience, many publishers do make you pay for these. Perhaps not enough.) Zemach explains that other stages of the printing process set their own prices. Paper and ink are not as negotiable as a person’s time. This fact shocked and saddened me.
As a result of the poor pay, many expert writers will not work for larger companies. According to Zemach, publishers must then hire novice writers, those who will one day be great writers, just not quite yet. Textbooks lack that certain something that comes with experience. Publishers create unrealistic lists of items that must or must not be included to ‘guide’ their writers. The whole process becomes a convoluted mess. The issue of content control may be necessary, to some extent, to create a cohesive coursebook. Nevertheless, strict academic vocabulary lists and banned topics do not exactly scream faith in your employees.
Zemach now runs her own micro-publishers. In doing so, she has made it possible for herself and other writers to live off their writing rather than scrabble around for the last pennies at the end of every month. She says that it’s actually a very simple process, but, for me, this then begs the question – why aren’t more people doing it?
She ends her talk with some advice for teachers wanting to find great coursebooks and support the industry.
- Evaluate materials critically – do not rely on design alone.
- Compare and contrast a wide range of books when you are making your choice.
- Tell publishers what you want – no publishers want to make bad books.
- Pay for your stuff.
Number 4 was probably the key point in her entire lecture. Zemach stressed this idea by following with, “if you can’t afford that thing, you can’t have that thing” (39 mins 32 seconds). This is so simple and so true, yet, in today’s word of the internet and pdf copies, also so easy to forget. I would be lying if I said I had never photocopied a few too many pages of a grammar book or accepted a pdf copy from a co-worker. This links back to my pet peeve: if we don’t pay the writers enough, they won’t make high quality materials. I do truly believe that.
But then, put yourself in the shoes of the academy owner who is making just enough money to pay their staff, or the self-employed teacher who can’t afford to pay their taxes. It is not only material writers who are not “swimming in money” (41 mins 45 seconds). Buying a new set of textbooks is a serious investment for me and, actually, I’ll need one for every level. Before I know it, I’ll have spent 700€ on books. We live in a world where everyone wants a good deal and I personally know for a fact that my private students will not pay more than 15€ per taught hour (and I’m a more expensive teacher because I’m well qualified). Some academies in Granada offer classes at 6€ an hour, just to get more students through the door. Benefiting from state funded education systems is a privilege, but it also means that very few people know the true value of education any more. They simply do not want to pay.
References
Bolitho, R. (1990) ‘An eternal Triangle? Roles for teacher, learners and teaching materials in a communicative approach’, in Anivan, S. (ed.) Language Teaching Methodology for the nineties. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Centre, pp. 22-30.
Brown, H. D. (1995) Principles of language learning and teaching. 3rd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Tomlinson, B. (2012) ‘Materials development for language learning and teaching’, Language Teaching: Surveys and Studies, 45(2), pp. 143-179.
Tomlinson, B. & Masuhara, H. (2018) The Complete Guide to the Theory and Practice of Materials Development for Language Learning. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 13-63.
Zemach, D. (2018) Sausage and the law: how textbooks are made. Available at: https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/sausage-law-how-textbooks-are-made. Accessed: 22 May 2021.