Beliefs About The Criteria For Developing Supplementary Materials

The negligence in the “general knowledge related to learners’ own lives and experience” and “students’ background and culture” lay in the way teachers fulfill learners’ needs. Data from the interview depicted a teacher-centered approach to teaching where teachers deployed a particular supplementary material in accordance with their beliefs of its effectiveness and applicability. For instance, teachers P3 and P7 had a similar practice of developing reading materials:

“… the supplementary materials must match student’s level [of language proficiency]. Regarding their level, I can consider the length of the reading text. For example, if the students’ level is at band 4.0 IELTS, it will be inappropriate to have them read a seven-paragraph text…” (Teacher P3, 08/08/2020)

Teacher P6 additionally draw entirely on her perception of learners’ understanding of a reading passage:

“… it is impossible to choose a reading passage at band 7.0-8.0 for students who are at band 3.5 IELTS… I myself perceive whether students can understand the text…” (Teacher P6, 24/08/2020)

Among the interview participants, only P9 and P10 said they followed the students’ preferences. Despite that, P10 still counted much on his assumption of what was motivational.

Có thể bạn quan tâm!

Xem toàn bộ 192 trang tài liệu này.

“There are students who do not like learning too many vocabularies but prefer practicing developing ideas. Then, I will include more parts related to critical thinking. (Teacher P9, 29/07/2020)

“I often modify supplementary materials with respect to the timelines of events. Those events that both teachers and students know are included to motivate learners” (Teacher P10, 24/08/2020)

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION

Teachers participating in the current thesis have showcased invaluable data on the issue of IELTS supplementary materials development. In this chapter, the provided data was further discussed to depict the relationships between teachers’ beliefs and practice regarding developing supplementary materials. Three issues were taken into account in accordance with the research questions.

5.1. Teachers’ beliefs about IELTS supplementary materials

5.1.1. Beliefs about the concept of supplementary materials

Results from the combination of data from the survey and interview depicted that teachers tended to agree the most with the notion of IELTS supplementary materials as extra exercises used in addition to the course books provided by their language centers. Noticeably, teachers in the current survey appeared to have a narrow view of core materials which has been determined in the Literature review. Following that, the notion of “core materials” can be put on a continuum where, at one end, they restrict to only the student’s book and comprise the accompanying components at the other. The restricted view was manifested through the choice of coursebooks add-ons as supplementary materials. One teacher (P10) even associated coursebooks add-ons with supplementary materials.

It is obvious that IELTS textbooks recently have been accompanied by a wide array of add-ons such as workbooks, online practice, or CD-ROM. In her review of current IELTS coursebooks, Wilson (2010) observed world-famous publishers, namely Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and Macmillan, include such add- ons in their IELTS preparation materials. The density of these additional materials is supposed to narrow down the gap between learners and coursebooks. However, teachers still believe it is compulsory to offer other supplementary materials for learners. It was

evident that they consulted, selected from other commercial textbooks, and even designed their own worksheet. This may reflect what McGrath (2002) assumes: teachers feel that students need to interact with various “textual material” or “practice of particular kinds” (pp. 81-82).

On the other hand, teachers seemed not to have a positive attitude toward “collections of communicative games and activities.” It may be because most IELTS courses focus on the strategies to get a high score in the examination. Therefore, there is no room for practicing other communicative skills. This result indicated a strong washback effect of IELTS on the content of teaching. The finding was consistent with that of Nguyen et al. (2020). In their report on the impact of IELTS on language teachers in Central Vietnam, these authors discovered that the supplementary materials were developed in accordance with the IELTS test format for better preparation for the examination. Although the teachers in their study were autonomous in choosing material, they all employed IELTS-related materials from various sources.

5.1.2. Beliefs about the reason to develop supplementary materials

The reasons to deploy supplementary materials were numerous. Overall, teachers used them to provide extra exercises that can compensate for the weakness of the core materials or fulfill the needs of learners. As for the drawbacks, teachers believed ready- made textbooks bear little resemblance to the actual test. That is, they cannot catch up with the trends and levels of difficulty in the IELTS test. This finding confirmed previous results in Nguyen and Ho (2019). In their article, the authors pointed out that the main reason for teachers to use supplementary materials lay in the differences between the content of the core material and the examination.

Previous literature has also indicated one of the most remarkable problems of ready- made textbooks, which is related to the fulfillment of learners’ needs (e.g., Brumfit, 1980;

Gray, 2000; McGrath, 2002; Jolly & Bolitho, 2011) – learners’ levels of language proficiency, in this case. The results to emerge from the thesis illustrated that only necessities and lack (based on the need framework by Nation and Macalister (2010)) were addressed. In other words, teachers thought that their students could not decide on what to learn and thus, had to follow teachers’ instructions and materials. This finding confirmed the impact of learners’ expectations, learning goals, and learners’ levels of language proficiency on the decision of materials selection (Nguyen et al., 2020). However, this is not necessarily the case. Nation and Macalister (2010) suggested that teachers could negotiate with learners about the teaching content through what is called “process syllabus” (pp. 149-150). The exclusion of students from the process of materials development may lead to a plunge in learners’ motivation and enthusiasm. In an article about supplementary materials in teaching speaking skills, Nguyen and Nguyen (2020) show that students take an interest in some forms of materials while losing in others. Moreover, what students needed was almost grounded on teachers’ intuition and beliefs. Only one among the interviewed participants reported using a short test at the beginning of the course to detect learners’ levels. This agrees with the third factor influencing teachers’ selection of what to teach – their beliefs (Nguyen et al., 2020). In essence, Burrows (2004) proposes a new washback model in which a new test bears much resemblance to educational change, and hence, teachers rely on their belief of what is effective in teaching (pp. 125-127). Moreover, this also suggests a teacher-centered point of view. Some teachers even believed that the access to different materials other than the main textbooks helped them broaden their own knowledge.

Contrary to expectations, improving learners’ mood was one of the reasons receiving the least attention from teachers. Although McGrath (2002) asserted “affective factors” as the motivation for teachers to develop supplementary materials, and findings in Nguyen and Ho (2019) and Nguyen and Nguyen (2020) suggested students were interested in working with supplementary materials, teachers in the current thesis seemed

to focus much on the learning outcomes (i.e., how to have learners achieve high score in the actual examination) rather than students’ emotion. Indeed, academic-oriented supplementary materials have been proved to be effective in terms of improving listening and speaking ability (Chwo, Jonas, Tsai, & Chuang, 2010).

Also, the reason of “replacing unsuitable materials in the coursebooks with the supplementary materials” had a negligible impact on teachers’ decisions. This finding confirmed a reality which Graves (2000) has observed: “the attitude that a textbook is sacred and not to be tampered with.” (p. 176). A possible explanation for this might be that commercial coursebooks were developed by professionals in the field, and hence, teachers believed that it was unwise to make any adjustment. To these teachers, textbooks are much the same as “bibles,” which require comprehensive compliance to help learners achieve learning outcomes.

What was surprising is that no teachers reported they developed supplementary materials merely because of their personal preferences or impressive effects. These results differed from some published studies (e.g., Block, 1991; Nguyen & Ho, 2019). This discrepancy could be attributed to the recognition of learners’ expectations, learning goals, and learners’ levels of language proficiency, which is rather encouraging.

5.1.3. Beliefs about the criteria for developing supplementary materials

When developing supplementary materials, teachers in this study took “learners’ levels of language proficiency” and “course objective” into a special account. These results appeared to corroborate findings in Nguyen and Ho (2019) and those of Nguyen et al. (2020). As having been mentioned in the earlier section, decisions on the selection of supplementary materials are based on the two most influencing factors: learners’ expectations, learning goals, and learners’ levels of language proficiency. This seems

not to be pertinent only to exam preparation courses but also to such general English courses in Nguyen and Ho (2019).

As the study focused on IELTS training, a prominent belief of the most appropriate sources of supplementary materials was to collect materials from other commercial textbooks. Remarkably, those coursebooks and practice tests published by the Cambridge University Press were greatly preferred. The reason behind this was that teachers believed the publishing house was the designer of the IELTS examination. Therefore, the IELTS textbooks and practice tests of this publisher are considered “bibles” in training for the test. In addition to the sources of commercial textbooks, authentic materials from online news were applied in the IELTS classroom. This was not unusual as the reading texts in the examination are much similar to those from the news (University of Cambridge. ESOL Examinations, British Council, & IELTS Australia, 2007). Also, authentic materials are considered to promote learners’ motivation (Peacock, 1997). For example, teacher P12 reported using materials associated with real- world tasks to make his learners more active and purposeful in using English. IELTS websites or blogs were also made use of, especially the reliable ones. Again, the reliability of such an online source is based entirely on teachers’ beliefs. Finally, as the result of the vast number of available IELTS materials, rarely did teachers resort to materials from other language courses. Some researchers actually assume many benefits brought about by non-IELTS books, which may be better than IELTS prep books in particular circumstances such as academic writing (Green, 2006; Lewthwaite, 2007; Estaji & Tajeddin, 2012). These results also suggested an imbalance tendency toward the selection of other textbooks as supplementary materials. Based on the classification of IELTS preparation materials by Saville and Hawkey (2004), there seemed to be too little attention paid to non-IELTS books. This was clearly a sign of negative washback effects that the main emphasis was on test preparation strategies (Green, 2006; Rashidi & Javanmardi, 2011; Allen, 2016).

5.2. Factors affecting teachers’ beliefs about IELTS supplementary materials

5.2.1. Contextual factors

Regarding the context, “learners’ need,” “other teachers’ practices,” and “language center policies” were of significant importance to the formation of teachers’ beliefs. With different students, teachers may have distinct treatment. For example, if learners are new to the IELTS test and at a moderate level of English competence, teachers will tend to neglect the use of supplementary materials. Teachers also expressed their desire to learn from their colleagues’ practices of developing supplementary materials. However, they admitted a lack of communication and interaction between teachers in the same center, and thus, it was difficult for them to consult other colleagues. Finally, in some language centers, teachers are encouraged to use particular types of supplementary material, namely textbooks from Cambridge University Press. As a result, teachers feel that it is necessary to deploy such materials in their IELTS training program. This does not support the finding in Jamalzadeh and Shahsavar (2015), which shows no relation between the contextual factors and teachers’ beliefs. A possible explanation for the results in this study might lie in the mutual effect of belief and practice. Contextual factors may not only directly inform teachers’ beliefs but also impact practice (Borg, 2003, pp. 81-82). Based on the framework of the interplay of the beliefs’ functions by Fives and Buehl (2012), teachers’ beliefs filter experiences and guide practice. Then, teacher practices become input materials in the form of experiences, and a new cycle begins. Another explanation may be due to the interaction between beliefs in the belief system (Pajares, 1992, p. 325; Berger, Girardet, Vaudroz, & Crahay, 2018, p. 2). As earlier findings in the study have indicated a general teachers’ positive belief about the books published by Cambridge University Press, when the language center requires teachers to deploy such kinds of material, it both matches and, thus, reinforces this belief. As a result, those beliefs in connection with this one are prioritized.

The findings of contextual factors also well reflected the three-level framework of the relationship among the context, beliefs, and practice by Burns (1996). At the institutional level, teachers were well aware of the requirements of their language center about materials that can be used alongside the coursebook. Despite the difficulty, they also sensitized themselves to what other colleagues do in their classroom. At the next level, the majority of teachers believed that supplementary materials should be developed in accordance with learners’ needs, which involve the ability and weaknesses of learners. Influenced by the two previous levels, at the instructional level, teachers used supplementary materials in order to fulfill learners’ needs but still followed the policy adopted by their language centers. Based on this analysis, it is suggested that the demand of language centers and learners’ needs affect how teachers develop supplementary materials in classrooms.

5.2.2. Teachers’ experiences

Illustrated in data from the interview, “learning experience” and “teaching experience” had considerable influences on teachers’ beliefs. These were consistent with previous results from studies and theories about teachers’ beliefs (e.g., Richards and Lockhart (1999); Borg (2003); Farrell (2018); Farrell and Guz (2019)). Most teachers developed IELTS supplementary materials based on their exposure to such materials as learners. Some even deployed similar materials to those used by their teachers or appropriate for themselves. These findings further supported what Pajares (1992) argued that teachers formed and enhanced their beliefs even before going to university training. Moreover, unlike other professionals, classrooms in higher education are akin to those teachers have experienced, and hence, there are “fertile lands” for commitment to previous expectations and habits.

It was also observed that throughout the teaching process, teachers used different supplementary materials and reflected on their effectiveness. Therefore, they could

Xem toàn bộ nội dung bài viết ᛨ