Authenticity of Texts and Tasks
It has been argued that explicit teaching of language through contrived examples and texts helps the learners by focusing their processing energies on the target feature, and this, in our experience, is what most coursebooks typically do. However, many second language acquisition researchers (and teachers) argue that this overprotects the learners, that it contradicts what is known about how languages are acquired, and that it does not prepare them for the reality of language use outside the classroom. Such researchers as Bacon and Finneman (1990), Kuo (1993), Little, Devitt, and Singleton (1989), McGarry (1995), Wong, Kwok, & Choi (1995), Nuttall (1996), Mishan (2005), Gilmore (2007a, 2007b), Rilling and Dantas-Whitney (2009), and Tomlinson (2013a, 2013c, 2016a) argue that authentic materials can provide the rich and meaningful exposure to language in use, which is a prerequisite for language acquisition. Some of them also claim that such exposure can motivate learners, that it can help learners to develop a range of commu- nicative competencies, and that it can enhance positive attitudes towards the learning of a language. Mishan (2005) gives a detailed account of the history of the debate about authenticity and provides a thorough and principled rationale for using authentic mate- rials, as does Trabelsi (2010), who advocates providing university students with materials which are authentic because they “are tailored to the learners’ profile and are suitable to the stakeholders’…expectations and demands” (p. 116).
A number of researchers have compared data from corpora of authentic language use with data from coursebooks and have criticized the lack of authenticity of the coursebooks. For example, Cullen and Kuo (2007) surveyed 24 EFL coursebooks and found only a weak match between the findings of spoken corpora and the materials in the coursebooks. Lam (2010) reports how frequent the discourse particle “well” is in the Hong Kong corpus of Spoken English and yet how infrequent it is in the coursebooks used in Hong Kong. Timmis (2010) finds a mismatch between the intuition-based conversations in an EFL coursebook and those in spoken corpora. Tomlinson (2010c) compares how people typically get others to help them do something in authentic interaction (e.g. by using “If you can …”) with how textbooks advise learners to do
Materials Development for Language Learning
this (e.g. by using the imperative). Cohen and Ishihara (2013) report studies that show how unreliable intuition-based materials are and how underrepresented pragmatic use of the target language is in commercial materials. However, some researchers, such as Widdowson (1984, 2000), Yano, Long and Ross (1994); Day and Bamford (1998), Ellis (1999) and Day (2003) say that authentic materials can cause difficulties for learners (and especially those at lower levels), and they advocate sometimes contriving materials to simplify and focus learning. Widdowson (1984, p. 218), for example, says that “pedagogic presentation of language…necessarily involves methodological contrivance which isolates features from their natural surroundings.” Ellis (1999, p.
68) argues for “enriched input,” which has been deliberately flooded with examples of a target structure for use in a meaning focused activity. Day (2003, p. 2) attacks the
“Cult of Authenticity,” says there is no empirical evidence that authenticity facilitates language acquisition, and provides evidence that learners find authentic texts more difficult than simplified or elaborated texts. Ironically, though, he does quote Wong, Kwok and Choi’s (1995) powerful endorsement of authentic materials: “In particular, authentic materials can help us to achieve the aims of enriching students’ experiences in the learning and use of English, sensitizing them to the use of English in the real world
…” (1995, p. 318). Moore (2014) accepts the responsibility of EAP textbook authors to prepare students for reading EAP texts in the real world but argues for helping them by, for example, introducing the content of a long authentic text first of all through short key sentences or by abridging long texts by removing complex examples.
One thing we experimented with on a project in sub-Saharan Africa was to provide three versions of an EAP text for students to choose from in class (one original, one slightly abridged and one made easier through both subtraction and elaboration). Hav- ing read one of the texts, the students formed groups in which all the members worked together on the same follow up tasks regardless of which version of the text they had read. Brian trialed the materials in Senegal and found that, contrary to the expectations of the teachers, the students did not all opt to read the easiest looking text. He also found that many students who had chosen one of the “easier” versions went back to read the original text after the follow up activities. Unfortunately, this project, like many materials development projects, was never completed for political and economic reasons, so we did not get the opportunity to find out how valuable this approach was on a pan-African scale.
Prodromou (1992) and Trabelsi (2010) raised the issue of authenticity of materials in connection with the learners’ culture. What might be considered authentic in the United Kingdom or the United States might not be considered authentic, for example, in Prodromou’s Greece or Trabelsi’s Tunisia. What is authentic for one learner might be inauthentic for a different learner in the same context. It is argued that it is not the text or the task that is authentic but the learner’s interaction with it. Widdowson (1978) states that a text can be contrived or genuine and its use can be authentic or not. Breen (1985, p. 61) insists on “the authenticity of the learner’s own interpretation” and on the authenticity “of the actual social situation of the classroom,” and Van Lier (1996, p. 128) asserts that authenticity “is basically a personal process of engagement.”
For us an authentic text is one that is produced in order to communicate rather than to teach and an authentic task is one that involves the learners in communication in order to achieve a context based outcome rather than just to practice language or produce output. An authentic text could be produced by a non-native speaker, it could be tailored in order to be comprehensible to a particular level of learner and it might
2 Issues in Materials Development
even be a version of an original that has been elaborated to facilitate communication.
After all, most interactions in English are between non-native speakers and proficient users of English vary their use of English in relation to the age, topic familiarity, and topic competence of their interactants. In our view an authentic task does not have to be a real-life task but can be a classroom task that involves the learners in replicating real-life skills in order to achieve a linguistic or nonlinguistic outcome (e.g. one member of a group getting the others to draw a replica of a painting she has been shown). Given these definitions, we think that every text that learners encounter should be authentic and that most tasks should be authentic too—otherwise the learners are not being pre- pared for the reality of language use. We would not argue that authentic texts and tasks are necessarily more interesting or motivating than contrived texts. It all depends on the affective and / or cognitive engagement achieved by interaction with a text and / or a task for the individual learner. But we would argue that the learners need to be prepared for the unpredictable and varied demands of real-life language use and not just for the predictable demands of examinations. We would also argue that materials are only really authentic to learners if they are of value to them. An authentic menu taken from the web site of the Grosvenor Hotel in Chester (where we usually celebrate special occasions) might be of value to students with an interest in fine dining in Western-style restaurants but is unlikely to be valuable to many students in rural areas in Southeast Asia. Implicit in what is said above is that what is considered authentic in design because it is seen as representative of how the target language is typically used might not be perceived as authentic in action or in reflection because the users do not perceive the relevance or value of the materials. The ideal is therefore for the designers to try to ensure that their materials achieve authenticity in design, in use and in reflection (see Chapter 1 for an explanation of these terms).
A recognition of the significance of the debate about authenticity is a conference ded- icated to the theme of Authenticity in Materials Development held by the Materials Development Association (MATSDA) at the University of Liverpool on June 18–19, 2016 (see www.matsda.org for details of this and other MATSDA conferences). Many arguments were put forward for and against an insistence on authenticity plus many constructive suggestions for preparing students for the reality of language use. See Maley and Tomlinson (in press) for a publication of chapters based on papers from this conference.
Should Materials be Forms Focused or Form Focused?
Forms-focused materials are those that focus on teaching a predetermined language item or language feature. Typically, the teaching point is selected from a prescribed syl- labus which has been developed for a particular type or level of learner and it is taught to the learners explicitly through exemplification, generalization, controlled practice, guided practice, and elicited production. The theory is that, by isolating the teaching point, the learners are being helped to focus, by providing so much concentrated expe- rience the teaching point is being made salient and by gradually increasing the difficulty the learners are being helped to learn. In our experience, most L2 classrooms around the world still feature forms-focused teaching and most L2 coursebooks feature it too. For example, we have just taken the first coursebook we came to in our bookcase,English unlimited pre-intermediate(Tilbury, Clementson, Henra, & Rea, 2010). The table of con- tents specifies the vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation points for each unit together
Materials Development for Language Learning
with goals, skills and “Explore” activities, which are connected with these points. For example, the grammar points for Unit 1 are “present simple, past simple, present pro- gressive,” the vocabulary points are related to music, deciding what to do, sports, exer- cises, and interests, and the pronunciation point is word stress. The activities are inter- estingly personalized but they all focus on one or more of the teaching points, they are mainly practice activities, and none of them involve contextual communication in order to achieve an outcome.
Form-focused materials pay attention primarily to meaning and use. Their texts and activities are chosen for their potential to engage the learners and not to illustrate or provide practice in any particular language item or feature. The learners focus on under- standing the meaning of texts and on communicating meaning to others and in doing so they experience a variety of language items and features. Although their focus is on meaning, the students will pay some attention to form either when they are having problems understanding or communicating meaning or when attention is subsequently drawn to a particular form by the materials or their teacher. While PPP (presentation, practice, production) is the most common methodology in forms-focused materials and in most coursebooks, task-based language teaching (TBLT), text-driven approaches and content, and language integrated learning (CLIL) are typical methodologies for form-focused materials. Task-based language teaching provides the learners with a task requiring the achievement of an effective outcome. Text-driven approaches provide the learners with a potentially engaging text to respond to. Content, and language- integrated learning provides the learners with experience of and / or instruction about a content subject (e.g. physics, football, ballet). All three of these approaches are form focused because they concentrate on the creation and understanding of meaning but also encourage attention to form when this could help or interest the learners. Although form-focused approaches (and the three methodologies mentioned above) are advo- cated by many researchers, very few coursebooks make use of them.
For more information about the principles and procedures of forms-focused and form-focused approaches see Long (1991), Long and Robinson (1998), Ellis, (2001) and Williams (2005), and for more information about the methodologies mentioned in this section see “Methodologies Used in Textbooks” below.
We do not think that you will be very surprised that we favor form-focused materials.
They follow an experiential, principled approach in which learners experience language being used for communication and only pay attention to form when doing so helps them to achieve meaning. We have been using such approaches for many years (e.g. Tomlin- son & Masuhara, 1994) and we have always found learners to be more engaged and motivated by them than by the typical forms-focused activities of the coursebooks.
Methodologies Used in Textbooks
When we look back at coursebooks published since we started teaching, there have been many changes in the methodologies that coursebooks claim to be using but it seems to us that there has been very little change in the pedagogy they actually use. The blurbs on the back of coursebooks change all the time. In the 1960s, they focused on the direct teaching of the target language without the use of translation or explanation; in the early 1970s they said they were using the situational approach, and in the late 1970s they proclaimed that they were using the new communicative approach. Since then the blurbs have claimed to be following natural, topic-based, theme-based or task-based
2 Issues in Materials Development
approaches and most coursebooks today stress that their syllabus is based on the “can do” statements of the Common European Framework. In our opinion, though, since the mid-1970s most coursebooks have actually been and are still using a PPP approach and featuring such low-level, closed-practice exercises as listen and repeat, dialogue repeti- tion and filling in the blanks (Tomlinson, 2015b; Tomlinson, in press). Many researchers have complained that PPP provides only an illusion of language learning, that it is not possible to acquire a language form instantly through such one-off concentrated focus and that there is no theoretical or research based justification for PPP (e.g. Willis &
Willis, 2007). Many of them have also proposed more experiential approaches to devel- oping and using language-learning materials. For example, Bolitho (2003), Bolitho &
Tomlinson (2005) Bolitho et al. (2003), and Tomlinson (1994, 2007) have proposed a lan- guage awareness approach involving learners first experiencing an authentic text holis- tically and then analyzing it with a view to making discoveries for themselves about language use. Tomlinson (2013b, 2016a) has developed a text-driven approach in which the learners first respond to a potentially engaging text personally before making use of it as a stimulus for language use and a resource for language discovery. “Prabhu (1987), Ellis (1998, 2003, 2011), Van den Branden (2006), Willis (1996) and Willis and Willis (2007) have advocated task-driven approaches in which the ‘learners” target is task com- pletion and the teacher’s objective is language development” (Tomlinson, 2012a, p. 160).
And Masuhara (2006) and Tomlinson (2001b) have suggested using a multi-dimensional approach to materials development in which the learners are helped to make use of sen- sory imaging, motor imaging and inner speech during their experience and production of language in use. What all these innovative approaches seem to have in common is a move away from discrete teaching points driving instructional material to a focus on language in use. The emphasis is on facilitating learning rather than promoting teaching, an emphasis that most of the plenary and parallel papers have shared at recent MATSDA conferences at Queen’s University Belfast, the University of Liverpool and the University of Limerick.
There have been some pedagogical innovations in published materials, especially in the supplementary materials published in the 1970s and 1980s, which featured commu- nicative activities, and in some recently published resource books for teachers. How- ever, most of the innovative core materials we know about have been on projects. We know, for example, of projects that have used Total Physical Response and discovery approaches for young beginners, for example the PKG (By the Teacher for the Teacher) project in Indonesia (Tomlinson, 1995), and of projects that have followed a text-driven approach (Tomlinson, 1995, 2013b), a task-based approach (Prabhu, 1987) or a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach (Eurydice, 2006), and we have been personally involved in the development of published text-driven materials in China, Ethiopia, Oman, Singapore, and Turkey. The most popular approach in the literature at the moment seems to be the task-based approach in which the learners are set tasks in which they use the language at their disposal to achieve linguistic or nonlinguistic outcomes (e.g. arrangements for a trip, an agenda for a meeting, a presentation on a contentious issue, the solution to a problem, a design for a new vehicle). There are many books that outline the theory and procedures of task-based approaches (e.g. Ellis, 2003;
Nunan, 2004; Willis & Willis, 2007) and some publications that give advice relevant to materials development for task-based approaches (e.g. Bygate, Skehan & Swain, 2001;
Samuda & Bygate, 2008; Masuhara, 2015). After all this time, though, there are very few books that report task-based materials development projects or which exemplify
Materials Development for Language Learning
classroom materials. One book that does both is Van den Branden (2006). It includes chapters on developing task materials for beginners (Duran & Ramaut, 2006), for pri- mary and secondary education (Van Gorp & Bogaert, 2006), and for science educa- tion and vocational training (Bogaert, Van Gorp, Bultynck, Lanssens, & Depauw, 2006).
Another book that reports the development and use of task-based materials is Thomas and Reinders (2015), which contains chapters on the use of task-based materials in many countries in Asia. Foster and Hunter (2016) and Mackey, Ziegler and Bryfonski (2016) consider applications of SLA research to materials for task based learning. However, we know of no currently available coursebook that features task-based materials, despite claims to the contrary. See Mishan (2013) for a critique of a global coursebook claiming to be task based and also for reference to a coursebook that is task based (Widgets—
Benevides & Valvona, 2008).
Another approach that is popular both in the literature and on projects nowadays is CLIL, an approach in which the learners focus on learning content knowledge and skills (e.g. geography, playing a sport, cultivating crops) while gaining experience of using English. Again, there are many publications focusing on the principles and procedures of CLIL but very few proposing procedures for materials development. One publication that does focus on materials development for CLIL is Coyle, Hood, & Marsh (2010), which includes a chapter on “Evaluating and creating materials and tasks for CLIL classrooms.”
Our own preference, you will not be surprised to discover, is the text-driven approach in which a written or spoken text selected for its potential for affective and / or cognitive engagement drives a unit of materials in which readiness activities activate the learners’
minds in relation to the text, initial response activities stimulate learner engagement whilst experiencing the text, intake response activities encourage the development and articulation of personal responses, input response activities involve exploration of lin- guistic or pragmatic features of the text, and development activities invite learners to use language for communication in relation to the core text (Tomlinson, 2013b). Admittedly there is, as yet, little empirical evidence to prove the effectiveness of this and of other experiential approaches, just as there is no published empirical evidence that we know of to prove the effectiveness of PPP or of other typical coursebook approaches, despite Hadley’s (2014) claim to the contrary. There are, though, research indications of the effectiveness of text-driven approaches in relation to student engagement, motivation and performance, such as Al-Busaidi and Tindle (2010); McCullugh (2010); Troncoso (2010); Heron (2013, 2016); Darici and Tomlinson (2016). What we need is research to find out which pedagogical approaches to materials development best facilitate language acquisition in the classroom. This would be very challenging because of the difficulty of controlling learner variables, teacher variables, and out-of-class experience of the lan- guage but we believe that attempts to achieve it could be very informative, especially if undertaken on a large scale in many different learning contexts.