Research for Materials Development in Language Learning: Evidence for Best Practice 9781474211949, 9781441101457, 9781441122933

Citation preview

List of Illustrations Figures Figure 2.1 Items similar to those in TORC-3 test of reading Comprehension Figure 3.1 Assessment procedure for reading level Figure 3.2 Breakdown of materials developed to support published PM EGRS Figure 3.3 Auditory Learner Activity Sheet 2 Figure 3.4 Kinesthetic Learner Activity Sheet 5 Figure 3.5 Storyboard Man – fiction Activity sheet 12 Figure 5.1 Byram’s five savoir model Figure 5.2 Bennett’s developmental scale of intercultural sensitivity Figure 5.3 Process model of intercultural competence (Original source: Deardorff, 2004) Figure 6.1 Components in materials development Figure 6.2 El Mercado del Quijote Figure 6.3 Mercado Medieval – Sus Calles Figure 6.4 Mercado de Pedra. El Casco Viejo de Vigo – Rincones y Calles – Vigo Figure 6.5 EL RASTRO Figure 6.6 Chart El Rastro Figure 6.7 REGATEO Figure 12.1 Approaches to helping the L2 songwriter Figure 12.2 The wizard in the maze – Solving the song puzzle Figure 12.3 The L2 songwriting model Figure 12.4 Strategies used to solve the song puzzle in the case studies Figure 12.5 The Figure shows one songwriter’s mind map Figure 14.1 Phases of the study

26 39 42 44 45 46 68 69 70 87 96 97 97 98 99 100 191 198 199 200 204 229

Figure 15.1 The Lesson Study Cycle at KUIS Figure 15.2 The first graphic organizer for noticing vocabulary in film Figure 15.3 The last version of the graphic organizer for noticing vocabulary,

239 242

Figure 15.4 Figure 16.1 Figure 16.2 Figure 16.3 Figure 17.1 Figure 17.2 Figure 17.3 Figure 17.4 Figure 17.5 Figure 17.6

pronunciation, and grammar in film Graphic organizer for noticing non-standard English pronunciation Personal learning styles Classroom language Objectives for ‘Shapes in boxes’ lesson Illustration of learning environment in GT (p. 18) Illustration of learning environment in ENG (p. 2) Illustration of how visual images facilitate language learning in GT (p. 16)

243 244 259 260 263 282 282 283

Illustration of how visual images facilitate language learning in ENG (p. 59) Illustration of how visual images function as decoration in CHI (p. 132) Information for Task 2a, Section A, Unit 10 given in ENG, SB, p. 56

283 284 285

BTomlinson_Prelims_Final.indd ix

8/17/2010 11:56:35 AM

x

List of Illustrations Figure 17.7 Information for Task 2a, Section A, Unit 10 given in ENG, TB, pp. 113–14 Figure 17.8 Information for Task 4, Unit 2 given in GT, SB, p. 6 Figure 17.9 Information for Task 4, Unit 2 given in GT, TB, p. 7 Figure 17.10 Information for Task 3c, Section B, Unit 10 given in ENG, SB, p. 59. Figure 17.11 Information for Task 3c, Section B, Unit 10 given in ENG, TB, p. 59 Figure 20.1 Some of the basic operations embodied in form-focused

285 286 286 286 287

language learning materials Main procedural contrasts in pedagogical gap-fill exercises The Gap-fill material (Target form: generic-the) The Rules material (Target form: generic-the) The Rules materials: Applying the rules Distribution and size of treatment groups Sample question from the Timed EI test Sample question from the Untimed EI test Gains made on the Timed EI tests by group and target form (Significant gains numbered) Figure 20.10 Gains made on the Untimed EI tests by group and target form (Significant gains numbered

319 321 323 324 325 326 327 327

Figure 20.2 Figure 20.3 Figure 20.4 Figure 20.5 Figure 20.6 Figure 20.7 Figure 20.8 Figure 20.9

328 329

Tables Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 5.1 Table 6.1

Weekly instructional hours in different subjects Means and standard deviations in literature-based and ESL groups Means and standard deviations in the four groups Data analysis of comments on activities in the end of course interviews Matrix to assess materials for the development of intercultural communicative competence Table 7.1 Communicative vs. non-communicative tasks in ESC and FSEG materials Table 7.2 Authenticity approaches identified from the literature (taken from Trabelsi, in preparation, p. 184) Table 7.3 The study tools, functions, respondents and research type Table 7.4 Communicative and non-communicative tasks in ESC materials Table 7.5 Communicative and non-communicative tasks in FSEG materials Table 8.1 Results of REG and CIU students on placement test Table 8.2 Results of random sample of 111 Regular and CIU students at placement test Table 8.3 Results of CIU and random sample of 111 REG at departmental exam Table 10.1 A continuum of different drama approaches for L2 teaching and learning Table 10.2 Teacher questions Table 10.3 Student questions Table 10.4 Attitude toward English language learning Table 10.5 About process drama Table 10.6 Areas of interests in English language learning Table 10.7 Lessons from outside classroom Table 11.1 Skills checklist

BTomlinson_Prelims_Final.indd x

24 27 28 76 93 107 108 109 113 114 130 130 131 158 163 163 164 165 165 166 175

8/17/2010 11:56:35 AM

List of Illustrations Table 11.2 Table 11.3 Table 11.4 Table 11.5 Table 12.1 Table 12.2 Table 12.3 Table 13.1 Table 13.2 Table 13.3 Table 16.1 Table 16.2 Table 16.3 Table 16.4 Table 16.5 Table 16.6 Table 16.7 Table 16.8 Table 16.9 Table 17.1 Table 18.1 Table 18.2 Table 18.3 Table 18.4 Table 18.5 Table 18.6 Table 18.7 Table 21.1 Table 21.2 Table 21.3 Table 21.4

Learning Plan/Scheme of Work – ESOL For Work Living materials: interactions with supportive interlocutors Tension between roles CASUAL Some English song norms Samples of EFL Student L2 Songwriting The cline of weak and strong L2 songwriters Teacher observation record sheet Writing task ratings Student responses to questionnaire Student responses to ‘Please rate the following lessons’ Student responses to ‘Choose three lessons that helped you improve your language skills the most’ Comments referencing materials Student responses to ‘Choose two lessons that were least useful for you:’ Teacher responses to ‘Please rate the following lessons’ Teacher responses to ‘How much did you have to adapt these materials for your class?’ Teacher responses: ‘To what extent do the orientation lessons promote or allow for’ Perceived usefulness of survey and discussion session by teachers Extent of helpfulness in achieving professional development Length of units in students’ books and teacher’s books Total number of tokens and types in the Malaysian secondary school English language textbooks (1989–2003 Cycle) The total number of tokens and types in Malaysian secondary school English language textbooks (2004–present cycle) Words that are not found in the textbooks Comparison of the distribution of vocabulary in the form two textbooks Distribution of the sequence connectors in the textbooks Rate of recurrence of sequence connectors in the textbooks The number of words repeated less than seven times in the entire set of Malaysian secondary school English language textbooks Textbook evaluation checklists (1970s) Textbook evaluation checklists (1980s) Textbook evaluation checklists (1990s) Textbook evaluation checklists (2000s)

BTomlinson_Prelims_Final.indd xi

xi

176 183 184 186 193 196 202 214 215 216 262 263 264 265 266 266 268 269 270 285 293 293 294 295 296 297 298 337 339 341 344

8/17/2010 11:56:35 AM

List of Contributors Touran Ahour – Universiti Putra Malaysia Saleh Al-Busaidi – Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat Wendy Arnold – Coordinator of IATEFL Young Learners SIG Tim Ashwell – Komazawa University, Tokyo Brian Cullen – Nagoya Institute of Technology Ben Fenton-Smith – Griffith University, Australia Irma-Kaarina Ghosn – Lebanese American University, Byblos Hamish Gillies – Kanda University of International Studies, Japan Liliana Gottheim – Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil Naeema Hann – Leeds Metropolitan University Kamsin Alexander – Kanda University of International Studies, Japan Andrew Kidd – Kanda University of International Studies, Japan Tara McIlroy – Kanda University of International Studies, Japan Jonathan Mason – University of Sousse, Tunisia Hitomi Masuhara – Leeds Metropolitan University and Azad University, Oxford Marie McCullagh – University of Portsmouth Brian McMillan – Kanda University of International Studies, Japan Freda Mishan – University of Limerick Jayakaran Mukundan – Universiti Putra Malaysia Kwasi Opoku-Amankwa – Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana Hae-ok Park – International Graduate School of English, Seoul Simon Pryor – Proto Eikaiwa, Japan Jennie Roloff – Kanda University of International Studies, Japan Qu Jiangqiong – University of Auckland Rubena St. Louis – Universidad Simón Bolívar, Venezuela Christopher Stillwell – Kanda University of International Studies, Japan Paul Stone – Kanda University of International Studies, Japan Tan Bee Tin – University of Auckland Kate Tindle – Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat Brian Tomlinson – Leeds Metropolitan University and Azad University, Oxford Soufiane Trabelsi – Leeds Metropolitan University Carlos Rico Troncoso – Leeds Metropolitan University Tara Waller – Zayed University, UEA Peter Watkins – University of Portsmouth

BTomlinson_Prelims_Final.indd xii

8/17/2010 11:56:35 AM

Preface It has been noted by many observers (e.g. Chapelle, 2008) that there have been very few publications on research for materials development in language teaching. This has probably been because of the inevitable difficulty of isolating variables when attempting to attribute the effects of learning to the materials used and because, until recently, materials development was not considered a sufficiently ‘academic’ field for research by universities and research funding councils. However now things are changing and this volume reports the results of 23 research projects conducted in 14 different countries. Most of the research projects reported are case studies of materials development in action and none of them are large, longitudinal, funded projects. This means that, while the research is systematic and rigorous, it is rarely conclusive. It is, however, indicative of a number of informative tendencies in the way that materials are developed, used and evaluated, and it provides valuable indications of the types of materials which are the most effective in facilitating language acquisition and development. The research reports have been grouped into sections in which the chapters share objectives. At the end of each section we provide our comments on the issues which emerge from the research reported and at the end of the book we summarize what we think are the main conclusions to be drawn from the research results reported in the chapters both for second language acquisition theory and for materials development. We also discuss the applications of the findings and suggest research projects which could further increase our knowledge of the effects of different kinds of language learning materials on language acquisition and development.

Brian Tomlinson and Hitomi Masuhara

BTomlinson_Prelims_Final.indd xiii

8/17/2010 11:56:35 AM

BTomlinson_Prelims_Final.indd xiv

8/17/2010 11:56:36 AM

Published Research on Materials Development for Language Learning

1

Brian Tomlinson and Hitomi Masuhara

Introduction In a plenary paper Chapelle (2008) pointed out how surprisingly little research has been published on materials evaluation. The same point could be made about the development and use of materials. If you look at the main literature on materials development in recent years (e.g. Fenner and Newby, 2000; McDonough and Shaw, 2003; McGrath, 2002; Renandya, 2003; Richards, 2001; Tomlinson, 1998a, 2003a, 2008a) you will find scholarship and theory but not very much empirical investigation. If you look at major books on language acquisition and on classroom research (e.g. Allwright and Bailey, 1991; Bailey and Nunan, 1996; Doughty and Long, 2003; Ellis, 1994, 2008; Hinkel, 2005; Lantolf, 2000; Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991; van Lier, 1988), you will find a lot of empirical investigation of the factors which facilitate language acquisition but very little reference to the role that materials play in the process. The reasons for this seem fairly obvious. Empirical investigation of the effects of materials on language acquisition requires longitudinal research involving considerable investments of time and money. It also requires a careful control of variables which would be quite easy in controlled experiments investigating such immediate phenomenon as repair but very difficult to achieve in classroom research investigating long-term and durable effects on language acquisition and development (Tomlinson, 2007b). How, for example, can you claim that it was a particular textbook which was responsible for a measured long-term outcome and not the quality of the teaching, the rapport between teacher and class or the exposure to the target language the students gained outside the textbook? Such research is possible but very demanding and could best be achieved by long-term collaboration between publishers and universities. Publishers do, of course, conduct research into the effects of their materials on their users but, for good reasons, such research is confidential and rarely published. Despite what we have said above there is published research on the effects of materials on their users. There is considerable research on the effects of extensive reading materials on learners of English. For example, Day and Bamford (1998), Elley (1991) and Krashen (2004) report research findings which demonstrate the

BTomlinson_01_Final.indd 1

8/17/2010 12:04:02 PM

2

Research for Materials Development positive power of free, voluntary reading in facilitating language acquisition. Maley (2008) provides a review of the literature and research on extensive reading and lists websites which report current research projects on extensive reading. Possibly because of the need to justify the extra expenditure, there is also quite a large literature on the effects of CALL materials on their users, for example, Chapelle (1998, 2001), Chapelle and Lui (2007), Hubbard (2006). In addition, a number of books on materials development do include reference to research. For example, Harwood (2010) contains numerous chapters relating researchdriven theory to materials development, including a chapter by Tomlinson (2010) on the principles of effective materials development. Mishan (2005), reviews the research literature on second language acquisition (SLA), especially that related to input, affect, instructed SLA, autonomous learning and consciousness raising. She concludes that, for example, authentic texts ‘provide the best source of rich and varied input for language learners’, ‘impact on affective factors essential to learning, such as motivation, empathy and emotional involvement’ and stimulate ‘whole-brain processing’ which can result in more durable learning’ (Mishan 2005, pp. 41–2). A series of books edited by Mukundan (2003, 2006a, 2006b, 2009) includes those papers from the influential MICELT materials development conferences and workshops in Malaysia which report research. For example, Chandran and Abdullah (2003) report a study of gender bias in Malaysian English Language textbooks, Mukundan and Hussin (2006) report on the use of Wordsmith 3.0 to evaluate materials, Yahaya, Abdullah and Noor (2006) report on a study of their use of Internet resources as language teaching materials, Tomlinson (2008c) reports on a study contrasting how instructions are given to people helping the speaker in real life and in textbooks, Truong and Phan (2009) report on a study of foreignness in EFL global textbooks and Menon (2009) reports on a corpus analysis of textbooks. McGrath (2002) contains a chapter which reviews the literature on studies of the effects of materials on their users and a short section in the final chapter on the research base for writing and evaluating materials. Renanda (2003) includes research papers on textbook evaluation in Indonesia (Jazadi, 2003), on the use of textbooks in Malaysia (Chandran, 2003) and on localizing ELT materials in Vietnam (Dat, 2003). Tomlinson (1998a, 2003a, 2008a) focuses mainly on ideas for innovation in materials development but he does also include reference to research in his books. For example, Tomlinson (1998b) reports on major research findings in SLA and relates them to materials development and use. Tomlinson (1998c) reports on research into L1 and L2 visualisation and connects this research to materials development and use, Donovan (1998) writes one of the few published accounts of a publisher’s trialling of coursebooks, Ellis (1998) reports the literature on research studies which evaluate language learning materials and Masuhara (1998) reports what little literature there is on research into what teachers want from coursebooks. This is a topic of enquiry which is investigated by publishers and reported confidentially. In one such report Tomlinson (unpublished report) found that teachers in 12 countries around the world specified their main want as interesting texts and their main need as not having to spend a lot of time preparing lessons.

BTomlinson_01_Final.indd 2

8/17/2010 12:04:03 PM

Introduction

3

In Tomlinson (2003a) there are reports on research into the use of electronic materials (Deriawanka, 2003), hyperfiction (Ferradas Moi, 2003), materials for beginners (Cook, 2003), the realization of primary school coursebook tasks in the classroom (Ghosn, 2003) and the development of textbooks (Lyons, 2003; Popovici and Bolitho, 2003; Singapore Wala, 2003). In Tomlinson (2008a) there is a chapter on language acquisition and language learning materials and in Tomlinson (2008b) there are numerous chapters reporting systematic evaluations of materials in different regions of the world. Also in Tomlinson (2007a), a book on language acquisition and development, there are reports on research relating materials development to the neuro-linguistic processes involved in early reading (Masuhara, 2007), to the inner voice and visual imaging (Tomlinson and Avila, 2007), to influences on learners’ written expression (Ghosn, 2007) and to the value of comprehension in the early stages of language acquisition (Barnard, 2007) and Van den Branden’s (2006) book on task-based learning contains a number of papers reporting on the effects of task-based language learning materials on their users in Belgium. So there is already quite an extensive literature on research and materials development but we think it is true to say that regrettably little of it provides empirical evidence of the effects of materials on their users. The revised edition of Tomlinson 1998a (forthcoming 2011) will focus more on linking research findings to materials development. In her plenary paper referred to above Chapelle (2008) argued that we need to move materials evaluation forward into a more research-oriented framework, which enables us to make claims about the effects of materials on the basis of evidence from research. That is one of the main aims of MATSDA (the international Materials Development Association) which organizes conferences and workshops, publishes a journal Folio and brings together publishers, researchers, writers and teachers to work in collaboration in order to improve the effectiveness of language learning materials (www.matsda.org.uk). It is also the main aim of this volume.

The writing of materials Until recently there was very little information available about how materials writers actually go about writing their materials. Do they do a needs-analysis first? Do they refer to principles of language learning? Do they refer to principled criteria? Do they map out their materials or do they just start writing and rely on inspiration? Do they picture target students and teachers as they write? Do they rely on repertoire and keep repeating activities which seem to ‘work’? We all knew what we did ourselves but we did not know what other authors do. Now thanks largely to Bell and Gower (1998), to Hidalgo et al. (1995), to Johnson (2003), to Lyons (2003), to Maley (2003), to Mares (2003), to Popovici and Bolitho (2003), to Prowse (1998) and to Tomlinson (1995) we have a much better idea of the varied ways in which authors go about writing language learning materials.

BTomlinson_01_Final.indd 3

8/17/2010 12:04:03 PM

4

Research for Materials Development The literature also now contains various proposals for principled approaches to writing language learning materials (see, for example, Byrd (1995), Jolly and Bolitho (1998), Tomlinson (2003b, 2003c, 2003d) and Tomlinson and Masuhara (2004). Perhaps the most revealing book on the writing of materials is Hidalgo et al. (1995). This book contains detailed and exemplified accounts of how 19 writers from different backgrounds and cultures go about developing language learning materials. Many of the writers report principled approaches to materials development. For example, Flores (1995, pp. 58–9) lists five assumptions and principles which drove the writing of a textbook in the Philippines, Penaflorida (1995, pp. 172–9) reports her use of six principles of materials design, Rozul (1995, p. 210), Luzares (1995, pp. 26–7) and Fortez (1995, pp. 26–7) describe how they use needs-analysis as a starting point and Rozul (1995, p. 213), Fortez (1995, p. 74), Flores (1995, pp. 102–3) and Richards (1995, pp. 102–3) describe the frameworks that they use to help them to write materials. Maley (1995, p. 221) says that materials development is ‘best seen as a form of operationalized tacit knowledge’ which involves ‘trusting our intuitions and beliefs’ and Hall (1995, p. 8) poses the crucial question, ‘How do we think people learn languages?’ In answering his own question, Hall (1995) discusses the following principles which he thinks should ‘underpin everything we do in planning and writing our materials’ (ibid.): z z z z

The Need to Communicate The Need for Long-Term Goals The Need for Authenticity The Need for Student-Centredness

A number of other writers outline principled approaches to developing ELT materials in Tomlinson (1998a). For example, Bell and Gower (1998, pp. 122–5) discuss the need for authors to make principled compromises to meet the practical needs of teachers and learners and to match the realities of publishing materials, and they articulate 11 principles which guide their writing. Edge and Wharton (1998, pp. 299–300) stress the need to design coursebooks for flexible use so as to capitalize on ‘teachers’ capacity for creativity’ and Maley (1998, pp. 283–7) provides practical suggestions for ‘providing greater flexibility in decisions about content, order, pace and procedures’ (280). Jolly and Bolitho (1998, pp. 97–8) advocate the following principled framework which they have used to develop materials: z z z

BTomlinson_01_Final.indd 4

Identification of the need for materials Exploration of need Contextual realization of materials (e.g. the teacher makes a decision to provide practice in communicating hypothetical meaning in contexts familiar to the students)

8/17/2010 12:04:03 PM

Introduction z

z

z z

5

Pedagogical realization of materials (e.g. the teacher develops a worksheet focusing on the distinction between fact and hypothesis and the verb forms involved in making this distinction) Production of materials (e.g. the teacher types out the worksheet and photocopies it for distribution to the learners) Student use of materials Evaluation of materials against agreed objectives

Also in Tomlinson (1998a), Prowse (1998) reports on the responses to questions about how they write language learning materials which he asked a number of ELT materials writers from all over the world. Most of the writers stressed that for them materials writing was a creative process which stimulated and required considerable energy and enthusiasm. They reported many different ways of actually writing the materials but seemed to agree that a lot of work on syllabus development precedes the actual writing, that a lot of thinking about the materials takes place ‘everywhere – in the bus, on walks, whilst shopping’ (Prowse, 1998, p. 136) and then when writing they rely to a large extent on intuitions based on previous experience. Most of them seem to write quickly and at length and to produce many drafts before they are at all satisfied. Johnson (2003) reports similar characteristics of what he calls expert task designers. In an experiment he compared what experts do when faced with a task design brief with what novices do when faced with the same brief. The most distinctive differences were that the experts z z z z z z

have concrete visualization capacity (i.e. the ability to envisage possibilities) have easy abandonment capacity practise consequence identification show learner/context sensitivity spend time exploring use repertoire a lot (i.e. make use of tasks which have ‘worked’ for them before).

For full details of Johnson’s findings see Johnson (2003, pp. 128–38). A review of the literature on advice and principles for materials developers is provided by McGrath (2002, pp. 152–61). This includes Methold (1972), who stressed the importance of re-cycling and localization, Hutchinson and Waters (1987) and their focus on the intended effect of the materials, Rossner (1988) and his focus on the quality and authenticity of the experience offered and Tomlinson (1998a) and his focus on learning principles. Tan (2002a) focuses on the role that corpus-based approaches can play in developing language teaching materials and contains chapters which discuss the contribution that corpora have made to materials development. In Tan (2002b, pp. 5–6) she demonstrates how corpus-based materials can achieve the important criterion of providing ‘real contextualized examples of written

BTomlinson_01_Final.indd 5

8/17/2010 12:04:03 PM

6

Research for Materials Development and spoken language’ and she says that materials should be designed to help learners to (a) be consciously aware of the unfamiliar usages of language they have heard or read in native speaker contexts; (b) investigate how these unfamiliar usages are employed in natural authentic communication, and finally; (c) experiment with these usages in spoken or written communication, so that they become familiar.

Other writers who have drawn attention to the role that corpora can play in developing principled materials by exposing learners to authentic samples of language in use are Carter (1998), Carter and McCarthy (1997, 2006), Fox (1998), Hoey (2000), McCarthy (1998), Tribble and Jones (1997) and Willis (1998). One publication which gives considerable attention to the principles of effective materials development is Tomlinson (2003a). This contains, for example, chapters on z

z

z

z

z

z

materials evaluation (Tomlinson, 2003b) – this proposes a process of developing criteria from an initial articulation of beliefs about language learning writing a coursebook (Mares, 2003) – this describes and discusses a principled process for writing a coursebook developing principled frameworks for materials development (Tomlinson, 2003c) – this reviews the literature on principled frameworks and then outlines and exemplifies a text-driven flexible framework which has been used successfully on materials development projects in Namibia (Tomlinson, 1995), Norway and Turkey creative approaches to writing materials (Maley, 2003) – this offers a framework for generating creative materials humanizing the coursebook (Tomlinson, 2003d) – this proposes ways of making coursebooks of more personal relevance and value to the human beings using them simulations in materials development (Tomlinson and Masuhara, 2003) – this explores the principles and procedures of using materials development simulations for teacher development.

Other publications which contribute to our awareness of ways of developing principled materials include Byrd (1995), Fenner and Newby (2000), McDonough and Shaw (2003), McDonough et al. (forthcoming 2011), Mishan (2005), Mukundan (2006a), Ribe (2000), Richards (2001), Tomlinson (forthcoming 2011) and Tomlinson and Masuhara (2004). Tomlinson (2007a) is a book about language acquisition and development but many of its contributors propose applications of their research to materials development for language learning. Tomlinson (2008a)

BTomlinson_01_Final.indd 6

8/17/2010 12:04:03 PM

Introduction

7

is a book which provides principled and critical reviews of ELT materials in use around the world and it includes an introductory chapter on ‘Language acquisition and language learning materials’ (Tomlinson, 2008b) which suggests ways of applying theories of language acquisition to materials development. Harwood (2010) is probably the first book to deliberately set out to connect research-based language acquisition theory to the practical development of materials and it contains many chapters on principled ways of developing materials.

The evaluation of materials The aspect of materials development which has received the most attention in the literature is evaluation. Much of what has been written on evaluation focuses on procedures for evaluating materials and on the development of principled criteria. Very little of it presents the findings of actual evaluations of materials for the obvious reason that most evaluations are confidential to publishers, to Ministries of Education or to institutions. The exceptions are mainly review articles published in professional journals. Many of these are impressionistic but some do subject the materials to rigorous criterion-referenced evaluations. For example, Tomlinson et al. (2001) uses 133 criteria to evaluate eight EFL coursebooks. The criteria were developed from research into what teachers, learners and administrators want from coursebooks and were used independently by four teachers from different areas of the world. These criteria were evaluated against current theories in language learning and teaching and then reduced to the 104 criteria which were used to review a different eight EFL coursebooks in Masuhara et al. (2008). The results of pilot projects are rarely published and the procedures for piloting materials are rarely discussed in the literature on evaluation. However Donovan (1998) does provide a detailed discussion of the procedures and issues involved in piloting commercial ELT materials from a publisher’s view and so does Amrani (forthcoming 2011). Donovan (1998) also provides extensive examples of actual materials piloting for Cambridge University Press and makes use of these examples in a discussion of the piloting process and the problems and consequences of piloting. Ellis (1998) goes into similar detail in his discussion of macro-evaluation and micro-evaluation and then describes and exemplifies procedures for designing and conducting an evaluation. Littlejohn (1998, p. 192) also describes and exemplifies ‘A general framework for analysing materials’ in which he uses a framework which recognizes the three levels of ‘WHAT IS THERE?’, ‘WHAT IS REQUIRED OF USERS?’ and ‘WHAT IS IMPLIED’? (p. 195). Masuhara (1998) reviews the literature on materials evaluation and concludes that many frameworks neglect teacher needs and wants. She then goes on to propose how these needs and wants can be catered for in the development and evaluation of ELT coursebooks. McGrath (2002) is one of the first academic books to focus on the evaluation of language learning materials – though Cunningsworth (1984, 1995) did so from a practical perspective much earlier. McGrath (2002) starts with a chapter which

BTomlinson_01_Final.indd 7

8/17/2010 12:04:04 PM

8

Research for Materials Development reviews the literature on the coursebook and on coursebook evaluation, and which then proposes a systematic approach to materials evaluation. In subsequent chapters McGrath (ibid.) proposes principled ways for choosing a coursebook and for adapting and supplementing the coursebook once selected. In Tomlinson (2003a) there are a number of chapters dealing with materials evaluation. Tomlinson (2003b) distinguishes between materials analysis as a description of what the materials contain and do and materials evaluation as a measure of the effect of the materials on their users. He then goes on to consider the principles of materials evaluation and to use them in proposing a criterionreferenced framework for the evaluation of materials, which distinguishes between universal principles (those applicable to all language learning contexts) and local criteria (those specific to a particular learning context). Rubdy (2003) focuses on the selection of materials and proposes a dynamic framework for selection, which considers psychological validity, pedagogical validity and process and content validity in order to select materials for use. Islam and Mares (2003) focus on adapting classroom materials. They consider the reasons and objectives of adaptation and then propose and exemplify techniques for adapting materials. Saraceni (2003) takes a more radical approach in proposing that negotiation takes place between learners and their teacher in order to adapt classroom materials in ways which make them more learner-centred and relevant. Other books which give prominence to materials evaluation and adaptation are Tomlinson and Masuhara (2004) and Tomlinson (2008a), which contains evaluations of materials in current use for General English, for young learners and for learners of EAP, as well as evaluations of typical materials in current use in Africa, Argentina, Central and Eastern Europe, Japan, the Middle East, South East Asia, Western Europe, the UK and the USA. Other sources of information about research on the evaluation of language learning materials include Barnard and Randall (1995), Chambers (1997), Cunningsworth (1984, 1995), Jazadi (2003), McDonough and Shaw (1993, 2003), McDonough et al. (forthcoming 2011), Sheldon (1987, 1988), Riazi (2003), Tomlinson (2006) and Wallace (1998).

The use of materials What kinds of materials are used for different courses, for example, General English, Young Learners, English for Specific Purposes, English for Academic Purposes, Multi-media, Self-Access and Extensive Reading? What kinds of materials are used around the world? These are two questions Tomlinson (2008a) explores through the comprehensive collections of chapters with specific foci either in terms of course or geographical areas. Authors were asked to survey the kinds of materials in use and then to provide a critical review of the sample materials according to 14 criteria based on language learning theories. Some authors include the results of small-scale surveys conducted with questionnaires. After reporting the results of the reviews the authors express their personal wishes for

BTomlinson_01_Final.indd 8

8/17/2010 12:04:04 PM

Introduction

9

improvements in future materials. The concluding chapter summarizes the convergent weaknesses and strengths that emerged in all the chapters and makes a concerted plea for improved future materials. Evaluation studies are also informative in relation to the kinds of materials available and used. Masuhara et al. (2008) and Tomlinson et al. (2001) give overviews of the adult course materials offered by the major British Publishers. The series of books edited by Mukundan (2003, 2006a, 2006b, 2009) include various reports on the materials adopted in Malaysia and from other parts of South East Asia such as Vietnam and Indonesia. How are materials used by teachers? Our extensive search in various academic and pedagogic databases did not yield many empirical studies of teachers’ practice. The studies found tended to be based on teachers’ self-reports, questionnaires and interviews. Gray (2000), for example, reports when and how teachers censor or adapt aspects of cultural content in ELT reading materials through a survey. Lee and Bathmaker (2007) explore the factors influencing the teachers’ use of English textbooks with vocational students in Singapore secondary schools. Their semi-structured questionnaires reveal that factors related to the institution and classroom tended to have a great influence on the way teachers used their textbooks. Richards and Mahoney (1996) investigate how English teachers in Hong Kong use their textbooks through questionnaires and observation. It is interesting to note that all the three studies mentioned above seem to indicate teachers use coursebooks as resources rather than scripts. Zacharias (2005), however, reports how Indonesian English teachers in a study in tertiary education regard international coursebooks as superior to locally produced materials because they used ‘perfect’ English despite the international role that English has today. Masuhara (1998, forthcoming 2011) suggests a record of use as a means of uncovering more objective data of teachers’ use of materials. McGrath (2002) echoes this and further elaborates on various possible procedures for in-use and post-use evaluation that could lead to finding out how teachers exploit materials.

The effects of materials on their users One of the chapters in McGrath (2002) provides a review of literature exploring ways of discovering the effects of materials on their users. After acknowledging the scarcity of such studies and speculating on the possible reasons for it, he summarizes procedures and processes for in-use and post-use evaluation that could reveal the effects of the materials. Some longitudinal studies examining the effects of different methods on learning have some implications for materials development. For example, Takimoto (2009) evaluates the relative effectiveness of three types of approaches to teaching English polite request forms to 60 Japanese learners of English: (a) structured input tasks with explicit information, (b) problem-solving tasks and (c) structured input tasks without explicit information. The results of

BTomlinson_01_Final.indd 9

8/17/2010 12:04:04 PM

10

Research for Materials Development pre-tests, post-tests and follow-up tests reveal that the three groups who received these treatments performed significantly better than the control group. Interestingly, however, the delayed effect was not observed for the group that received the structured input tasks with explicit information on the listening test component. Tonzar et al. (2009) investigate the effects of two vocabulary learning methods (picture-based learning or word-based learning using translation) and of cognate status on children learning English and German from fourth to eighth grades in a school setting. Tests at different points of time show that the picture-based method leads to a better performance than the word-based method, but this effect was modulated by cognate status and age of learning. Zapata and Sagarra (2007) compare the effects of an online workbook and of a paper workbook on L2 vocabulary acquisition. Through a study focusing on two semesters involving 549 L2 learners of Spanish enrolled in a large language programme at an American state university, they confirm the results of previous studies on the beneficial role of CALL on L2 vocabulary acquisition, and provide evidence for the pedagogical advantages of online workbooks for large language programmes, as long as sufficient exposure to the online environment is allotted.

The research published in this book So far in this chapter, we have explored the relevant literature and provided summaries of some empirical studies in relation to materials development from the 1990s to the present. Our literature survey identified clusters of studies in the following areas: 1. 2. 3. 4.

The writing of materials The evaluation of materials The use of materials The effects of the materials on the users.

What seems to have emerged is that we do have some very interesting empirical studies that could guide us in driving the field of materials development forward, even though they seem to be still limited in number and range. What this book intends to do is to expand the scope, range, volume and depth of empirical research in materials development. The collection of studies included in this book seems to reflect the two recent global phenomena: the spread of English as a lingua franca around the world (Graddol, 1997, 2006) and the consequent L2 user diversity (Cook, 2002), as evidenced, for example, in the world-wide increase of young learners learning content subjects through English or of ESOL learners in Europe needing a far wider range of English at different levels. As Graddol (2006) points out, English as a lingua franca, or what we see as Englishes that are communicable internationally,

BTomlinson_01_Final.indd 10

8/17/2010 12:04:04 PM

Introduction

11

is rapidly becoming a basic requirement just like literacy or numeracy, without which we are disadvantaged. In this sense, language teaching and materials development seem to attract attention as the fields that appear to hold the crucial key to survival in the socio-economic competition. The current significance given to Englishes as basic skills and the diverse L2 users using them seem to lead to demands for materials that are effective and suitable for the particular needs and wants of users in their own contexts. These demands, however, are not always met, mainly because of disparity between the global materials the producers (i.e. materials writers and publishers) develop and the local materials that the users (i.e. administrators, teachers and learners) want (Masuhara, 1998, forthcoming 2011). A recent review (Masuhara et al., 2008) of the latest adult courses from eight UK publishers reveals that the current answer by ELT materials producers seems to be to provide ‘take-your-pick’ multi-component courses that offer everything: lexical chunks deriving from corpora, grammar, functions, cultural awareness, strategies, CD Roms and Web materials. This so-called blended learning approach, however, turns out to be costly for the users and to require extra effort to ensure overall coherence and quality of teaching. The chapters of this book report various attempts to respond to the urgent need for effective language teaching and development of materials. For example, some of those who are dissatisfied with the ‘one-fits-all’ coursebooks are now regaining full control by producing In-House Materials themselves, as can be seen in Part II Research on the Effects of In-House Materials for University Students. Localization also seems to be another trend in materials development as reported in Part III – Research on the Effects of Locally Developed Materials for Language Learners. In every case, accountability is pursued through evaluation in various ways as discussed in Part IV – Research on the Evaluation of Materials. Masuhara et al. (2008) noted the lack of extensive reading opportunities in the sampled current coursebooks. Tomlinson (2008a) confirmed this observation across different kinds of materials used in the UK and around the world. Despite the global call for English as a lingua franca and technological advances, most learners do not seem to live in an ideal environment that provides the kind of rich, varied and meaningful exposure to language in use that is considered to be a pre-requisite for language acquisition (Ellis, 2008; Tomlinson, 1998b; Tomlinson, 2007a). There seems to be a significant amount of evidence, however, that extensive reading can be very effective in facilitating language acquisition and development (Krashen, 2004; Maley, 2008) without requiring expensive equipment or teacher development programmes. The chapters in Part I present Research on the Effects of Extensive Reading in various formats in different parts of the world. The 23 chapters reporting research projects share many common themes and findings. In Part V – Applications of the Research Results we identify issues that emerge from all the chapters in terms of language learning research and theories and also in relation to further research in materials development.

BTomlinson_01_Final.indd 11

8/17/2010 12:04:04 PM

12

Research for Materials Development

References Allwright, D. and Bailey, K. M. (1991), Focus on the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Amrani, F. (forthcoming 2011), ‘The process of evaluation: a publisher’s view’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching (Revised edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bailey, K. and Nunan, D. (eds), (1996), Voices from the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barnard, E. S. (2007), ‘The value of compregension in the early stages of the acquisition and development of Bahasa Indonesia by non-native speakers’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Language Acquisition and Development: Studies of First and Other Language Learners. London: Continuum, pp. 187–204. Barnard, R. and Randall, M. (1995), ‘Evaluating course materials: A contrastive study in text book trialling’. System, 23, (3), 337–46. Bell, J. and Gower, R. (1998), ‘Writing course materials for the world: A great compromise’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 116–29. Byrd, P. (1995), Materials Writers Guide. New York: Heinle and Heinle. Carter, R. (1998), ‘Orders of reality: CANCODE, communication and culture’. ELT Journal, 52, (1), 43–56. Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (1997), Exploring Spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (2006), Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide to Spoken and Written English Grammar and Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chambers, F. (1997), ‘Seeking consensus in coursebook evaluation’. ELT Journal, 5, (1), 29–35. Chandran, S. (2003), ‘Where are the ELT textbooks?’, in W. A. Renandya, (ed.), Methodology and Materials Design in Language Teaching: Current Perceptions and Practice and their Implications (RELC Anthology Series). Singapore: SEAMEO, pp. 161–9. Chandran, S. K. and Abdullah, M. H. (2003), ‘Gender bias in Malaysian English textbooks’, in J. Mukundan, (ed.), Readings on ELT Material. Serdang: University Putra Malaysia Press, pp. 91–102. Chapelle, C. (1998), ‘Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA’. Language Learning and Technology, 2, (1), 22–34. Chapelle, C. A. (2001), Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapelle, C. A. (2008), ‘The spread of computer-assisted language learning’, Plenary Paper at the Association Canadienne de Linguistique Appliqué/Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics, Vancouver, British Columbia, 4–6 June. Chapelle, C. A. and Lui, H. -M. (2007), ‘Theory and research: Investigation of ‘ “authentic” CALL tasks’, in J. Egbert and E. Hanson-Smith, (eds), CALL Environments (2nd edn). Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications, pp. 111–30. Cook, V. (ed.), (2002), Portraits of the L2 User. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

BTomlinson_01_Final.indd 12

8/17/2010 12:04:04 PM

Introduction

13

Cook, V. (2003), ‘Materials for adult beginners from an L2 user perspective’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum Press, pp. 275–90. Cunningsworth, A. (1984), Evaluating and Selecting EFL Teaching Material. London: Heinemann. Cunningsworth, A. (1995), Choosing Your Coursebook. Oxford: Heinemann. Dat, B. (2003), ‘Localizing ELT materials in Vietnam: A case study’, in W. Renandya, (ed.), Methodology and Materials Design in Language Teaching: Current Perceptions and Practices and their Implications. Singapore: SEAMEO, 170–91. Day, R. and Bamford, J. (1998), Extensive Reading in the Second Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deriawanka, B. (2003), ‘Developing electronic materials for language teaching’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum Press, pp. 199–220. Donovan, P. (1998), ‘Piloting – a publisher’s view.’ in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 149–89. Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H. (eds), (2003), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell. Edge, J. and Wharton, S. (1998), ‘Autonomy and development: Living in the materials world’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 293–310. Elley, W. (1991), ‘Acquiring literacy in a second language: The Effect of book-based programmes’. Language Learning, 41, 375–411. Ellis, R. (1994), The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (1998), ‘The evaluation of communicative tasks’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 217–328. Ellis, R. (2008), The Study of Language Acquisition (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fenner, A. and Newby, D. (2000), Approaches to Materials Design in European Textbooks: Implementing Principles of Authenticity, Learner Autonomy, Cultural Awareness. European Centre for Modern Languages. Ferradas Moi, C. (2003), ‘Hyperfiction: Explorations in texture’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum Press, pp. 221–33. Flores, M. M. (1995), ‘Materials development: A creative process’, in A. C. Hidalgo, D. Hall and G. M. Jacobs, (eds), Getting Started: Materials Writers on Materials Writing. Singapore: SEAMEO Language Centre, pp. 57–66. Fortez, G. E. (1995), ‘Developing materials for tertiary level expository writing’, in A. C. Hidalgo, D. Hall and G. M. Jacobs, (eds), Getting Started: Materials Writers on Materials Writing. Singapore: SEAMEO Language Centre, pp. 67–81. Fox, G. (1998), ‘Using corpus data in the classroom’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 25–43. Ghosn, I. (2003), ‘Talking like texts and talking about texts: How some primary school coursebook tasks are realized in the classroom’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum Press, pp. 291–305.

BTomlinson_01_Final.indd 13

8/17/2010 12:04:04 PM

14

Research for Materials Development Ghosn, I. (2007), ‘Output like input: Influence of children’s literature on young L2 learners’ written expression’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Language Acquisition and Development: Studies of First and Other Language Learners. London: Continuum, pp. 171–86. Graddol, D. (1997), The Future of English? A Guide to Forecasting the Popularity of the English Language in the 21st Century. London: British Council. Graddol, D. (2006), English Next. London: British Council. Gray, F. (2002), ‘The global coursebook in English language teaching’, in D. Block and D. Cameron, (eds), Globalization and Language Teaching. London: Routledge, pp. 151–67. Gray, J. (2000), ‘The ELT coursebook as cultural artefact: How teachers censor and adapt’. ELT Journal, 54, (3), 274–83. Hall, D. (1995), ‘Materials production: Theory and practice’, in A. C. Hidalgo, D. Hall and G. M. Jacobs, (eds), Getting Started: Materials Writers on Materials Writing. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, pp. 8–24. Harwood, N. (ed.), (2010), Materials in ELT: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hidalgo, A. C., Hall, D. and Jacobs, G. M. (eds), (1995), Getting Started: Materials Writers on Materials Writing. Singapore: SEAMEO Language Centre. Hinkel. E. (ed.), (2005), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hoey, M. (2000), ‘A world beyond collocation: New perspectives on vocabulary teaching’, in M. Lewis, (ed.), Teaching Collocation: Further Developments in the Lexical Approach. Hove: LTP, pp. 224–5. Hubbard, P. (2006), ‘Evaluating CALL software’, in L. Ducate and N. Arnold, (eds), Calling on CALL: From Theory and Research to New Directions in Foreign Language teaching. San Marcos, TX: CALICO, pp. 313–34. Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A. (1987), English for Specific Purposes: A Learning-Centred Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Islam, C. and Mares, C. (2003), ‘Adapting classroom materials’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum Press, 86–100. Jazadi, I. (2003), ‘Mandated English teaching materials and their implications for teaching and learning: The case of Indonesia’, in W. A. Renandya, (ed.), Methodology and Materials Design in Language Teaching. Singapore: SEAMEO, pp. 142–60. Johnson, K. (2003), Designing Language Teaching Tasks. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Jolly, D. and Bolitho, R. (1998), ‘A framework for materials writing’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Materials Development for Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 90–115. Krashen, S. (2004), The Power of Reading: Insights from the Research. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Lantolf, J. (ed.), (2000), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. (1991), Second Language Research. London: Longman. Lee, R. and Bathmaker, A. (2007), ‘The Use of English Textbooks for Teaching English to “Vocational” Students in Singapore Secondary Schools: A Survey of Teachers’ Beliefs’. RELC Journal, 38, (3), 350–74.

BTomlinson_01_Final.indd 14

8/17/2010 12:04:04 PM

Introduction

15

Littlejohn, A. (1998), ‘The analysis of language teaching materials: Inside the Trojan Horse’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching, pp. 190–216. Luzares, C. E. (1995), ‘Scientific writing: Developing materials without re-inventing the wheel’, in A. C. Hidalgo, D. Hall and G. M. Jacobs, (eds), Getting Started: Materials Writers on Materials Writing. Singapore: SEAMEO Language Centre, pp. 25–30. Lyons, P. (2003), ‘A practical experience of institutional textbook writing: Product/process implications for materials development’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum, pp. 490–504. Maley, A. (1995), ‘Materials writing and tacit knowledge’, in A. C. Hidalgo, D. Hall and G. M. Jacobs, (eds), Getting Started: Materials Writers on Materials Writing. Singapore: SEAMEO Language Centre, pp. 22–39. Maley, A. (1998), ‘Squaring the circle – reconciling materials as constraint with materials as empowerment’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 279–94. Maley, A. (2003), ‘Creative approaches to writing materials’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum, pp. 183–98. Maley, A. (2008), ‘Extensive reading: Maid in waiting’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), English Language Learning Materials: A Critical Review. London: Continuum, pp. 133–56. Mares, C. (2003), ‘Writing a coursebook’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 130–40. Masuhara, H. (1998), ‘What do teachers really want from coursebooks?’ in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 239–60. Masuhara, H. (2007), ‘The role of proto-reading activities in the acquisition and development of reading skills’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Language Acquisition and Development: Studies of First and Other Language Learners. London: Continuum, pp. 15–31. Masuhara, H. (forthcoming 2011), ‘What do teachers really want from coursebooks?’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching (Revised edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Masuhara, H., Hann, N., Yi, Y. and Tomlinson, B. (2008), ‘Adult EFL courses’. ELT Journal, 62, (3), 294–312. McCarthy, M. (1998), Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mcdonough, J. and Shaw, C. (1993), Materials and Methods in ELT – A Teacher’s Guide. Oxford: Blackwells. McDonough, J. and Shaw, C. (2003), Materials and Methods in ELT – A Teacher’s Guide (2nd edn) Malden: Blackwells. McDonough, J., Shaw, C. and Masuhara, H. (forthcoming 2011), Materials and Methods in ELT – A Teacher’s Guide (3rd edn). Malden: Blackwells. McGrath, I. (2002), Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

BTomlinson_01_Final.indd 15

8/17/2010 12:04:04 PM

16

Research for Materials Development Menon, S. (2009), ‘Corpus analysis of prescribed Science and English Language Textbooks: Potentials for Language Teaching and EST materials design’, in J. Mukundan, (ed.), Readings on ELT Materials III. Petaling Jaya: Pearson Malaysia, p. 213. Methold, K. (1972), ‘The practical aspects of instructional materials preparation’. RELC Journal, 3, (1/32), 88–97. Mishan, F. (2005), Designing Authenticity into Language Learning Materials. Bristol: Intellect. Mukundan, J. (ed.), (2003), Readings on ELT Material. Sedang: Universiti Putra Malaysia Press. Mukundan, J. (ed.), (2006a), Focus on ELT Materials. Petaling Jaya: Pearson Malaysia. Mukundan, J. (ed.), (2006b), Readings on ELT Materials II. Petaling Jaya: Pearson Malaysia. Mukundan, J. (ed.), (2009), Readings on ELT Materials III. Petaling Jaya: Pearson Malaysia. Mukundan, J. and Hussin, A. A. (2006), ‘Exploration of Wordsmith 3.0 as a textbook writer’s guide and as an evaluation instrument’, in J. Mukundan, (ed.), Focus on ELT Materials. Petaling Jaya: Pearson Malaysia, pp. 12–24. Penaflorida, A. H. (1995), ‘The process of materials development: A personal experience’, in A. C. Hidalgo, D. Hall and G. M. Jacobs, (eds), Getting Started: Materials Writers on Materials Writing. Singapore: SEAMEO Language Centre, pp. 172–86. Popovici, R. and Bolitho, R. (2003), ‘Personal and professional development through writing: The Romanian textbook project’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum, pp. 505–17. Prowse, P. (1998), ‘How writers write: Testimony from authors’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 130–45. Renandya, W. A. (ed.), (2003), Methodology and Materials Design in Language Teaching: Current Perceptions and Practises and their Implications. Singapore: RELC. Riazi, A. M. (2003), ‘What do textbook evaluation schemes tell us? A study of the textbook evaluation schemes of three decades’, in Renyanda, W. A. (ed.), Methodology and Materials Design in Language Teaching. Singapore: RELC, pp. 52–70. Ribe, R. (2000), ‘Introducing negotiation processes: An experiment with creative project work’, in M. P. Breen and A. Littlejohn, (eds), Classroom Decision Making: Negotiation and Process Syllabuses in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 63–82. Richards, J. C. (1995), ‘Easier said than done: An insider’s account of a textbook project’, in A. C. Hidalgo, D. Hall and G. M. Jacobs, (eds), Getting Started: Materials Writers on Materials Writing. Singapore: SEAMEO Language Centre, pp. 95–135. Richards, J. C. (2001), Curriculum Development in Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C. and Mahoney, D. (1996), ‘Teachers and textbooks: A survey of beliefs and practice’. Perspectives, 8, (1), 40–63. Rossner, R. (1988), ‘Materials for communicative language teaching and learning’, in C. Brumfit, (ed.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 8, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 140–63. Rozul, R. H. (1995), ‘ESP materials: The writing process’, in A. C. Hidalgo, D. Hall and G. M. Jacobs, (eds), Getting Started: Materials Writers on Materials Writing. Singapore: SEAMEO Language Centre, pp. 209–18.

BTomlinson_01_Final.indd 16

8/17/2010 12:04:05 PM

Introduction

17

Rubdy, R. (2003), Selection of materials’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum Press, pp. 37–57. Saraceni, C. (2003), ‘Adapting courses: A critical view’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum Press, pp. 72–85. Sheldon, L. E. (ed.), (1987), ELT Textbooks and Materials: Problems in Evaluation and Development. ELT Documents 126. London: Modern English Publications and the British Council. Sheldon, L. E. (1988), ‘Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials’. ELT Journal, 42, (4), 237–46. Singapore Walla, D. A. (2003), ‘A coursebook is what it is because of what it has to do: An editor’s perspective’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum Press, pp. 58–70. Takimoto, M. (2009), ‘The effects of input-based tasks on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency’. Applied Linguistics, 30, (1), 1–25. Tan, M. (ed.), (2002a), Corpus Studies in Language Education. Bangkok: IELE Press. Tan, M. (2002b), ‘Introduction’, in M. Tan, (ed.), Corpus Studies in Language Education. Bangkok: IELE Press, pp. 1–14. Tomlinson, B. (1995), ‘Work in progress: Textbook projects’. Folio, 2, (2), 26–31. Tomlinson, B. (ed.), (1998a), Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tomlinson, B. (1998b), ‘Introduction’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–24. Tomlinson, B. (1998c), ‘Seeing what they mean: Helping L2 readers to visualize’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 265–78. Tomlinson, B. (ed.), (2003a), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum Press. Tomlinson, B. (2003b), ‘Materials evaluation’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum, pp. 16–36. Tomlinson, B. (2003c), ‘Developing principled frameworks for materials development’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum Press, pp. 107–29. Tomlinson, B. (2003d), ‘Humanizing the coursebook’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum Press, pp. 162–73. Tomlinson, B. (2006), ‘A multi-dimensional approach to teaching English for the World’, in R. Rubdy and M. Saraceni, (eds.) English in the World: Global Rules, Global Roles. London: Continuum, pp. 130–50. Tomlinson, B. (ed.), (2007a), Language Acquisition and Development: Studies of First and Other Language Learners. London: Continuum. Tomlinson, B. (2007b), ‘Introduction: Some similarities and differences between L1 and L2 acquisition and development’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Language Acquisition and Development: Studies of First and Other Language Learners. London: Continuum, pp. 1–12. Tomlinson, B. (ed.), (2008a), English Language Teaching Materials – A Critical Review. London: Continuum. Tomlinson, B. (2008b), ‘What do we actually do in English?’, in J. Mukundan, (ed.), Readings on ELT Materials III. Petaling Jaya: Pearson Malaysia, pp. 20–41.

BTomlinson_01_Final.indd 17

8/17/2010 12:04:05 PM

18

Research for Materials Development Tomlinson, B. (2008c), ‘Language acquisition and language learning materials’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), English Language Teaching Materials – A Critical Review. London: Continuum, pp. 3–14. Tomlinson, B. (2010), ‘Principles and effective materials development’, in N. Harwood, (ed.), English Language Teaching Materials: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 81–108. Tomlinson, B. (ed.) (forthcoming 2011), Materials Development in Language Teaching (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tomlinson, B. and Avila, J. (2007), ‘Seeing and saying for yourself: The roles of audio-visual mental aids in language learning and use’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Language Acquisition and Development: Studies of First and Other Language Learners. London: Continuum, pp. 61–81. Tomlinson, B., Dat, B., Masuhara, H. and Rubdy, R. (2001), ‘ELT courses for adults’. ELT Journal, 55, (1), 80–101. Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H. (2004), Developing Language Course Materials. Singapore: RELC Portfolio Series. Tonzar, C., Lotto, L. and Job, R. (2009), ‘L2 vocabulary acquisition in children: Effects of learning method and cognate status’. Language Learning, 59, (3), 623–46. Tribble, C. and Jones, G. (1997), Concordances in the Classroom: A Resource Book for Teachers. Houston, TX: Athelstan. Truong, B. L. and Phan, L. H. (2009), ‘Examining the foreignness of EFL global textbooks: Issues and proposals from the Vietnamese classroom’, in J. Mukundan, (ed.), Readings on ELT Materials III. Petaling Jaya: Pearson Malaysia, pp. 196–212. Van den Branden, K. (2006), Task-Based Language Education: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van Lier, L. (1988), The Classroom and the Language Learner: Ethnography and Second Language Research. London: Longman. Wallace, M. J. (1998), Action Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Willis, J. (1998), ‘Concordances in the classroom without a computer: Assembling and exploiting concordances of common words’, in B. Tomlinson, (ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 44–66. Yahaya, M. F., Abdullah, A. and Noor, M. A. M. (2006), ‘A study on the use of internet resources as language teaching materials’, Focus on ELT Materials. Petaling Jaya: Pearson Malaysia, pp. 114–25. Zacharias, N. (2005), ‘Teachers’ beliefs about internationally-published materials: A survey of tertiary English teachers in Indonesia’. RELC Journal, 36, (1), 23–37. Zapata, G. and Sagarra, N. (2007), ‘CALL on Hold: The delayed benefits of an online workbook on L2 vocabulary learning’. Computer Assisted Language Learning: An International Journal, 20, (2), 153–71.

BTomlinson_01_Final.indd 18

8/17/2010 12:04:05 PM

Five-year Outcomes from Children’s Literature-based Programmes vs. Programmes Using a Skills-based ESL Course – The Matthew and Peter Effects at Work?

2

Irma-Kaarina Ghosn

Introduction The positive influence of children’s literature – fairytales, fantasy, realistic fiction, picture books – on young English language learners’ (ELLs) skills development is well documented in the research literature of the past 30 years. Yet, the internationally marketed young-learner courses are still by and large structure- and skills-based, albeit more recently portrayed to be story-based. In the face of the evidence and the absence of coursebooks drawing on original children’s literature since the mid-1990s, an increasing number of schools in Lebanon have been adopting North American literature-based reading anthologies for teaching primary school English. However, no formal assessment has been conducted on the outcomes of the practice. The present study examines 10- to 11-year-old children’s English vocabulary, grammar and reading comprehension outcomes after 5 years of formal instruction in four schools, two using literature-based reading anthologies and two using international English-as-a-second language (ESL) courses.

Research evidence Studies on the influence of children’s literature and storybook-based instruction have been carried out in a number of cultural and first language contexts, producing positive results. First, exposure to literature, or storybooks, facilitates children’s vocabulary acquisition (Carger, 1993; Collins, 2004; Elley, 1989, 1997) as well as their reading comprehension (Eade, 1997; Elley, 1991, 2000; Elley and Mangubhai, 1983; Elley et al., 1996; Ghosn, 2001; Mangubhai and Elley, 1982; Ng and Preston, 1993; Roberts, 2008; Roberts and Neal, 2004; Sadowska-Martyka,

BTomlinson_02_Final.indd 21

8/17/2010 12:05:46 PM

22

Research for Materials Development 2006; Tunnell and Jacobs, 1989). Children’s written expression emulates their language teaching texts (Hudelson, 1983; Samway and Taylor, 1993), with children’s writing in literature-based programmes featuring more literate language features and better cohesion than the writing of children in skills-based language programmes (Ghosn, 2007). Literature-based lessons are also characterized by interaction and dialogue (Ghosn, 2001; Urzua, 1992) and children report enjoying the interaction and sharing of ideas during literature study the most (Urzua, 1992). It is therefore not surprising that children’s listening and speaking skills are also enhanced by literature-based instruction (Elley, 1991; Sadowska-Martyka, 2006). Although much of the research on literature-based, or story-based, instruction has examined short-term effects, some longitudinal studies have been carried out. The most extensive experimental studies were conducted by Warwick Elley and his colleagues (1996). Mangubhai and Elley’s (1982) study of over 600 children in Fiji was an 8-month experiment, and Elley et al.’s (1996) study in Sri Lanka was carried out over 5 months. In both these ‘book flood’ studies, children were exposed to a large selection of storybooks and a variety of approaches ranging from sustained silent reading to highly interactive shared reading. SadowskaMartyka’s (2006) retrospective study in Poland examined children’s English language achievement after 3 years of extensive exposure to storybooks as measured by the Cambridge Young-Learner ‘Movers’ exams. Students in the programme scored higher than their 1-year older world-wide peers in listening and speaking and almost on par with them in reading and writing. Children in their study reported reading storybooks to be the most important activity in their English programme. The present retrospective study aims to expand the current knowledge about the influence of instructional texts and the role of reading by exploring 5-year outcomes from two programmes differing significantly in their focus on reading and their approach to reading instruction.

The context In Lebanon, where Arabic is the official national language and the mother tongue of the majority of the population, all pupils must learn a minimum of two foreign languages, one of which serves as the instructional language in the general curriculum, with the exception of history, civics and Arabic language. Although French dominates as the first foreign language, English is steadily gaining in popularity, particularly in the private sector, which currently enrolls slightly over half of the total student population. According to the Ministry of Education statistics, 42 per cent of the private schools and 29 per cent of the public schools teach English as the first foreign language – EFFL (Ministry of Education and Higher Education, 2005). According to the national curriculum, the first foreign language is introduced in grade 1 (age 6) with 7 weekly hours. Most private schools, however, introduce the first foreign language in kindergarten (age 4–5). Although schools have the option to teach subject matter in

BTomlinson_02_Final.indd 22

8/17/2010 12:05:46 PM

The Matthew and Peter Effects at Work?

23

Arabic in the primary grades, EFFL schools typically teach mathematics and sciences in English from the onset of schooling. While many schools have used either British or American English-as-a-second language ESL courses, since the mid-1990s, American literature-based reading anthologies have been adopted by increasingly many EFFL schools.

Sample and data collection For the present retrospective, post ex facto study, data were collected from 106 children (ages 9.5–11) in four schools. Schools were selected so as to represent typical Lebanese EFFL schools, as judged by the researcher, and thus to comprise a sample that was satisfactory to the specific needs of the study (Cohen and Mannion, 1994). School LIT1 (n 26, 18 m; 8 f), a suburban school, and School LIT2 (n 30: 17 m, 13 f), an urban school, were both using an American literature-based reading anthology, the same one in both schools. School ESL1 (n 21: 8 m, 13 f), a suburban school, and School ESL2 (n 29: 18 m, 11 f), an urban school, were both using an international ESL course, the same in both cases. In the four schools, mathematics and science instruction is delivered in English from the onset of schooling, also using North American textbooks. The study is ex post facto since the data were collected ‘after the presumed cause or causes’ and ‘examines the data retrospectively to establish causes, relationships or associations and their meanings’ (Cohen and Mannion, 1994, p. 148). Although retrospective studies may be somewhat biased (Slavin and Cheung, 2003), they are an appropriate exploratory tool where randomized controlled experiments are not feasible or possible, such as in investigating pupil achievement in different schools or programmes (Cohen and Mannion, 1994) as the present study does. To add some level of control, pupils in the two programmes were matched in terms of general intelligence. In the absence of reliable cognitive and verbal ability tests suitable for Arabic-speaking children, the standardized NFER Nelson Non-Verbal Reasoning 10&11 (Smith and Hagues, 1993) was used. It is a standardized test, which assesses how well a child is likely to acquire new concepts in different subjects. The test includes classification, matrices, series and analogies and is one of the British National Curriculum tests for Key Stages 2 and 3. The means between the two groups were found not to differ (p