4 Materials Adaptation
from scratch. Their materials development project is reported in Al-Busaidi and Tindle (2010).
The Growing Significance of Adaptation: Is Adaptation a Necessity or an Option?
How significant is materials adaptation? Our answer to this question has always been
“Very significant” but we now need to rephrase our response as “phenomenally signifi- cant.” Traditionally, materials adaptation has been known as small changes that a lot of teachers make in some form or another which are not well studied or supported in the literature or in training courses (see the state-of-the art review by Tomlinson, 2012 for an overview).
In our critical review of the up-to-date literature on adaptation and teacher use of materials, we have found overwhelming evidence to support the fact that adaptation has become a necessity rather than an option in most cases, whether the coursebooks are commercially produced or are nationally / institutionally tailored.
What brought about this heightened necessity for adaptation? We need to look at the two major paradigm shifts that have been taking place since the mid-1990s. One of them is the division between materials producers and users and the other is ownership of “English.”
Paradigm Shift 1: Division between Materials Producers and Users
The global demands of ELT and the proliferation of ESL / EFL commercial coursebooks in the 1980s deepened the division between professional materials producers of “global courses” and their users. As a result, Masuhara (1998, revised 2011, pp. 248–249) points out that the major parts of coherent course design seem to have been, in effect, taken over by materials producers (i.e. writers and publishers). Needs analysis seems to have been replaced by publishers’ market research (note that financial feasibility and prof- itability are the main driving forces), syllabus design is manifested as a course map devised by writers / publishers and selection of methodology is embodied in activities and instructions. The only influence actual material users (i.e. administrators, teachers and learners) have is through selection of a ready-made coursebook and / or through teachers’ or learners’ flexible use of it (e.g. adaptation, supplementation). As Forman (2014, p. 72) puts it, after reviewing the relevant literature, “For the majority of foreign language teachers and students across the globe, the textbook is the curriculum” (for confirmation, see Guerrettaz & Johnston, 2013; Garton & Graves, 2014; Richards, 2014).
The division between materials producers and users creates a mismatch between the materials and the target users’ needs and wants, their curriculum, syllabus and preferred methodology. At the moment, there is “geographical, cultural and linguistic distance between the producers of many coursebooks and the people who use them” (Tomlinson and Masuhara, 2010, p. 414). The bigger the distance the more likely the mismatch.
There is a crucial unanswered question here: who oversees the coherence and con- sistency of course design and curriculum implementation in terms of validity and reli- ability of language learning when there is a chasm between the material producers and users? In a traditional course design, materials were considered last as the result of edu- cational deliberation, the present reality, however, is that materials exist first in the mar- ket regardless of the fit to the users’ social contexts, curriculum, teachers’ or learners’
needs and wants. Guerrettaz and Johnston (2013), gained their carefully triangulated
Materials Development for Language Learning
multiple data from a study of an intensive ESL grammar course at a mid-Western pub- lic university in the United States and demonstrate that class materials do constitute the primary source of the curriculum and also that “83% of the classroom discourse was related to the materials” (Guerrettaz & Johnston, 2013, p. 785)—with discourse being, of course, a potential major source of language acquisition and educational development.
If such evidence was supported by more studies, the accountability of the coursebook- based curriculum would have to be scrutinized in terms of its educational validity and effectiveness.
Some users may take the initiative in making flexible use of coursebooks as resources in order to retain their control over teaching and learning (e.g. Gray, 2000; Wette, 2009;
Bolster, 2014, 2015). In some countries, the ministry of education develops and provides the national textbooks and in other countries there is a strict authorization process so materials producers have to adhere strictly to guidelines (Mukundan, 2008; Richards, 2014; Loh & Renandya, 2016). But there are studies that show how teachers tend to revere the impressively produced commercial coursebooks by international publishers and rigidly use them as a script (Bacha, Ghosn, & McBeath, 2008). The Dogme argu- ment (Thornbury, 2005; Meddings and Thornbury, 2009), in which Thornbury advo- cates the teachers’ independence from ready-made coursebooks, could be described as an attempt to restore the broken link in course design and as teachers regaining the control over the whole process of ensuring effective teaching and learning.
Paradigm Shift 2: Global English for a Multiplicity of Cultures
The second paradigm shift behind the unprecedented need for adaptation is the surge of English as an international language (EIL) across the globe. Masuhara, Mishan, and Tomlinson (2017) collected 16 studies conducted by teachers and researchers on their materials evaluation, adaptation and development practice from 12 countries (i.e.
Australia, Cyprus, Egypt, Hong Kong, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Lebanon, Oman, Russia, the United Kingdom, Vietnam). What these reports provide is startling evidence of how the global expansion of EIL and available technologies are resulting in a phenomenal diversity of teaching situations and learner needs (e.g. English for firefighter training in Vietnam; the use of social media and online resources in order to develop learner- generated materials in Italy). The ongoing advancement of technology seems to accel- erate diversification of delivery modes of language learning—e.g. blended learning, M-learning, individualization of learning (Kern, 2013; Mishan, 2013; Tomlinson &
Whittaker, 2013). Garton & Graves (2014) with 15 studies from nine countries also iden- tify such tendencies in materials development.
What the adaptation studies in Garton and Graves (2014) and Masuhara et al. (2016) provide is plenty of evidence for the wide-ranging, complex and dynamic reality of teach- ing EIL and the teachers’ efforts to adjust coursebooks for their learners by adaptation or to develop their own materials.
Graddol (2006) noted, “The new language which is rapidly ousting the language of Shakespeare as the world’s lingua franca is English itself—English in its new global form.”
One of his future projections in 2006 included, “Native-speaker norms are becoming less relevant as English becomes a component of basic education in many countries.”
Pennycook (2010, p. 685) describes the current situation of English being used around the world as English as a “translingua franca” in which speakers from different locali- ties negotiate meaning using the semiotic resources available to them at the time (see also Canagarajah, 2007). In this era of “world Englishes” (Kirkpatrick, 2010), the aura of the socio-economical, educational, cultural hegemony of the native speaker of English
4 Materials Adaptation
“inner circle” (as described in Kachru, 1992) seems to have faded somewhat for the learners who want to learn English as a basic skill to enhance advancement in their own environment for their global or local aspirations. See Saraceni (2015) for an insightful and provocative investigation of the impact of the increase in use and status of “world Englishes.”
The production of a coursebook requires “a large investment of time, effort, and finan- cial resources by authors and publishers” (Richards, 2014, p. 20). Amrani (2011, p. 271) explains from a publisher’s point of view, “an error . . . for a publisher . . . is more likely to be a significant loss of venue and, potentially, jobs”. The ELT coursebook market has become so global, diverse and dynamic that it would be a physical and economic impos- sibility for any materials producers to conduct market research (unless it is projected to be financially viable) or to even consider a new project for particular target users.
Shin, Eslami, & Chen (2011) analyzed seven series of internationally distributed ELT textbooks. Their study shows that even though cultural aspects were proportionally diverse in each textbook series, native speakers’ cultural content and the ideologies underlying it still dominate most textbooks. They also found that cultural presentation still largely remains at the traditional knowledge-oriented level and does not engage learners in deep levels of reflection.
It is not difficult to find studies that report shortcomings of cultural representations in commercially available materials (e.g. Ghosn, 2013; Forman, 2014; Messekher, 2014;
Ottley, 2014; Tasseron, 2017). Forman (2014), for example, describes how highly quali- fied and experienced Thai teachers felt uneasy using global coursebooks “published by Western companies which embrace Western values, are monolingual in English, and are marketed in non-Anglophone as well as Anglophone contexts” (Forman, 2014, p. 75) and gives an example:
In terms of content, this particular textbook, in common with many others on the market, promotes various individualistic, aspirational, and Western dis- courses. In the episodes examined here, these included travelling, consuming, and complaining—all of which were not only largely irrelevant to Thai and presum- ably many other students’ lives, but in some cases ran directly counter to cultural expectations. (Forman, 2014, p. 85)
Bell and Gower (1998; revised version 2011, p. 137) clarify from the materials writers’
perspectives that the term “global coursebook” is misleading when it “really means a coursebook for a restricted number of teaching situations in many different countries rather than all teaching situations in all countries.” They go on to explain what may lie behind the fierce arguments for and against the so-called “global coursebook: the all- singing, all-dancing, glitzy (expensive) multimedia package with a dedicated web site of extras, usually produced in a native-speaker situation but destined for the world with all the language in the book (including rubrics) in the target language” (Bell & Gower, p. 137).
Bell and Gower (2011) also show their full awareness of a potential cultural mismatch if the material written in one context is adopted inappropriately in another context by the decision makers and / or misused in practice. They therefore advocate flexible use through adaptation or supplementation to make the materials more appropriate for local contexts. Harmer (2001, p. 8) explains how coursebooks are intended to be used:
coursebooks like any lesson plan . . ., are proposals for action, not instructions for use. Teachers look at these proposals and decide if they agree with them, if they
Materials Development for Language Learning
want to do things in the way the book suggests, or if, on the contrary, they are going to make changes, replacing things, modifying activities, approaching texts differently, or tackling a piece of grammar in a way which they, through experience know to be more effective . . . (Harmer, 2001, p. 8)
Richards (2014) emphasizes how materials producers are trying to be sensitive to cul- tural appropriacy:
textbooks today are much more culturally sensitive than their predecessors. Pub- lishers and writers seek to ensure that their textbooks reflect progressive and politically acceptable values. Efforts are made to avoid social bias and ethnocen- trism, and to reflect universal human concerns, needs, and values in their con- tent. Often guidelines are provided for authors. Part of one publisher’s guide- lines suggests maintaining a 50–50 balance between the sexes: numerically and in terms of the significance and prominence of the activity illustrated; within schools and across the series, to aim for a gender-neutral style of illustra- tion; to use illustrations that include all physical types, with occasional evi- dence of physical disability; and to avoid images with a stereotypical association.
(Richards, 2014, p. 27)
An alternative approach to cultures is suggested by Benjamin (2015):
When used to describe EFL materials in the Middle East, the phrase “culturally appropriate” often means that the materials do not risk offending Islamic beliefs.
However, Middle Eastern learners have other shared interests and activities, and are proud of their heritage and national treasures just as any other group of learn- ers would be. In short, delivering culturally appropriate EFL classes to Muslims involves realising and embracing the fact that they enjoy a rich and diverse culture alongside Islam, and tapping in to the distinctive characteristics and activities that motivate Muslim learners and give them their desire to learn. (Benjamin, 2015, p. 30)
Ottley (2016) shares a similar positive view on cultural engagement and shares some concrete examples of how an outsider teacher like himself was able to offer valuable lan- guage support using culturally relevant adapted or developed materials through collab- oration with his local students. Ghosn (2013) provides empirically supported arguments for using stories with universal themes to be incorporated into primary school materi- als to facilitate language acquisition in a meaningful and relevant way regardless of local cultures.
What is noteworthy is that local teachers are likely to have different views on mate- rials with socioculturally or ideologically sensitive contents (e.g. Tasseron, 2017, from the Sultanate of Oman; Bosompen, 2014, from Ghana with multicultural, multiethnic, and multireligious contexts). Scotland (2014) discusses the conflict between the local culture and the Western teachers’ cultures, which affected the teachers’ professional identity in Qatar, and describes how these Western teachers took varied actions for resolution.
4 Materials Adaptation
The gaps between commercial coursebooks and the realities of learning EIL in vari- ous parts of the globe seem to be one of the major reasons compelling the teachers con- sciously or subconsciously to adapt and or supplement commercially published materi- als or develop their own materials.
We strongly argue that adaptation should be given far more significance and sup- port from authorities, teacher educators, researchers, curriculum developers and other stakeholders. It is promising, though, that there seems to be growing awareness of the pivotal role that materials play in various fields such as education, curriculum develop- ment, EIL, world Englishes, and cultural studies.
Who Does Adaptation?
A growing number of publications, conference presentations and some international teacher development courses (e.g. CELTA, DELTA) seem to focus on adaptation con- ducted by teachers. This probably is a reflection of the reality that teachers around the globe are striving daily to prepare and deliver appropriate teaching to multilevel students in their diverse situations.
Before we begin our exploration of teacher adaptation, it may be worth noting that there are cases in which other agents initiate or participate in adaptation. For example, Saraceni (2013) advocates providing learners with an important role in adapting materi- als and proposes ways of helping them to become able to do so. Such an approach seems to offer a more direct alternative way of incorporating learner needs and wants, bypass- ing the reported problems associated with needs analysis studies (e.g. learners’ impres- sionistic, contradictory and often elliptical responses that are difficult for researchers to interpret). It is reassuring to see a gradually increasing number of publications on learner contributions to materials evaluation, adaptation, and development. For exam- ple, McGrath (2013) refers to some studies on Southeast Asian learners’ reactions to being involved in developing materials or using learner-devised materials in his chapter on “learner perspectives.” Cases of collaboration between learners and teacher-materials writers are reported in Jolly and Bolitho’s (2011) account of how a group of materials writers trialed and adapted their materials incorporating learner feedback as part of the materials development process. Edwards and Burns (2015) show how their action research, incorporating students’ needs and feedback when adapting assessment as well as materials, led to improvements in the curriculum of Australian English-language intensive courses for overseas students.
Other agents for adaptation could be materials writers, publishers, regional educa- tional boards or ministries of education in various countries. Santos (2015) describes what led to the revision of her original coursebook and how she conducted its adap- tation, supplementation and development (see also Feak & Swales, 2014). Both Amrani (2011) and Singapore Wala (2013) provide publishers’ perspectives on how evaluation of manuscripts through trialing and feedback lead to publisher / writer adaptation during the production process. In our own experience of various materials development con- sultancies, some publishers use adaptation on a large scale. They request materials writ- ers to produce a prototype English language teaching course for roughly specified target users (e.g. young adults in Spain) with an intention of adapting it for different regions later (L´opez Barrios, & Villanueva de Debat, 2006, report such a case in Argentina). On
Materials Development for Language Learning
an even larger scale, some ministries of education are interested in adapting an exist- ing coursebook so that the content will be better suited for their cultures and their curriculums.
Overview of This Adaptation Chapter
We have been working with many teachers around the world through numerous materi- als development courses (e.g. MAs, short courses for national and international clients, including Ministries of Education), conferences and institutional, national and interna- tional consultancies. What we have found was that teachers seem to adapt their materi- als all the time before, during and after teaching in diverse contexts. What these teachers have told us includes that they:
r
often feel the need to improve the given materials for their specific learners and con- texts;r
feel frustrated as they tend to have little freedom, time, expertise or energy to adapt materials;r
have varied feelings and attitudes toward their own adapted materials according to their beliefs, confidence and teaching experience;r
do not seem to be able to find a lot of publications on adaptation;r
have not been given much training, if at all, in adaptation;r
fear that by adapting existing materials they may be interfering with the coherence of courses which, they believe, have been carefully prepared by experts, endorsed by the authorities and presented to students and parents.Do teachers adapt materials? Why do teachers adapt / not adapt materials? What do teachers adapt materials for? How do they go about adaptation? How do we know that their adaptations are valid and effective? What kinds of resources on adaptation are available?
In this chapter we will explore these questions by critically evaluating the literature, including the growing number of empirical research studies on teacher use of mate- rials. We will consider issues and try to identify principles and systematic procedures for materials adaptation. Lastly, we will provide some examples of adaptation that we believe to be principled, effective and verifiable.