5 A framework for materials writing
Exercise 1 Students in British language school classroom doing exercises in pairs as suggested; the focus here is on
5.4 Conclusions
A framework for materials writing
127 NOTES MADE
language
exploration FOOD:
CLOTHES:
Special questions – quantity/amount General questions – types? sizes?
Special questions – colours, sizes, materials General questions – colours? materials?
(Items: jeans, blouses, shirts, skirts, socks …) pedagogical
realisation signs on cards ! = REQUEST
? = QUESTION
Examples of Materials Written physical
production
material?
blue?
grey?
sizes?
2!
Chianti?
£?
1½ litres!
cotton?
colours?
sizes?
cost?
1!
Irish?
cost?
1½ kilos!
PEDAGOGICAL REALISATION AND USE further
EXPLORATION after
IDENTIFICATION PEDAGOGICAL REALISATION
they can do it in groups first … one group doing the food cards and one doing the clothes and one for the pharmacy and so on … then I can shuffle the cards and they can practise on me as the shop assistant … not a bad role if you work it up … they can take random cards further … hang on ... they were having problems with containers and things so maybe I’d better do a preliminary exercise on that ... box, packet, sachet, tube tub, car, tin ball, packet, carton, bundle ... any more ... ? I’ll go and look in the cupboard downstairs ... yes bottle, mustn’t forget that one! … yes I’ll give them a simple list of items and they can give me the right containers … or do it with each other and then have me check them … now, I’d better make some notes on all this before I forget it …
The process of materials writing
128
1 Materials writing is at its most effective when it is turned to the needs of a particular group of learners.
Sooner or later, every teacher of any subject comes up against a need to write materials. How they respond to this need depends on all sorts of variables:
• the prevailing norms in a specific educational context
• the amount of time available
• the availability of reprographic facilities
• the teacher’s background and training
• in some contexts, teachers are expected to adhere rigidly to a pre
scribed coursebook
• most teachers are too busy to contemplate writing their own mat
erial from scratch, though there are few who do not adapt their textbooks in some way
• photocopying and other forms of reproduction depend on the avail
ability of technical backup and supplies of paper
• materials evaluation, adaptation and production are often neglected or underemphasised on initial training courses.
British publishers do great business in many parts of the world with massmarket English language coursebooks. In Eastern and Central Europe, for example, in the years immediately after the collapse of Communism, the welcome given to Discoveries, the Cambridge English Course, Headway and similar courses was, after decades of restriction, understandably warm. Yet, in many countries in the region, the initial enthusiasm was quick to wear off, and a number of them have now produced and are using their own ‘homegrown’
school textbooks. The logic is inescapable. A ‘homeproduced’ course
book, if it is well produced, stands a much greater chance of success locally simply because the authors are more aware of the needs of learners in that context, and are able to design the materials in such a way as to fit in with their own learning and teaching traditions, and with the conceptual world of the learners. Put another way, the fur
ther away the author is from the learners, the less effective the mater
ial is likely to be.
To sum up, the most effective materials are those which are based on a thorough understanding of learners’ needs, that is their language difficulties, their learning objectives, their styles of learning, the stage of their conceptual development and so on. This implies a learning
centred approach to materials writing, rather than one which is driven purely by the subject through syllabus specifications, inventories of language items and so on.
A framework for materials writing
129 2 Teachers understand their own learners best.
Teachers understand their learners’ needs and their preferred learning styles. The more they become sensitive and responsive to these needs, the more they become involved in researching their own classrooms.
Indeed, we believe that the teacher as materials writer belongs firmly in the (recent) tradition of the teacher as researcher (see Burns 1999).
3 All teachers need a grounding in materials writing.
It is not until teachers have attempted to produce their own materials that they finally begin to develop a set of criteria to evaluate materials produced by others. Only then does the full range of options, from blind acceptance of other materials, through adaptation and supple
mentation, to the production of ‘purposebuilt’ materials, become clear. The process of materials writing raises almost every issue which is important in learning to teach: the selection and grading of lan
guage, awareness of language, knowledge of learning theories, socio
cultural appropriacy – the list could be extended. And to extend point 2 above, the current emphasis on action research in teacher education programmes needs to be backed up by the establishment of materials writing as a key component of initial training courses and a regular feature of inservice training programmes. Teachers need to be enabled to write their own materials when circumstances demand it, not only in order to reduce their dependency on published materials but also as a means of professional development (see Popovici and Bolitho 2003).
4 All teachers teach themselves.
Teachers teach specific groups of learners, as discussed above. They also, inevitably, ‘teach themselves’ and this has powerful implications when it comes to the materials they are to teach with. All the evidence we have gathered from teachers we have worked with suggests per
suasively that ‘teaching against the grain’ leads to dissatisfaction, loss of confidence and learning failure. Enabling teachers to produce their own effective materials minimises this possibility and helps them to
‘teach themselves’.
5 Trialling and evaluation are vital to the success of any materials.
Learners are the users of materials, and we have to heed their opin
ions and listen to their feedback. This is easy enough for teacher
writers, working with their own group of learners. Yet it is a message which many publishers have been slow to take on board. Even when trialling takes place, it is most often teachers’ feedback, rather than
The process of materials writing
130
learners’, which is sought. In presenting our framework, we hope to have demonstrated how evaluation, by both learners and teachers, based on learning objectives, can cut down on wasted time and effort and result in clear pinpointing of the steps which require attention in the subsequent process of revision (see McGrath 2002).
Part of our purpose in writing this chapter has been to help to empower teacherreaders to write their own material within a princi
pled framework arising from our experience. Learning to write mate
rials is, inevitably, a matter of trial and error. We hope that the steps we have described will at least provide a generative model which will cut down on some of the risks involved and help the reader to feel more secure whilst experimenting.
References
Abbs, B. and I. Freebairn. 1980. Developing Strategies. Harlow: Longman.
Alptekin, C. 2002. ‘Towards intercultural competence in ELT’. English Language Teaching Journal, 56(1): 57–64.
Burns, A. 1999. Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K. 2003. Designing Language Teaching Tasks. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
McGrath, I. 2002. Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Popovici, R. and R. Bolitho. 2003. ‘Professional development through writ
ing’. In B. Tomlinson (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching.
London: Continuum.
Widdowson, H. 1996. ‘Authenticity and autonomy in ELT’. English Language Teaching Journal, 50(1): 67–8.
Appendix
A materials writer’s kitbag
The list below is neither a conventional bibliography nor a set of refer
ences. It consists of books, procedures and thinking prompts which we have found useful at each stage of the materialswriting process.
Readers may wish to add to it from their own experience.
A framework for materials writing
131
Stage Suppport, resources and procedures
1. Identification Questionnaires; feedback from students in class;
formal or informal diagnosis of errors and shortcomings in learners’ competence; analysis of existing course materials; precourse needs analysis.
Dubin, F. and E. Olshtain. 1986. Course Design.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DudleyEvans, T. and MJ. St John. 1998.
Developments in English for Specific Purposes.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hutchinson, T. and A. Waters. 1987. English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. 1988. Syllabus Design.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Exploration Syllabus models (e.g. in the books under
‘Identification’ above); a copy of your own syllabus.
Alexander, L. G. et al. 1975. English Grammatical Structure. Harlow: Longman.
Arndt, V. et al. 2000. Alive to Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D. et al. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
Bolitho, R. and B. Tomlinson. 1995. Discover English, 2nd revised edn. Oxford: Heinemann.
Bowers, R. G. et al. 1987. Talking About Grammar. Harlow: Longman.
Carter, R. and M. McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge Grammar Of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hornby, A. S. 2010. Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, 7th edn.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leech, G. and J. Svartvik. 2003. A
Communicative Grammar of English, 3rd edn.
Harlow: Longman.
The process of materials writing
132
Longman. 2005. The Language Activator, 3rd edn. Harlow: Longman.
Longman. 2009. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 5th edn.
Harlow: Longman.
McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Parrott, M. 2010. Grammar for English Language Teachers, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swan, M. 2005. Practical English Usage, 3rd edn.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swan, M. and B. Smith. 2001. Learner English, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Access to as much published/unpublished material as possible.
3. Contextual
realisation Exponentially expanding, organised and assorted collection of visuals.
Large collection of written texts, conveniently organised (e.g. by texttype, topic, degree of complexity, etc.).
Large collection of listening material, similarly organised.
Video material, too, if equipment is available.
Keddie, J. 2009. Images. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maley, A. and F. Grellet. 1981. The Mind’s Eye (Student’s Book and Teacher’s Book).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. 1988. The Learner-Centred Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Access to as much published/unpublished material as possible.
Exercise and activity typologies.
4. Pedagogical
realisation Familiarity with as many generative frameworks as possible.
Ideas magazines, e.g. Modern English Teacher, English Teaching Professional.
A framework for materials writing
133 Byrd, P. (ed.). 1995. Materials Writers’ Guide.
Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Collie, J. and S. Slater. 1987. Literature in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellington, H. et al. 1993. A Handbook of Educational Technology. London: Kogan Page.
Ellington, H. and P. Race. 1993. Producing Teaching Material, 2nd edn. London: Kogan Page.
Gairns, R. and S. Redman. 1986. Working With Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grellet, F. 1982. Developing Reading Skills.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, M. 1997. Implementing the Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ur, P. 2009. Grammar Practice Activities, 2nd edn.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Willis, J. 1996. A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Harlow: Longman.
Wright, A. et al. 2006. Games for Language Learning, 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Useful Websites
www.teflclips.com (YouTube lesson plans) www.onestopenglish.com
www.teachingenglish.org.uk
5. Physical production Pens / inks / pencils / rubbers / TippEx® fluid /
‘luminous’ text markers / scissors / ruler / gluestick / paste / stencils / Letraset / computer or word processor.
Cards / card / labels / laminating roll or laminator / polythene envelopes.
Access to a photocopier / thermal copier / scanner / print shop.
Extra copy of text, source material, etc. for first draft.
Secure systems for storing masters (either physically or electronically).
The process of materials writing
134
Files containing single copy of all materials in which updating and revision notes can be made.
Ellington, H. et al. 1993. A Handbook of Educational Technology. London: Kogan Page.
Ellington, H. and P. Race. 1993. Producing Teaching Materials, 2nd edn. London: Kogan Page.
Leach, R. 1985. Making Materials.
London: National Extension College.
Rowntree, D. 1990. Teaching through Self-Instruction. London: Kogan Page (especially Chapters 8–12).
6. Evaluation Phials containing small doses of courage and honesty enabling the writer to throw away materials that do not work or cease
to enchant.
Feedback from students and colleagues on quality, effectiveness and interest value of materials.
McGrath, I. 2002. Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
ReaDickens, P. and K. Germaine. 1992.
Evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tomlinson, B. 2003. ‘Materials evaluation’. In B. Tomlinson (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum.
135