Today, we were informed that our task, over the Easter break, was to produce some of our own materials, guided by the various principles and frameworks we have been focusing on throughout this semester. In preparation for this week’s seminar, we were to read an article by Jolly and Bolitho (2011) and revisit a chapter in Tomlinson and Masuhara’s book The Complete Guide to the Theory and Practice of Materials Development for Language Learning (2018). Apparently, they are to guide us smoothly through what currently seems like a complicated task.

Jolly and Bolitho state that “part of a material writer’s task is to provide clear exercises and activities that somehow meet the need of the language learning work that has been initially recognised. Some would say that this is the core of materials writing” (Jolly and Bolitho, 2011, pp. 109-110). I like this definition. We, the material writers, meet the students’ needs, they don’t meet our needs. They are in control, in that their learning dictates what comes next. Furthermore, we only write to bridge a specific gap; to satisfy an observed need in our students’ language education. We do not simply create materials on an inspired whim, hoping that they will be of use to someone, somewhere. As a result, the process is concise; it is effective.

Jolly and Bolitho (2011) also propose that materials writing is meaningless unless it is accompanied by continual reflection upon classroom practice. Consequently, the process of materials writing moves away from the linear need – writing – publishing – use type model we might be more accustomed to. Instead, it becomes cyclical and dynamic.

Certainly, the constant back and forth between writer and student might seem complex at first. This diagram does not really help clarify things.

In essence, the diagram suggests that no task should ever be finished. Having arrived at stage 6, the evaluation, it may become apparent that slight changes could be made to improve the materials further. This framework allows us to ride the arrow all the way back to step 1, if we so wish, but there are also many possible exits along the way. For example, the evaluation of a worksheet might demonstrate that the contextual realisation was appropriate for the target group but that they did not find the activities very engaging. Therefore, we would jump off the arrow at stage 4 – pedagogical realisations of materials – and continue working from there.

The Task

We were instructed to complete this material writing task in pairs. I am working with one of the teachers that I worked with for the evaluation checklist task. Subsequently, we already understand each other’s contexts, a little bit about our teaching history and, most importantly, we know that we agree upon a variety of principles. It must be said that the creation of the evaluation checklist, based on our principles, has gone on to inform many of my other tasks and decision-making processes. The time dedicated to it at the beginning of the course has been very valuable.

During this week’s session, we were given an opportunity to discuss our initial ideas with our partners. Despite having done the reading and stressed the importance of Jolly and Bolitho’s (2011) principled framework, something curious happened during the discussion. The framework ceased to exist and we dived straight in at stage 4 – and we weren’t the only ones. It took me by surprise. I had literally just been studying the value of the ‘need-identification then methodology’ approach and yet my enthusiasm won out. This further highlights the necessity of following a framework, especially as a novice materials writer. It appears that it is not only laziness that produces badly written materials: being overly keen can also present problems.

So, we began again. The very first port of call was defining our context, as without a clear context, it would be difficult to identify a realistic need. We decided on a “fake” teaching situation. It is a mix of our two real-life contexts.

• Learner group: B1 level, mixed L1, age range 14 -17 year olds, general B1 course (non-exam but working towards the CEFR competencies)
• Classroom context: UK private language school, 10 students per class

Next, we really did embark on Jolly and Bolitho’s framework (2011). Step 1: identification of a need to be ‘solved’ by materials creation. We based our learner need on an area with which we have both experienced many problems at lower intermediate level: speaking. Mishan and Timmis (2015) state that it is not necessary to start from a completely blank drawing board when creating new materials. They suggest some sources for inspiration and assurance, one of which is the CEFR. Consequently, we consulted the CEFR look the B1 level learner competencies for spoken interaction and production.

• “I can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. I can enter unprepared into a conversation on topics that are familiar, of personal interest or pertinent to everyday life (e.g. family hobbies, work, travel and current events).

 

I can connect phrases in a simple way in order to describe experiences and events, my dreams, hopes and ambitions. I can briefly find reasons and explanations for opinions and plans. I can narrate a story or relate the plot of a book or film and describe my reactions.” (CEFR, 2001, p. 26).

Step 2 meant an exploration of area of need (Jolly and Bolitho, 2011). To do this, we discussed the areas of spoken communication that students of this level struggle with. We agreed that maintaining a natural conversation can be challenging for B1 students. They often ask yes/no questions or give very short answers. To reach the B1 CEFR competencies, students must be able to hold a spontaneous conversation about personal interests and familiar topics. Such conversations will not develop very far with yes/no questions alone. Therefore, our specific need is to develop students’ abilities to ask open-ended questions and reply with extended answers.

We planned to meet later in the week and discuss our initial ideas.

 

 

 

References

Council of Europe. (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 26.

Jolly, D. & Bolitho, R. (2011) ‘A framework for materials writing’, in Tomlinson, B. (ed.) Materials Development in Language Teaching, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 107- 134.

Mishan, F. & Timmis, I. (2015) Materials Development for TESOL. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 56-67.

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. 117-144.