4667282
Description
Materials Development for
language learning and
teaching
- ‘Materials development’ refers
to all the processes made use
of by practitioners who
produce and/or use materials
for language learning,
including materials evaluation,
their adaptation,, design,
production, exploitation and
research
- History of publications on
materials development
- Madsen & Bowen (1978) and
Swales (1980), and Candlin &
Breen. Books and papers
asserted that the good
teacher is constantly
adapting materials. Some
others about evaluating and
designing materials.
- Cunningsworth (1984)
exemplified methods and
approaches by quoting extracts
from coursebooks. Other
principles from coursebooks
were Dubin & Olshtain’s (1986)
book on course design and
Grant’s (1987).
- Journals with articles in the 70's
and the 80's. In the 90's Byrd
(1995), Cunningsworth (1995),
Graves (1996) and Tomlinson
(1998) worked on guides for
materials writers, books,
procedures and papers at
conferences..
- Some samples of
existing materials by
McDonough & Shaw
(1998, 2003) McDonough,
Shaw & Masuhara
(2012).
- In the 2000s Fenner &
Newby (2000) Richards
(2001) McGrath (2002)
(Tomlinson 2003 about
design, curriculum,
evaluation.
- Tomlinson (2007) (2008)
proposed applications of
theories to materials
development. Research on
recasts, on visual imaging, on
the use of the inner voice and
on comprehension
approaches.
- Harwood (2010a) explores a
genre-based approach to
developing materials for
writing, reading, and designing
materials for
community-based adult ESL
programs.
- Tomlinson & Masuhara
(2010), (2011), (2012), Gray
(2010) based on writing
skills, and process drama
and problem-solving
approaches, textbook
development, tasks and
new technologies.
- Most recent publication of
Tomlinson & Masuhara (2012)
about applied linguistics.
Contains suggestions and
illustration about how to apply
these findings to materials
development.
- Most recent publication of
Tomlinson & Masuhara (2012)
about applied linguistics.
Contains suggestions and
illustration about how to apply
these findings to materials
development.
- Tomlinson & Masuhara
(2010), (2011), (2012), Gray
(2010) based on writing
skills, and process drama
and problem-solving
approaches, textbook
development, tasks and
new technologies.
- Harwood (2010a) explores a
genre-based approach to
developing materials for
writing, reading, and designing
materials for
community-based adult ESL
programs.
- Tomlinson (2007) (2008)
proposed applications of
theories to materials
development. Research on
recasts, on visual imaging, on
the use of the inner voice and
on comprehension
approaches.
- In the 2000s Fenner &
Newby (2000) Richards
(2001) McGrath (2002)
(Tomlinson 2003 about
design, curriculum,
evaluation.
- Some samples of
existing materials by
McDonough & Shaw
(1998, 2003) McDonough,
Shaw & Masuhara
(2012).
- Journals with articles in the 70's
and the 80's. In the 90's Byrd
(1995), Cunningsworth (1995),
Graves (1996) and Tomlinson
(1998) worked on guides for
materials writers, books,
procedures and papers at
conferences..
- Cunningsworth (1984)
exemplified methods and
approaches by quoting extracts
from coursebooks. Other
principles from coursebooks
were Dubin & Olshtain’s (1986)
book on course design and
Grant’s (1987).
- Madsen & Bowen (1978) and
Swales (1980), and Candlin &
Breen. Books and papers
asserted that the good
teacher is constantly
adapting materials. Some
others about evaluating and
designing materials.
- Materials
evaluation
- Establishing criteria and
developing evaluation
instruments
- Tucker (1975) proposed a
four-component scheme for
measuring the internal and external
value of beginners’, Davison (1976)
proposed a five-category scheme for
the evaluation and selection of
textbooks and Dauod & Celce-Murcia
(1979) provided checklists of criteria
for evaluating coursebooks.
- Candlin & Breen (1980)
evaluating materials.
Rivers (1981) provided
categories and criteria for
evaluating materials. Some
others that wrote about it:
- Mariani (1983) evaluation and
supplementation, Williams
(1983) textbook evaluation and
Cunningsworth (1984)
evaluation criteria ‘for
evaluating teaching material’
(p. 74).
- Breen & Candlin (1987) published a
guide for evaluators and producers
and Sheldon (1987, 1988) suggested
criteria for evaluation in textbook .
Skierso (1991) the most
comprehensive checklist of criteria
by combining checklists from
various sources.
- Cunningsworth (1995), Harmer (1991,
1998), Roberts (1996), Ur (1996), Brown
(1997), Hemsley (1997) and Gearing (1999)
proposed checklists for evaluating
materials. Matthews (1985) specification
of the teaching situation, Cunningsworth
(1995) criteria to the target learners and
Byrd (2001) conection between textbook
and the curriculum, students and teachers.
- Tomlinson & Masuhara (2004: 7)
proposed questions for evaluating
criteria such as: appropiated evaluation,
asking one question, freedom of
dogma, reliability.
- a) ‘Are there any materials for
testing?’ (Cunningsworth 1984)
‘Are the learning activities in the
course material likely to appeal to
the learners...?’ b) ‘Is it attractive?
Given the average age of your
students, would they enjoy using
it?’ (Grant 1987: 122) combines two
questions in one criterion.
- Mukundan & Ahour (2010) review
48 evaluation checklists from
1970 to 2008. Generating clear,
concise and flexible criteria
would be more useful than
detailed checklists.
- Tomlinson (2003b) and Ellis (2011).
Mukundan & Ahour (2010) an
evaluation of multiple components
and including computer analysis of
the script of the materials (focusing,
for example, on the vocabulary load
or on recycling).
- Tomlinson (2003b) universal and local criteria.
Universal criteria evaluates materials for any
learner anywhere.. Local criteria are those
specific to the context in which the materials
are going to be used. A procedure for such
criteria (pp. 27–33), was used in Tomlinson et
al. (2001) and in Masuhara et al. (2008).
- Tomlinson (2003b) evaluation
‘focuses on the users of the
materials’. Measures potential or
actual effects of the materials on
their users.
- Byrd (2001) evaluation for
selection and analysis for
implementation. McDonough &
Shaw (2003: 61) suggest that
the evaluators first conduct an
external evaluation ‘that offers
a brief overview from the
outside’ and then carry out ‘a
closer and more detailed
internal evaluation’.
- Cunningsworth (1995) bases on the
importance of collecting data about
the context of learning and proposes
a procedure which includes a survey
of the teaching/learning situation, a
neutral analysis, a belief-driven
evaluation and a selection.
- Wallace (1998), who
suggests twelve ‘criterion
areas’ for materials
evaluation.
- Tomlinson & Masuhara (2004),
with their evaluation
procedure for inexperienced
teachers and McCullagh (2010),
who sets out the procedure
she used to evaluate materials
for medical practitioners.
- Tomlinson & Masuhara (2004),
with their evaluation
procedure for inexperienced
teachers and McCullagh (2010),
who sets out the procedure
she used to evaluate materials
for medical practitioners.
- Wallace (1998), who
suggests twelve ‘criterion
areas’ for materials
evaluation.
- Cunningsworth (1995) bases on the
importance of collecting data about
the context of learning and proposes
a procedure which includes a survey
of the teaching/learning situation, a
neutral analysis, a belief-driven
evaluation and a selection.
- Byrd (2001) evaluation for
selection and analysis for
implementation. McDonough &
Shaw (2003: 61) suggest that
the evaluators first conduct an
external evaluation ‘that offers
a brief overview from the
outside’ and then carry out ‘a
closer and more detailed
internal evaluation’.
- Tomlinson (2003b) evaluation
‘focuses on the users of the
materials’. Measures potential or
actual effects of the materials on
their users.
- Tomlinson (2003b) universal and local criteria.
Universal criteria evaluates materials for any
learner anywhere.. Local criteria are those
specific to the context in which the materials
are going to be used. A procedure for such
criteria (pp. 27–33), was used in Tomlinson et
al. (2001) and in Masuhara et al. (2008).
- Tomlinson (2003b) and Ellis (2011).
Mukundan & Ahour (2010) an
evaluation of multiple components
and including computer analysis of
the script of the materials (focusing,
for example, on the vocabulary load
or on recycling).
- Mukundan & Ahour (2010) review
48 evaluation checklists from
1970 to 2008. Generating clear,
concise and flexible criteria
would be more useful than
detailed checklists.
- a) ‘Are there any materials for
testing?’ (Cunningsworth 1984)
‘Are the learning activities in the
course material likely to appeal to
the learners...?’ b) ‘Is it attractive?
Given the average age of your
students, would they enjoy using
it?’ (Grant 1987: 122) combines two
questions in one criterion.
- Tomlinson & Masuhara (2004: 7)
proposed questions for evaluating
criteria such as: appropiated evaluation,
asking one question, freedom of
dogma, reliability.
- Cunningsworth (1995), Harmer (1991,
1998), Roberts (1996), Ur (1996), Brown
(1997), Hemsley (1997) and Gearing (1999)
proposed checklists for evaluating
materials. Matthews (1985) specification
of the teaching situation, Cunningsworth
(1995) criteria to the target learners and
Byrd (2001) conection between textbook
and the curriculum, students and teachers.
- Breen & Candlin (1987) published a
guide for evaluators and producers
and Sheldon (1987, 1988) suggested
criteria for evaluation in textbook .
Skierso (1991) the most
comprehensive checklist of criteria
by combining checklists from
various sources.
- Mariani (1983) evaluation and
supplementation, Williams
(1983) textbook evaluation and
Cunningsworth (1984)
evaluation criteria ‘for
evaluating teaching material’
(p. 74).
- Candlin & Breen (1980)
evaluating materials.
Rivers (1981) provided
categories and criteria for
evaluating materials. Some
others that wrote about it:
- Tucker (1975) proposed a
four-component scheme for
measuring the internal and external
value of beginners’, Davison (1976)
proposed a five-category scheme for
the evaluation and selection of
textbooks and Dauod & Celce-Murcia
(1979) provided checklists of criteria
for evaluating coursebooks.
- Reporting
evaluations
- Many journals publish regular
predictive reviews of recent
materials about conducting
evaluations. Such as the
following:
- Tomlinson et al. (2001) and Masuhara et al.
(2008) both welcomed the attempts to
personalise the coursebooks and the
expensive and unwanted increase in the
number of components of coursebooks, the
neglect of literature as a source of potentially
engaging texts, the lack of intelligent content
at lower levels, the neglect of extensive
reading and listening.
- Other survey reviews that appeared in
ELT Journal include Tribble (2009) on
resources for teaching academic writing,
McDonough (2010) on materials for
English for specific purposes, and Wilson
(2010) on materials for IELTS
preparation.
- Micro-evaluations of materials. Ellis (2011:
234), micro-evaluations are ‘often seen as
too localised and too small scale, and so
theoretically uninteresting’. In Tomlinson
(2008a) there are reports of
macro-evaluations as well as of nine
evaluations of materials currently used in
different parts of the world.
- There are also reports of
micro-evaluations of materials in
action in Mukundan (2006a),
Harwood (2010a) and Tomlinson &
Masuhara (2010).
- Production of materials
development. Donovan (1998)
describes piloting as a way of
obtaining feedback on the
effectiveness of materials.
- More cost-effective and time-saving
methods, such as reviews from experienced
teachers and from academics, feedback
from focus groups, questionnaires, expert
panels, editorial visits and classroom
observations, and competitor analysis.
- Amrani (2011) provides examples
of some of these in action and
also discusses the benefits and
problems of evaluating materials
in development.
- The main concerns of publishers
relate to the extent to which their
draft materials appeal to their
intended users in terms of
appearance, content and approach.
- Although, Ellis (2011),
reports three
micro-evaluations of the
effectiveness of task
materials.
- Another exception is
Barnard (2007), who
reports a study of the
effectiveness of materials
using a comprehension
approach.
- Another exception is
Barnard (2007), who
reports a study of the
effectiveness of materials
using a comprehension
approach.
- Although, Ellis (2011),
reports three
micro-evaluations of the
effectiveness of task
materials.
- The main concerns of publishers
relate to the extent to which their
draft materials appeal to their
intended users in terms of
appearance, content and approach.
- Amrani (2011) provides examples
of some of these in action and
also discusses the benefits and
problems of evaluating materials
in development.
- More cost-effective and time-saving
methods, such as reviews from experienced
teachers and from academics, feedback
from focus groups, questionnaires, expert
panels, editorial visits and classroom
observations, and competitor analysis.
- Production of materials
development. Donovan (1998)
describes piloting as a way of
obtaining feedback on the
effectiveness of materials.
- There are also reports of
micro-evaluations of materials in
action in Mukundan (2006a),
Harwood (2010a) and Tomlinson &
Masuhara (2010).
- Micro-evaluations of materials. Ellis (2011:
234), micro-evaluations are ‘often seen as
too localised and too small scale, and so
theoretically uninteresting’. In Tomlinson
(2008a) there are reports of
macro-evaluations as well as of nine
evaluations of materials currently used in
different parts of the world.
- Other survey reviews that appeared in
ELT Journal include Tribble (2009) on
resources for teaching academic writing,
McDonough (2010) on materials for
English for specific purposes, and Wilson
(2010) on materials for IELTS
preparation.
- Tomlinson et al. (2001) and Masuhara et al.
(2008) both welcomed the attempts to
personalise the coursebooks and the
expensive and unwanted increase in the
number of components of coursebooks, the
neglect of literature as a source of potentially
engaging texts, the lack of intelligent content
at lower levels, the neglect of extensive
reading and listening.
- Many journals publish regular
predictive reviews of recent
materials about conducting
evaluations. Such as the
following:
- Establishing criteria and
developing evaluation
instruments
- Materials adaptation
- Madsen & Bowen (1978)
propose ways of
personalising, individualising,
localising and modernising
materials.
- Candlin & Breen (1980),
criticise published
communicative materials and
suggest ways of adapting
them. Cunningsworth (1984),
focuses on how to change
materials so that they get the
learners to do.
- Willis (1996), on ways of changing
classroom management and
sequencing to maximise the value
of taskbased materials, Nunan
(1999), on procedures for making
materials more interactive and
White (1998), on ways of
increasing student participation
when using listening materials.
- McGrath (2002) proposes ‘four
evaluative processes’ (p. 59)
when basing a lesson on a
coursebook and goes on to
discuss the issues and
procedures involved in each
process.
- Islam & Mares (2003) y borrow
objectives and categories from
previously published lists but include
such objectives as adding real choice,
catering for all learner styles,
providing for learner autonomy,
developing high-level cognitive skills,
and making the input both more
accessible and more engaging.
- Saraceni (2003), proposes that
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.
- Jolly & Bolitho (2011), who
propose a dynamic
approach to materials
writing and adaptation
which involves teachers as
materials writers trialling
their materials with their
classes and then modifying
them to take account of
student feedback and
suggestions.
- Jolly & Bolitho (2011), who
propose a dynamic
approach to materials
writing and adaptation
which involves teachers as
materials writers trialling
their materials with their
classes and then modifying
them to take account of
student feedback and
suggestions.
- Saraceni (2003), proposes that
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.
- Islam & Mares (2003) y borrow
objectives and categories from
previously published lists but include
such objectives as adding real choice,
catering for all learner styles,
providing for learner autonomy,
developing high-level cognitive skills,
and making the input both more
accessible and more engaging.
- McGrath (2002) proposes ‘four
evaluative processes’ (p. 59)
when basing a lesson on a
coursebook and goes on to
discuss the issues and
procedures involved in each
process.
- Willis (1996), on ways of changing
classroom management and
sequencing to maximise the value
of taskbased materials, Nunan
(1999), on procedures for making
materials more interactive and
White (1998), on ways of
increasing student participation
when using listening materials.
- Candlin & Breen (1980),
criticise published
communicative materials and
suggest ways of adapting
them. Cunningsworth (1984),
focuses on how to change
materials so that they get the
learners to do.
- Madsen & Bowen (1978)
propose ways of
personalising, individualising,
localising and modernising
materials.
- Materials production
- How
writers
write
- Hidalgo et al. (1995)
reports by materials
writers on how they
wrote materials.
- Johnson (2003) studied
the literature on
task-based teaching.
Experiment about ‘design
an activity involving the
function of describing
people’
- Prowse (2011) focus on the
creative, inspirational
aspect of materials writing
(‘coursebook writing is a
creative rather than a
mechanical process’ (p. 173))
- The ongoing evaluation
is driven by a set of
agreed principles, both
universal principles to
any learning context
and local criteria.
- The ongoing evaluation
is driven by a set of
agreed principles, both
universal principles to
any learning context
and local criteria.
- Prowse (2011) focus on the
creative, inspirational
aspect of materials writing
(‘coursebook writing is a
creative rather than a
mechanical process’ (p. 173))
- Johnson (2003) studied
the literature on
task-based teaching.
Experiment about ‘design
an activity involving the
function of describing
people’
- Hidalgo et al. (1995)
reports by materials
writers on how they
wrote materials.
- Principled
development of
materials
- . Hall (1995: 8) insists that the crucial
question we need to ask is ‘How do
we think people learn languages?’
and goes on to discuss the principles
which he thinks should ‘underpin
everything we do in planning and
writing our materials’ (ibid.).
Tomlinson (1998b: 5–22; 2011b)
proposes fifteen principles for
materials development which derive
from second language acquisition
(SLA) research and from his
experience, and a number of other
writers outline principled approaches
to developing ELT materials in
Tomlinson (1998a, 2011a).
- Tan (2002) is concerned with the role
that corpus-based approaches can and
should play in language teaching and
contains chapters from around the
world which discuss the contribution
that corpora have made in, for example,
the conversation class, and the teaching
of vocabulary, fixed expressions, writing
and collocation
- Tomlinson (2010c), however, points
out some of the limitations of
corpora and suggests ways of
supplementing the information
gained from them by making use
of author, teacher and learner
research involving following up
insights gained from analysis of
texts with searches for further
textual evidence.
- Tomlinson 2008b), which proposes ways of applying commonly
agreed theories of language acquisition to materials
development. The principles proposed include: • the language
experience needs to be contextualised and comprehensible •
the learner needs to be motivated, relaxed, positive and
engaged • the language and discourse features available for
potential acquisition need to be salient, meaningful and
frequently encountered • the learner needs to achieve deep and
multi-dimensional processing of the language (Tomlinson
2008b: 4)
- Tomlinson 2008b), which proposes ways of applying commonly
agreed theories of language acquisition to materials
development. The principles proposed include: • the language
experience needs to be contextualised and comprehensible •
the learner needs to be motivated, relaxed, positive and
engaged • the language and discourse features available for
potential acquisition need to be salient, meaningful and
frequently encountered • the learner needs to achieve deep and
multi-dimensional processing of the language (Tomlinson
2008b: 4)
- Tomlinson (2010c), however, points
out some of the limitations of
corpora and suggests ways of
supplementing the information
gained from them by making use
of author, teacher and learner
research involving following up
insights gained from analysis of
texts with searches for further
textual evidence.
- Tan (2002) is concerned with the role
that corpus-based approaches can and
should play in language teaching and
contains chapters from around the
world which discuss the contribution
that corpora have made in, for example,
the conversation class, and the teaching
of vocabulary, fixed expressions, writing
and collocation
- . Hall (1995: 8) insists that the crucial
question we need to ask is ‘How do
we think people learn languages?’
and goes on to discuss the principles
which he thinks should ‘underpin
everything we do in planning and
writing our materials’ (ibid.).
Tomlinson (1998b: 5–22; 2011b)
proposes fifteen principles for
materials development which derive
from second language acquisition
(SLA) research and from his
experience, and a number of other
writers outline principled approaches
to developing ELT materials in
Tomlinson (1998a, 2011a).
- Practical
guidance to
writers
- However, Byrd (1995)
provides advice to
materials writers, as does
Nunan (1988, 1989).
Johnson (2003) gives his
informed opinion on the
expertise needed to be a
good task designer and
Spiro (2006) provides
advice on how to become
an L2 storywriter.
- Tomlinson (2003b,
2003c) proposes a
flexible text-driven
framework for
developing materials
and puts forward
ways of ensuring
that materials are
humanistic
- Tomlinson & Masuhara (2004)
provide practical advice on
developing materials, writing
instructions, using illustrations
and layout and design. Coyle, Hood
& Marsh (2010) give detailed advice
on how to develop materials for
content and language integrated
learning
- Van Avermaet & Gysen
(2006) and Duran & Ramaut
(2006) give advice on writing
tasks for young learners
- Van Avermaet & Gysen
(2006) and Duran & Ramaut
(2006) give advice on writing
tasks for young learners
- Tomlinson & Masuhara (2004)
provide practical advice on
developing materials, writing
instructions, using illustrations
and layout and design. Coyle, Hood
& Marsh (2010) give detailed advice
on how to develop materials for
content and language integrated
learning
- Tomlinson (2003b,
2003c) proposes a
flexible text-driven
framework for
developing materials
and puts forward
ways of ensuring
that materials are
humanistic
- However, Byrd (1995)
provides advice to
materials writers, as does
Nunan (1988, 1989).
Johnson (2003) gives his
informed opinion on the
expertise needed to be a
good task designer and
Spiro (2006) provides
advice on how to become
an L2 storywriter.
- How
writers
write
- Materials
exploitation
- Issues in materials
development
- Materials development
projects
- Research in materials
development
- Conclusion
Media attachments
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.