The long and short of it, then, is that the list of potential teaching materials is, for all intents and purposes, infinite. Now that the what has been established, it is time to reflect on the how. How are teaching materials created? It’s highly likely that most practicing teachers will have, at some point in their careers, created materials to supplement their lesson plans – a reading comprehension here, a craft activity there – and some might regularly create whole worksheets to best suit their students’ needs. We are all materials writers in lesser or greater forms. That said, there are also some who make a living off materials writing alone. They write the coursebooks we often rely on in class. We can therefore make a distinction between us, the novice material writers, and them, the experts. How do novices write materials? How does this differ from the experts?
Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018) state that surprisingly little research has been done on the processes and principles guiding expert materials writers. The studies that do exist paint an unexpected picture. Tomlinson (2012) reports that writers rely heavily on repertoire, cloning successful publications and spontaneity. Similarly, Prowse (1998, as cited in Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2018) found that many writers simply think as they write and that their ideas often appear whilst they’re occupied with another task. Not the systematic, fool-proof techniques one might have hoped for. Conversely, it is argued that novices require a systematic framework to be able to structure and evaluate their work effectively. This need is supported by both academics and theorists (Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2018).
Why, then, is there such a distinction between the two methods? Hatfield (2014, p. 323, as cited in Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2018, p. 119) has suggested that there is a tension between a “recursive and messy process” and an “orderly and linear progression”. From what I have read thus far, I agree, this seems to be true. Perhaps the idea of a very restrictive framework quashes the creativity needed for writing and is therefore rejected by expert writers? We shall soon see.
The (beginning of the) process
Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018), Mishan and Timmis (2015) and McGrath (2013) all advocate the need for an ongoing, evaluative approach to materials creation, which is upheld by a set of agreed principles, both universal and local. In the closing paragraph of chapter 5, The Development of Materials, Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018) put forward some suggestions to help budding writing enthusiasts, the first two of which inform our classwork this week:
- Work as a team
- Articulate principles by:
-
- Brainstorming individually
- Sharing and justifying
- Agreeing
During the session today, we were assigned to small groups, in accordance with number 1, above. Before entering into our groups, we were asked to write some sentences. These were designed to help us constructively brainstorm our individual ideas, as proposed by Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018). This task was more challenging than I expected. I mistakenly thought that I knew what I wanted out of my teaching materials, but the affirmative statements had me stumped for a little while.
These were my initial ideas:
- Materials should be engaging for the target audience.
- Materials ought to expose the learners to a sufficient amount of the target language.
- Materials shouldn’t be overly complex.
- Materials mustn’t exclude students from the learning process, ergo must be student-centered.
- Materials don’t need to be written by materials writers.
We were put into groups and asked to each choose a colour. Using a virtual whiteboard, we then to transferred each of our sentences onto a separate post-it note in our respective colours, sharing our thoughts. After collating our ideas, I was both pleased and surprised to see that my fellow classmates and I had similar gut instincts about what constituted good teaching materials. We justified our statements to each other. Sharing and justifying (Tomilinson and Masuhara, 2018) helped us to clarify our ideas. We were then asked to group similar principles together and organise them into three sections: most important, of average importance and least important. This completed Tomlinson and Masuhara’s (2018) last suggested step, agreeing. In this diagram, the most important are in the top row.
This task required much discussion. Not only did we all have slightly differing ideas about which principles were the most important but it was also very difficult to decide on anything to go in the lowest group. None of the things that we had written on the post-its were unimportant, which is why we had written them there. Upon seeing the other groups’ whiteboards, it was clear that they, too, had found this challenging. One group had created three entirely different categories (content, emotional reaction, usability) and another had wholly rejected the three sections system and organised theirs into a circle.
My top four principles
These are my top four principles, stemming from our group discussion.
1. Materials should engage and motivate learner.
I think this is both the most important principle and the most difficult to uphold. If the students are not motivated to learn a language, every other pedagogical trick, every learning strategy will fail. Unfortunately, constantly providing motivational, engaging material requires constant hard work and planning. There are will always be times that leave us falling back on grammar exercises but, in making this principle top of my list, I hope to keep them to a minimum.
2. Materials should be easily adaptable to the learners’ needs and context.
There is no one size fits all when it comes to people, and learners are no exception to this. Therefore, at least some level of adaptation should be standard practice. I would like to see more “flexible” coursebooks available, though I am not yet sure exactly what a coursebook like this would consist of. However, I do know that 90% of the materials I use need adapting, if I’m to create a motivating, engaging class (as per principle number 1). It follows that materials with a certain amount of flexibility already worked into them would be of great value. This would also be beneficial for teachers who are obliged to follow a coursebook, without deviating. If there were flexible options within the coursebook, those teachers could create student-centred classes without the need to deviate.
3. Materials must be student-centred.
It may come as a surprise that this is not my priority. Except that it is. I believe that if you work towards my first two principles, you will achieve student-centredness, automatically. Nonetheless, it is a pillar of modern ELT teaching and so it is included in my top four, in the event that both of the above principles fail.
4. Materials shouldn’t be overly complex.
For our group, this was actually considered of medium importance but, in my personal blog, I’m bumping it up. I have encountered far too many lesson plans and activities that are excessively complicated, which results in a variety of unwanted effects. Firstly, what should be a teaching aid becomes a cognitively challenging burden for the teacher, who may abandon the new activity all together in favour of their tried and tested favourites. Secondly, even when executed correctly, it often confuses the students. Lastly, in my opinion, it’s unnecessary. If the teacher’s guide is longer than the activity then it’s probably not worth the hassle.
The “take away”
Personally, I had never before been asked to think so explicitly about what my principles were, in terms of materials writing. This week’s session has opened my eyes as to what I should and and perhaps should not value in commercially produced ELT materials. It has also inadvertently taught me much more about my own teacher beliefs, which feed into my teacher identity (another side of teaching that I had not given much thought).
Critically, I can see where having poorly defined, sweeping statements might seem unhelpful, or perhaps unnecessary: “materials need to actively support the learning of a language” – what does that really mean, in practical terms? Or simply, irrelevant: “materials don’t need to be written by material writers” probably does not need to be said. This is where Tomlinson and Masuhara’s (2018) first suggestion came into its own: working as a team made the task of evaluating the principles much less puzzling. The challenges of defining your principles in the first place might help to explain why expert writers often employ a more ad hoc, ‘inspired’ approach.
“You can only eventually become an effective materials developer by actually developing materials and through reflection, self-evaluation and constructive criticism.”
(Tomlinson & Masuhara 2018, p. 120)
I now view developing a set of hard and fast principles as a springboard from which to release your creativity as a writer, not as a constriction. Something to keep you in line if your inspiration gets the better of you, enabling materials production to the best of your ability.
References
McGrath, I. (2013) Teaching Materials and the Roles of EFL/ESL Teachers: Practice and Theory. London: Bloomsbury.
Mishan, F. & Timmis, I. (2015) Materials Development for TESOL. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp.163-182.
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. 120-127.