It’s week four and I feel like I’ve already made considerable progress towards my personal learning objectives. I have analysed my own principles, created a personalised evaluation checklist and trialed it using a published unit. If necessary, I would now feel confident evaluating variety of coursebooks and selecting one that I truly believed would be right for my class.

Our aim, as teachers, is to deliver student-centred, cognitively engaging, context-appropriate lessons. Given the variety of personalities, backgrounds and levels encountered in any given class (and the general nature of working with other human beings), it is highly unlikely that my chosen coursebook would be a suitable bible to follow from start to finish. All is not lost. Please welcome to the stage, our old friend, Adaptation.

The Adaptation Process

Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018), look very favourably on adaptation. Branding it “phenomenally significant” (Tomlinson and Masuhara, 2018: 83), they have evidenced that adaptation is an essential element in our teaching practice. Let us think back to our approach to materials evaluation: a principled process provided the best attempt at inserting some objectivity into an unquestionably subjective undertaking. Thus, it could be said that the process of materials adaptation would benefit from a similar framework (Mishan and Timmis, 2015). McGrath (2013) suggests that there can be both reactive and proactive adaptation, the former happening in the classroom as a response to changing circumstances and the latter being planned adaptations based on observed incongruences between the coursebook and the students. Although teachers might develop certain common patterns when spontaneously adapting to unanticipated classroom situations, reactive adaptation intrinsically lacks process. Whereas, a good attempt can be made at a process for proactive adaptation.

Tomlinson and Masuhara (2004: 15, as cited in Mishan and Timmis, 2015: 70) propose seven steps, detailed below:

1. Profile of teaching context
2. Identifying reasons for adaptation
3. Evaluating the materials (in relation to a specific group or context)
4. Listing objectives (for a specific group)
5. Adapting
6. Teaching
7. Revising

This process actually builds on the already very thorough evaluation process we have been exploring. McGrath (2013) also suggests four key areas for which adaptation may be necessary: language, process, content and level. The distinction should probably also be made between adapting materials and supplementing them, the former involving changing what is already there and the latter involving inserting something new.

Curriculum Adaptation

In this week’s session, we focused on Shawer’s (2010) study, in which he investigates ten experienced teachers’ adaptation practices. From his findings, he claims that most teachers will fall into one of three categories: curriculum makers, curriculum developers and curriculum transmitters. Shawer argues that the teachers in each of these categories use varying levels of materials adaptation. On one hand, a curriculum maker adapts most of their materials, frequently creating their own, all in reaction to a self-conducted needs analysis. A curriculum transmitter, on the other hand, does not stray from the path dictated by the teachers’ book, following each unit and covering every page. A curriculum developer lies somewhere in between the two: happy to let the coursebook guide them, they adapt and supplement where they see necessary to achieve their student-centred classes.

Although I agree that these three distinctions do exist, I find Shawer’s categories to be quite restrictive. In my personal experience, almost every EFL teacher I have met would fall into the middle category: curriculum developer.

The first category is little more than a nice idea, in my opinion. Materials creation is a lengthy process and, more often than not, teachers are only paid for the hours that they actually teach. A true Shawerian curriculum maker’s hourly wage would be drastically reduced. I know very few teachers who would be willing to work for such measly compensation. It should be noted here that, whilst I am enjoying this module, many of the practices suggested thus far in the literature fail to take into account the capitalist industry in which many of us teachers work. I doubt there are many private language academies that would pay their employees to work through steps 1 – 4 from Tomlinson and Masuhara’s (2004: 15, as cited in Mishan and Timmis, 2015: 70) suggested procedure, above, and they’re just the stages before adaptation takes place.

The last category, ‘curriculum transmitter’, is also unrealistic, from my perspective. I neither know of nor have worked with any teachers that do not occasionally play a game or show a video that has not been scripted into the teacher’s book. For me, it’s obvious that a textbook cannot always meet the needs of your students and that (at least occasional) adaptation is therefore vital.

This leaves the middle category, ‘curriculum developer’. According to my above reasoning, I’m now trying to place almost every teacher in the center of Shawer’s diagram.

The inclusion of so many teachers in the same category does not account for the broad spectrum of ‘curriculum developers’ out there. We could try to break this category down into subheadings, or create completely separate sections and expand on Shawer’s three. However, for simplicity’s sake, I believe a sliding scale would be useful within this category. This would account for those teachers who used their coursebooks as basic guides, working with the imagery and texts but perhaps creating their own comprehension questions or role-play activities. These teachers would slide towards the ‘curriculum makers’. It would also account for those teachers that only felt comfortable supplementing their coursebooks with relevant extra material (not removing anything), if and when they had time. These teachers would slide towards the ‘curriculum transmitters’.

Before the session, it was clear to me that if I used only my own experience as a reference, both as a teacher and with other teachers, Shawer’s proposal would need some hefty revision.

Looking outside my own context

This is where working with such a diverse group of teachers, with rich experiences and varying teaching contexts, comes into its own. Upon hearing feedback from my classmates, I began to understand why many teachers might find themselves in one of the two categories I had deemed “extreme”. My personal teaching context has always been in the private ELT sector in Spain (low wages + heavy workload). The private sector is often allowed far more freedom, in terms of what they teach, in comparison to state schools. This is true in Spain, though not necessarily globally [revised, thank you Kevin – see the comments below]. Conversely, state schools usually follow some version of a national curriculum and teachers might actually not be permitted to deviate from the coursebook, obligating them to be ‘curriculum transmitters’. Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018) also highlight that teachers may suffer from low confidence and a lack of self-belief, leading to close adherence to the directed lesson plan. The reality is that a large percentage (if not most) of ELT globally occurs in state schools. Failure, on my part, to acknowledge this was an error.

Similarly, it is quite possibly unfair to say that teachers would never be paid to go to the lengths required to be a ‘curriculum maker’. State schools might plan in time at the beginning of a school year for teachers to evaluate materials and make proactive adaptations. Perhaps some private academies could make their teachers an additional payment for these lengthy tasks. In fact, in the session today, I was surprised by the number of my peers who considered themselves ‘curriculum makers’. I wondered where they found the time.

I discussed the matter with one such peer after the session. Lee worked as a guest English teacher in a public school in Korea for 4 years. During his time there, he created his own curriculum and all the materials used for each topic. Lee said that once he had a template to construct his materials by, the process was not excessively lengthy, although he admitted it did take a while to arrive at that template. Working in the state system, Lee’s job was salaried and he had sufficient time throughout his working day to create his materials. He actually reported doing very little unpaid work. Personally, I believe that this is probably the key to a happy life as a materials maker, as opposed to, developer: having sufficient time that is also sufficiently remunerated. It clearly worked, as, when asked, Lee said that he would happily return to a similar role in the future.

An example adaptation

Here, I include an brief example of a worksheet I previously adapted for a B2 4-week intensive at a private language academy. The academy had compiled their own book of worksheets that all teachers had to follow. The worksheets were taken from a selection of their favourite textbooks and the owners claimed that, in this way, their ‘textbook’ was more student centred. Unfortunately, I found this to be untrue. They chose the worksheets without having met their students, without conducting a needs analysis and without variation allowed between groups, so how could it possibly be student-centred? Fortunately, teachers were allowed to adapt and supplement providing all the given content was covered.

The group consisted 12 adult students working towards a B2 level qualification, between the ages of 24 and 45. Most of the students wanted to pass the exam to help them further their career. A few were simply aiming to improve their fluency. The class was conducted online using the video conferencing platform Zoom. Displayed below is a vocabulary worksheet that was included in the academy’s ‘textbook’. My first impression was that it seemed quite dry: involving no group or pair-work activities, the main focus is translation. From the suggestions to “cover the words and test yourself” and “use a search engine to find…”, I suspected it came from a self-study book. My gut told me that, if I followed this worksheet, step-by-step, I was going to have an online class full of turned-off webcams and stifled yawns.

With their text books closed, I asked students what they knew about the word “crime”. Having established the concept, students worked in pairs in breakout rooms for 5 minutes to talk about their experience of crime. Coming back into the main room, I asked them to share their experiences. Most of the students claimed they had neither committed nor been the victim of any crime. A few brave students volunteered their experiences.

Next, we watched a video. It was a clip about a cat burglar from The Simpsons. I asked them to note down any crime related vocabulary whilst they watched. We discussed their lists as a group afterwards.

At this point, I asked them to find the worksheet. The students worked as pairs again to translate the words in the first box and add any other crime related vocabulary they knew. I moved between breakout rooms, checking that everyone was okay. Back in the main room, we compiled a list of the new vocabulary on the interactive whiteboard. Working together, the group was able to add many more words. Having viewed the vocabulary list, I asked if anyone wanted to review their previous answer regarding their experiences with crime. This time, a few more virtual hands went up. The most common crime? Music piracy.

I removed the drawing activity entirely from the class plan, suggesting that students complete it as part of their independent study if they so wished. We moved onto the collocations, which we completed together as a class, making an example sentence for each one and clarifying any misunderstandings.

Activity 3 on the worksheet involves making more sentences with the vocabulary and collocations. I wanted to make this part more interactive and so split the class into groups of three. They were to use some online storytelling dice to write a crime drama. This activity was well received and they shared their stories at the end of the class.

Through the use of adaptation and supplementation techniques, I used this self-study worksheet as a guide for an interactive, more engaging lesson, suitable for groups classes. Previously, the worksheet was unsuitable for both online teaching and group work. It was uncommunicative and, in my opinion, dull. Adaptation helped me change this. This example was taken from classes taught before starting this masters programme. From a critical perspective, my adaptation of this worksheet was not particularly principled, or at least not consciously so. Neither did I conduct an official needs analysis before adapting. That’s not to say that these elements were not present somewhere in my mind – I clearly had principles or else I would not have felt the need to adapt in the first place. However, this module has taught me the importance of documenting such thought processes, something I will do before future adaptations.

A word on cohesion

Thus, adaptation, in its varying forms, is “phenomenally significant” (Tomlinson and Masuhara, 2018: 83). This does not mean, however, that it cannot be done badly. There are concerns about losing the coherence and congruence within a course. To combat this, some researchers call for more flexible coursebooks that are designed for adaption (Maley, 2011). Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018), highlight adaption and congruence as an important area for future research.

I personally believe that adaptation will always be necessary, to some extent, even if it disrupts the coherence of a course. A slightly disruptive, yet engaging and contextually relevant lesson is surely preferable to a class full of students nodding off.

 

 

 

References

Maley, A. (2011) ‘Squaring the circle – reconciling materials as constraint with materials as empowerment’, in: Tomlinson, B. (ed.) Materials Development in Language Teaching. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 379-402.

McGrath, I. (2013) Teaching Materials and the Roles of EFL/ESL Teachers: Practice and Theory. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 127-148.

Mishan, F. & Timmis, I. (2015) Materials Development for TESOL. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 67-71.

Shawer, S. F. (2010) ‘Classroom-level curriculum development: EFL teachers as curriculum-developers, curriculum-makers and curriculum-transmitters’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, pp. 173–184.

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. 82-116.