State of art materials development article test

According to Tomilson and Masuhara (2007) what is the develop criteria for evaluating and selecting materials question model?

Which ones are the categories proposed by Rubby (2003) about dynamic model of material evaluation?

McGrath (2002) proposes ‘four evaluative adapting material processes´ They are : 1.Teachers may select the material 2. They have to reject either completely or partially sections 3. Add extensions or further exploitation of the existing materials 4.It should be learner centered.

Saraceni (2003), advocates that, in order to involve learners in the process, materials should actually be written with learner adaptation in mind, aiming to be learner-centred, flexible, open-ended, relevant, universal and authentic, and giving choices to learners. She also stresses that offering provocative topics and aesthetic experience can facilitate learner adaptation.

Which one of the option below is not a model of potential benefits in electronic materials?

What CALL stands for?

´´When thinking or writing about electronic materials it helps to distinguish between CALL materials i.e. ELT materials available from [blank_start]websites[blank_end], computer software, courseware and [blank_start]onlinecourses[blank_end], web sources of language experience e.g. [blank_start]Google, YouTube, Facebook[blank_end] and ICT applications which can be made use of both to deliver materials and to facilitate interaction e.g. [blank_start]mobile phones[blank_end].´´

Regarding pedagogic approaches used through the years for material development, the reading argues that: “In the sixties and early seventies they stressed they were teaching the language directly, without the use of [blank_start]translation[blank_end] or [blank_start]explanation[blank_end]: in the seventies they boasted that they were following a [blank_start]communicative approach[blank_end] which featured either the learning of functions or notions, or both. Subsequently, they have claimed to be following natural approaches based on topics, themes or tasks and many coursebooks nowadays stress that their syllabus is based on the ‘can do’ statements of the Common European Framework…´´

According to Tomilson and its opinion about the need of published material, he sets: ..."My position is that most teachers and students welcome published materials and can gain from them. However, if a teacher has [blank_start]confidence, principled creativity[blank_end] and the respect of their learners, then a textbook-free course can actually be more facilitative in providing the [blank_start]personalised, relevant and engaging[blank_end] experience of language in use and opportunities for observing how the language is used and for meaningful [blank_start]communication[blank_end], which many textbook authors find it difficult to provide."

Amrani 2011 reports: I would like to see more [blank_start]localised[blank_end] textbooks and more [blank_start]global textbooks[blank_end] which are designed to be [blank_start]flexible[blank_end] and to offer teachers and students opportunities for localisation, personalisation and choice. In addition, publishers could produce web-based global ‘coursebooks’ which offer opportunities for [blank_start]choice[blank_end], [blank_start]modification[blank_end] and replacement and which facilitate ‘an ongoing process where materials are refined and even changed throughout the life of a product’