4 Materials Adaptation
hence, they “reinterpreted the curriculum based on their own previous teach- ing experiences and their understandings of their students’ needs” (Christison &
Murray, 2014, p. 55). Teachers as the main stakeholders of curriculum change implementation must be engaged during implementation, because they are the ones who will enact the curriculum. (Loh & Renandya, 2016, p. 106)
Loh and Renandya inform us how the Singaporean government’s new primary STELLAR program is accompanied by an in-service professional development scheme and by countrywide mentoring and grouping support systems, which are more interac- tive, not top-down, rigid or evaluative. The ongoing evaluation of the 6-year implemen- tation of the new program so far seems to indicate positive changes taking place with innovative adaptations that enhance the STELLAR principles.
Materials Development for Language Learning
validity and effectiveness of the selected coursebook is crucial (See Chapter 3 “Evalua- tion” in this book). How teachers use it and their expertise are even more so: i.e. teachers’
responsibility and accountability, knowledge, beliefs, and skills as curriculum media- tors and realizers. The power of assessment and its washback on teaching and learning has been discussed widely in the literature and yet Studies 3, 5, 7 and 8 clearly indicate that the same problems exist: the curriculum goal has been reduced to achieving pass scores in exams rather than achieving linguistic, strategic, and educational targets. The exam backwash would be fine if there were coherence between assessment, learning and teaching in relation to global English as a means of communication as is indicated in official documents. Judging from the teachers’ accounts in the Studies 3, 5 and 7, their quizzes or exams require mainly discrete grammar knowledge with some reading and writing skills.
Why Do Teachers Adapt Materials? What For?—The Reason and Purpose of Adaptation
“Why do teachers adapt materials? It all starts with the teacher intuitively feeling. ‘Mmm, something is not quite right”’ (Tomlinson and Masuhara, 2004, p. 12). Such a feeling may have been sparked off by the students’ reactions or lack of reactions when the teacher started a new unit. What is the reason (i.e. why)? The students are feeling sleepy after lunch on a hot day? Could it be the topic of the unit is irrelevant to the students’ lives? The text is not engaging? The activities in the textbook are too mechanical to be cognitively challenging? All these are possible reasons for adaptation.
So the teacher may decide on the spot to add an anecdote about a student to person- alize and to localize the topic. She could replace the one-word gap-filling activity in the text with an open-ended completion task so that the students could creatively write what the heroine or hero is going to say next and develop the story. The teacher’s adaptation here has purposes (i.e. what for?) such as making the topic relevant through localiza- tion and personalization. The teacher is also trying to make the activities stimulating, engaging, creative, and fun.
The reasons for and purposes of adaptation are like a flip of a coin. The former focuses on what needs improving, the latter targets improvements, as was exemplified in the last two paragraphs.
Experts have listed and explained possible reasons and / or suggested purposes of adaptation (e.g. Mishan and Timmis, 2015 provide a brief summary of the major lists of past literature including McGrath, 2002, 2013; Islam & Mares, 2003; McDonough et al., 2013; Saraceni, 2013 and Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2004; see also McGrath, 2016). They are all useful references based on authors’ experience in research, pedagogy and mate- rials development experience. The list of reasons and purposes of adaptation, however, could be endless as each author puts slightly different labels on intertwined phenom- ena and gives prominence to certain aspects. If we focus on the main factors that spark off various reasons and purposes, however, we could narrow it down to a manageable list that could then be subcategorized when necessary. We have refined the five factors identified by Tomlinson and Masuhara (2004, p. 12) and added examples from actual adaptation studies:
r
Teaching environment (national, regional, institutional, cultural levels, etc.). For example, in Loh and Renandya (2016) in Study 8, the Pura schoolteachers in Singapore had to cover an institutional test-orientated syllabus as well as the national primary4 Materials Adaptation
STELLAR program in alternate weeks. As a result of the two (not-entirely compati- ble) demands, the teachers had to face time constraints (i.e. reason for adaptation), which resulted in adaptations that helped manage reasonable coverage of materials for both syllabi (i.e. purpose for adaptation). In the case of Study 5 by Tasseron (2017) in Oman and in Study 7 in Egypt by Abdel Abdel Latif (2017), the exams (i.e. reason) resulted in adapting the communicative coursebook into explicit and deductive gram- mar teaching materials for exam preparation (i.e. purpose). In relation to materials with socioculturally or ideologically sensitive contents (i.e. reason), different teach- ers adapted for different purposes. One teacher reported skipping sections in order to avoid potential problems (i.e. purpose), other teachers used controversial issues for group discussion (i.e. purpose) or provided opportunities to learn from other cultures for the sake of raising cultural awareness (i.e. purpose).
r
Learners (age, language level, prior learning experience, learning styles, etc.). For example, in Bosompem (2014, pp. 114–115), in Study 6, six out of 16 Ghanaian teach- ers felt that the students’ prior experience and knowledge were not exploited by the textbook (i.e. reason). One teacher therefore added “detailed explanation in order to bring them on board”—perhaps to make the text more relevant to the students (i.e. purpose). Another teacher “creates and integrates engaging contents”—perhaps in order to achieve learner engagement (i.e. purpose) by replacing the text with his own. Two teachers made modifications to “exploit students’ experience and creativ- ity” (i.e. purpose). Bosompem (2014, p. 113) in Study 6 also reports, “‘the level of the students’ and ‘the standard of the learners’ are the basis for adapting textbooks for many teachers” (i.e. reason). Therefore the teachers took measures to make the lan- guage and cognitive demands of the materials become challenging but achievable (i.e.purpose).
r
Teachers (personality, teaching styles, belief about language learning and teaching, etc.). For example, Bosompem (2014, p. 114) mentions a teacher “who makes adapta- tions because his ‘teaching styles’ are different from those found in the textbook” (i.e.reason) to solve the conflict between the methodological differences (i.e. purpose).
She also reports how “Teachers in this study said they make changes to ‘spice the les- son with varieties’ [i.e. purpose]…, to make ‘the lesson interesting’ [i.e. purpose]…, to make ‘teaching and learning fun and easier’ [i.e. purpose]…, and ‘to enrich stu- dents’ awareness and experience’ [i.e.purpose] . . .” In the case of Abdel Latif (2017) the Egyptian secondary school teacher believed in the teacher’s central role in teach- ing but the communicative coursebook incorporated pair and group communication activities in which the teacher’s role is that of facilitator of learner–learner interac- tions (i.e. reason). Therefore, it was decided to use more than half of the lesson time giving a lecture using the board in order to satisfy both the teachers’ and learners’
expectations (i.e. purpose).
r
Course (objectives, syllabus, intended outcomes, etc.). For example, in Grammatosi and Harwood (2014) in Study 2 in a UK university the teacher felt that the book selected by the director was not suitable for the learners (i.e. reason) based on his experience and perception. So, he made some use of the textbook framework as the syllabus but made liberal changes with a lot of use of his own materials and mul- tisourced “textbook cherry-picked” materials to achieve the objectives of the EAP course more effectively (i.e. purpose).r
Materials (texts, tasks, activities, visuals, teacher book, multimedia extras, etc.). For example, in Bolster’s study (2014 and 2015) in Study 4 in a foundation year program in Materials Development for Language Learning
China, 18 experienced teachers thought that the textbooks suffered from such inade- quacies as “out of date topic” and “boring repetition” (i.e. reason); therefore they made changes to make the topics more interesting and they personalised other perceived inadequacies of the textbook (Bolster, 2015, p. 18).
All the eight studies provided ample evidence of how teachers are trying their best to help the students based on their beliefs of how teaching and learning should take place (e.g. encouraging personalization, localization, engagement, practice) and their perceptions of the benefit of the students (e.g. level, interest, relevance, high scores in exams).
We would encourage further pursuit of validity in future studies in relation to reasons and purposes of adaptation by examining whether:
r
teachers’ beliefs are supported by professional development that encourages self- reflection and validation through critical appreciation of the relevant literature;r
learner factors are based on actual data from the learners rather than based on teach- ers’ perceptions;r
there is coherence between five factors (i.e. environment, course, materials, teachers and learners).How Do Teachers Adapt Materials?—Procedures and Techniques of Adaptation
It is interesting to note that procedures of adaptation often seem to be overshadowed or even overlooked in the literature on materials adaptation and in the studies we have looked at. The discussion tends to focus on reasons for and objectives of adaptation and then move onto techniques (e.g. addition, deletion).
Mishan and Timmis (2015, pp. 67–68) advocate the importance of principled pro- cedures and contrast this with a few common examples of “ad hoc adaptation” (e.g. a teacher asking other teachers for a good replacement activity at the last minute). Loh and Renandya (2016, p. 107) argue for teacher education that helps teachers who are making adaptations “in a haphazard way.”
Tomlinson and Masuhara (2004) recommend the following procedures that are designed to help the teachers make their adaptations principled:
r
Step 1. Profiling of teaching contexts (e.g. learner needs, course objectives).r
Step 2. Identifying reasons for adaptation.r
Step 3. Evaluating the existing materials.r
Step 4. Listing objectives for adaptation.r
Step 5. Adapting.r
Step 6. Teaching (Steps 3–7 are cyclical).r
Step 7. Revising.Going through this sequence would be best done as a collaborative task as a part of an in-service professional development program (see Masuhara, 2006 for detailed discus- sion of how each step relates to teacher development). The teachers can actually use their coursebook units and adapt them for subsequent use. Many teachers may think Step 1 to be redundant as they believe that they know their learners and teaching context very well. In our experience, this step is crucial. For example, considering the national direc- tives and curriculum objectives for ELT might have helped the Omani and Egyptian
4 Materials Adaptation
teachers in Studies 5 and 7 to reflect upon the reasoning behind the materials and upon their own practice.
Step 3 requires teachers to articulate a few crucial evaluation criteria (see Chapter 3 in this book). Using this procedure the experienced L1 curriculum transmitter teacher in Study 3 may have realized that mechanical exercises in the grammar textbook were not satisfying SLA principles. The experienced L1 EAP teacher in Study 2 may find himself become even clearer in articulating the justifications behind his adaptation in relation to learning theories and learners. The cyclical nature of suggested materials adaptation procedures can also easily be turned into action research.
Regarding the techniques of adaptation, McGrath (2013, pp. 63–65) makes an attempt to standardize the nagging inconsistencies of terms used for action among eight oft-cited publications for the sake of consistency between adaptation studies.
In the eight studies we looked at, for example, Bolster (2014 and 2015) in Study 4 used categories and explanations from Islam and Mares (2003) that were based on McDonough and Shaw (1993) and Cunningsworth (1995). Bosompem (2014) in Study 6 used various categories from McGrath (2002) and McDonough and Shaw (2003). Loh and Renandya (2016) in Study 8 used the categories in Tomlinson and Masuhara (2004).
Shawer (2010) in Study 1 created some more subcategories based on his data.
As the amount of research on materials adaptation is gradually increasing, it may make sense to try to standardize terms for major categories and subcategories.
We strongly argue that it is vital that adaptation is accepted as an intuitive, organic, dynamic but principled creative process that is stimulated by the teachers’ motivation to provide the best teaching input and approaches for specific learners in a specific context with specific learning objectives. We would discourage the prescribed use of techniques or advice as this could be counteractive or even damaging to teachers’ creativity. Dis- cussion of categories of techniques may come in useful though if we want to investigate why and how teachers go about adapting materials (see Masuhara, 2011 for an extensive discussion of possible research on teacher use).
What Kinds of Resources on Adaptation Are Available?—Teacher Education and Literature According to Graves and Garton (2014, p. 275), the contributors to their edited book pointed out “the paucity of courses in materials design and evaluation in teacher prepa- ration programmes.” Graves and Garton (2014) argue that such teacher professional development courses should weave analysis of coursebooks and how to use and adapt them into core areas such as second language acquisition, methodology and linguis- tics, an approach we would endorse and have advocated. They recommend experiential approaches so that the course participants can actually adapt the materials rather than just learning about adaptation. McGrath (2013, p. 219) seems to share a similar view in saying “Teacher education has a vital part to play in shaping teachers’ attitudes and developing their abilities, and a carefully designed, contextually sensitive and practice- based approach to teacher education in materials evaluation and design…could make a real difference” (see also his discussion on pre- and in-service courses on pp. 89–92). We also use experiential approaches and make use of contextualized simulations in which the trainee teachers have to adapt materials for a specific learning context. We usually act as informants who provide information about the learning context when asked and we act as facilitators in the eventual evaluation of the adapted materials (Tomlinson and Masuhara, 2013).
Materials Development for Language Learning
We welcome more voices joining in what we have been advocating for a long time through our work and through MATSDA (the Materials Development Association, www.matsda.org) (Tomlinson, 1998 and 2011; McDonough et al., 2013; Tomlinson, 2003, 2013a and 2013b). Masuhara (2006) describes step by step how materials adapta- tion tasks can lead to teacher development of the kind advocated by Graves and Garton (2014). Tomlinson and Masuhara (2003 and revised version in 2013), for example, report how they used simulation and problem-solving approaches to materials adaptation and development in MA courses and pre-service and in-service professional development courses. In such courses, the participants actually:
1. Analyze the specific needs of specified learners in specified learning contexts.
2. Consider appropriate methodology that is validated by experience and by SLA research and theory.
3. Develop evaluation criteria for materials being used in the target learning context.
4. Evaluate a unit of a coursebook against the criteria in three above.
5. Adapt the materials for the specific learners and context.
6. Trial the materials and evaluate their effectiveness.
In order to accomplish each stage, they consult the relevant literature with a clear focus in relation to the specific target learners and contexts. This affords critical under- standing and self-reflection. As the simulated tasks are often done collaboratively, the participants have to articulate and justify their beliefs and learn from each other.
There seems to be a growing awareness of the value of materials evaluation, adaptation and development during preservice training. Canniveng and Martinez (2003) discuss the shortcomings of traditional prescriptive teacher training and how materials devel- opment tasks can create opportunities for self-reflection and for nurturing real-life skills required for teachers. Tan (2006, p. 207) reports how student teachers can be helped to become “teacher as researcher” and “teacher as reflective practitioner” through materi- als development experience.
Bouckaert (2015, p. 10), as part of her report on student teachers’ views on mate- rials development, refers to the Dutch survey (Stichting Leerplan Ontwikkeling, [Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development] SLO, 2012) that revealed that nearly 80% of secondary school teachers sometimes or often develop materials as an addition to the coursebook. Yan (2007) reports on how student teachers adapted mate- rials and what effects they found on the learners.