orchestration of practice activities” (Richards & Lockhart, 1999, p. 39). As a result, there is a perilous supposition that students are taught by textbooks rather than teachers or themselves (Graves, 2000, p. 176). Allwright (1981) argues that there are so many limited “teaching materials,” and they should be replaced with “learning materials.” A possible form of learning materials can be “a learners' guide to language learning.” By knowing how language is learned, students may be more autonomous and independent and hopefully have “a direct improvement in their language learning” (pp. 11-14).
Besides the teaching and learning aspects, coursebooks tend to reflect cultural bias, resulting in the suffering of “intercultural understanding and mutual respect.” In essence, some cultures are more appreciated than others. Since most global coursebooks are produced by publishers located in Western cultures, they generally hold an “Anglocentric view” which sees the native-speaker norms as capital and is sometimes alienated to learners in non-English speaking countries. Bell and Gower (2011) depict this phenomenon with their brief description of global coursebook attackers’ view:
“the all-singing, all-dancing, glitzy (expensive) multimedia package with a dedicated website of extras, usually produced in a native-speaker situation but destined for the world with all language in the book (including rubrics) in the target language.” (p. 137)
It is dangerous for this kind of publication as there is a shortage of learning situations committing to a specific culture (ibid.) and learners lack the chance to “respond to or challenge the information they receive from the perspective of their own culture” (Gray, 2000, p. 280). The cultural problem not only prevails in internationally intended textbooks but arises in others categories. The case of domestic coursebooks is rather exceptional because it is similar to the reflection of global ones. They may embody texts indicating “learners’ sociocultural behavior, values, beliefs, and familiar experiences.” However, those predictable and common “local-culture” elements may easily do great
harm to learner “curiosity and novelty effect” (Bao, 2008, p. 3). In-house published coursebooks can also be negatively used as a tool to purposefully predominate national cultures and values for social cohesion (McGrath, 2013, p. 24). As for textbooks used in certain countries, there is a combination of cultural issues in both global and domestic books. Apparently, countries in a region, although sharing many identical values, have distinct norms and practices.
Có thể bạn quan tâm!
-
An investigation into teacher's beliefs and practice about developing supplementary materials for ielts learners at language centers in Ho Chi Minh city - 2 -
Teachers’ Beliefs In English Language Teaching -
An investigation into teacher's beliefs and practice about developing supplementary materials for ielts learners at language centers in Ho Chi Minh city - 4 -
Selecting Supplementary Materials For Ielts Training -
Adapting Supplementary Materials For Ielts Training -
An investigation into teacher's beliefs and practice about developing supplementary materials for ielts learners at language centers in Ho Chi Minh city - 8
Xem toàn bộ 192 trang tài liệu này.
Another typical criticism of textbooks is their scant application from the finding of research in the field of language, language use, and language acquisition (McGrath, 2013,
p. 24). Sheldon (1988) contends that “textbooks merely grow from and imitate other textbooks and do not admit the winds of change from research, methodological experimentation, or classroom feedback” (p. 239). Initially, the language used in most coursebooks is modified to match the classroom use and, therefore, unauthentic. An obvious example is that listening texts are most often akin to read-out-loud written passages. The authenticity element in ELT materials is essential for, according to Tomlinson (2001, p. 68), contrived content may not be enough to prepare learners for the real world where they actually use the language. Despite the controversy, many Second language acquisition (SLA) researchers claim that there is existent order or sequence of acquisition for language items (see Ellis (1997b) and Nunan (2001) for more discussion). In addition, with the assistance of corpora, it is possible to construct frequency lists of occurrence for vocabulary or grammar. Accordingly, the high- frequency items will be introduced to learners earlier than low-frequency ones. However, Nation and Macalister (2010) observed that several beginner coursebooks encompass a mixture of both high-frequency and low-frequency items. They also found evidence of textbooks’ weak connection with research findings in relation to semantically and formally related items. Antonyms, synonyms, hypernyms, and hyponyms may cause interference in learning and memorizing as they bewilder learners with their relation in meanings or forms.
Coursebooks are also criticized for their stereotypes and distortion of reality. Bao (2016), in his review of eight well-known coursebooks, discovered much evidence of stereotypes (i.e., unjustifiable assumption) regarding nationality, gender, behavior, and lifestyles. For instance, the appearance of characters tends to be assimilated in relation to their original countries. In order to tackle this defect, textbook publishers are apt to compromise and take a more neutral view, which Ariew (1982), cited in Richards (2001), labeled as “homogenization.” Guidance for coursebook writers advises them to exclude such taboo topics as “sex, drugs, alcohol, religion, violence, politics, history and pork” (Tomlinson, 2001, p. 68; McGrath, 2013, p. 26). This censorship, on the one hand, may serve pedagogic and economic purposes but impede learning on the other hand. Indeed, as Hyde (1994) and Tomlinson (2001) reflect, provocative texts that are able to elicit critical and analytical responses can promote learning better. For example, teachers may use the topic of politics as inspirational content for students’ discussion and reflection with respect to their cultures. Another drawback of censorship in neutral and harmonious textbooks is to derive learners from the chance to protect themselves from harmful content (Hyde, 1994).
Overall, the arguments of abandoning textbooks emphasize strongly on learner- center perspective and no one, perhaps, knows about learners’ particular situation and context better than teachers. For that reason, the Dogme approach emerged in the 2000s as the reaction to the traditional material-driven lessons. Thornbury (2000), a pioneer of advocating teachers' independence from coursebooks, once stated, “Teaching should be done using only the resources that teachers and students bring to the classrooms – that is, themselves – and whatever happens to be in the classroom.” The statement seems to echo Prabhu’s (1992) view of lessons as complex social events in which unpredictability is essentially inevitable, and Nation and Macalister’s (2010) idea of the negotiated syllabus where teachers and learners work to agree on “goals, content and sequencing, format and presentation, and monitoring and assessment” (p. 150). Without the existence
of coursebooks, teachers are given more space to become material designers for their own classrooms.
2.2.1.2. Teacher-generated materials
The phenomenon of teachers writing their own teaching materials is not new in pedagogic fields. This decision is made when there is either dissatisfaction of teachers concerning materials they are working with or a shortage of appropriate ones that are relevant to their purposes. For example, in English for Specific Purposes (ESP), it is rather burdensome to find commercial materials because publishers are less eager to focus on such a restricted number of customers. ESP courses, furthermore, are flexible in accordance with special learners’ needs (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987, p. 106). Nevertheless, there are opposite views of teachers resorting to writing materials. Initially, pressure from more workload will be put on teachers’ shoulders, so this should be the last choice “when all other possibilities of providing materials have been exhausted” (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987, p. 125). Moreover, teachers are deemed to lack expertise in writing language teaching materials. This, again, reflects Allwright’s (1981) “different view,” which differentiates textbook writers and teachers’ roles. Following that, teachers do not receive adequate training and thus had better “have the interpersonal skills to make classrooms good places to learn in” (p. 6). Sheldon (1988) seems to agree with Allwright when mentioning the lack of credibility of teacher-generated materials as opposed to commercial textbooks (p. 238) because these “professionally produced materials” manage the washback effect better than the other (Block, 1991, p. 212).
Components of teacher-designed materials argue that they benefit both learners and teachers in many respects. Block (1991) asserts three reasons for such “local” materials encompassing “contextualization,” “timeliness,” and “the personal touch.” The first reason refers to the fact that material content is not merely withdrawn from learners’ contexts but also raises their interests. For example, in the IELTS training lesson, instead
of asking questions such as “What are national holidays in your country?”, teachers can make it more relevant by adding particular holidays in relation to the genuine time when the course is running (e.g., Hung King commemoration day, Liberty Day or Tet). Thus, students may have enthusiasm when discussing the topic, and they can also make use of general knowledge. When considering contextualization, there should be a concern of whether material content is up-to-date – timeliness. An English program usually adheres to a core material that is commercially or officially published by both private or government agencies. Consequently, there are intervals between updated versions. For instance, the second edition of the exam preparation book Get ready for IELTS published by Macmillan was introduced later than the first one seven years, and this apparently affects the learning experience. Block’s last argument is about students’ impressions of teachers. In fact, he contradicts Sheldon’s remark of the low credibility among teacher- generated materials compared to a published coursebook. Students may find that teachers are putting a lot of effort into the course by preparing their own materials and be attracted by this. The “personal touch” idea should not be mistaken for non-education reasons such as promoting the reputation of language centers or teachers (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987, p. 106). Another advantage of teacher-made materials relates to teacher training. Some of them can be listed as:
arousing reflection of teaching and learning theories and beliefs,
eliciting review of principles that regulate lesson design,
developing an awareness of issues in materials design such as evaluating, adapting those unsatisfactory materials when needed,
reinforcing teachers’ capability of fulfilling learners’ needs, promoting professional development.
(McGrath, 2013, p. 106).
It seems that there is still doubt of teacher-generated materials with respect to their credibility due to teachers’ shortage of expertise. Nonetheless, the role of such materials in language teaching and learning is crucial as they are more contextualized, updated, and appealing to learners. The gap in the expertise of textbook writers and teachers can be bridged with teacher training on material design.
2.2.1.3. A need for flexibility
The revolution of English language teaching has recently been marked by the shift away from the quest for the “best” teaching methods to the principled basis – approach (Brown, 2007). This trend emerged in the realization that every learning and teaching context is unique. The case is much similar in terms of language learning materials in that it depends on the situations where they are appropriately chosen and used. The debate about learning materials tends to be polarized between commercial textbooks or teacher-generated materials. However, they both have merits and defects, so neither of extremes is preferable. In other words, there are no one-size-fits-all materials, and no textbooks are perfect. Therefore, a compromise should be achieved by flexible use of materials to make the most of them.
Teachers at least once in their whole career definitely make some changes to the language teaching materials. However, the issue is usually overlooked as an inherent part of teaching professionals. Whoever is pursuing the teaching profession should be familiar with the concept of lesson planning. A lesson plan illustrates “what a teacher intends to do during a lesson” and varies in its forms from a detailed written note to ideas in teachers’ heads (Richards & Lockhart, 1999, p. 9, p. 82). When preparing for lessons, teachers usually consider what learners need and lack and how available materials (usually coursebooks) can help them achieve the desired learning objectives. Therefore, materials evaluation can be included in lesson planning. One thing that teachers should bear in mind is that lesson plans are just proposals of teachers’ actions, so they are subject
to change due to actual implementation. Likewise, coursebooks act as providers of ready- made decisions which teachers can choose to follow, or otherwise, make some modifications (Harmer, 2001, p. 8), namely adapting or supplementing.
Although in some situations, teachers may not have ample voice and authority to make decisions on a program scale, they still can influence what happens in classrooms regarding teaching methodology, lesson format, and materials. Bearing this in mind, teachers can avoid being mere “technicians” and so become more active participants in curriculums. It has been acknowledged that teachers hold a number of roles as educators, of course, evaluators, syllabus designers, or materials developers. The last role is especially overlooked. As mentioned earlier, it is something so taken for granted. However, there is a growing invitation for teachers to become materials developers and providers (Richards, 2001; Tomlinson, 2013). That is, they are capable of evaluating, adapting, and creating materials. Accomplishing these skills needs support from teacher training. Hutchinson and Torres (1994) suggest the main trait of “all teacher training and development should be to help teachers to […] evaluate textbooks properly, exploit them in the class, and adapt and supplement them where necessary” (p. 327). The stated proposals seem to absolutely harmonize with what Dudley-Evans and John (1998), cited in Richards (2001); McGrath (2013), articulates about a good materials provider. They are also a response to the irrational hostility towards textbooks in some teacher training programs echoed in Harmer (2001). Indeed, it has been warned that if good teachers can do without textbooks, there will be “teacher-proof” materials anyone can conduct an excellent lesson with (Allwright, 1981, p. 6).
2.2.2. Types of language-learning materials
There are numerous ways to distinguish language learning materials. They can be categories in printed, non-printed forms or a combination of them (Richards, 2001, p. 251). Despite the flourish of electric materials in recent decades, the proportion of
traditionally published coursebooks still accounts for a majority (Tomlinson, 2013, p. 2). Tomlinson (2012) claims that good materials should involve all such characteristics as being “informative (informing the learner about the target language), instructional (guiding the learner in practicing the language), experiential (providing the learner with experience of the language in use), eliciting (encouraging the learner to use the language) and exploratory (helping the learner to make discoveries about the language)” (p. 143). McGrath (2013) also added two other dimensions consisting of non-verbal/ verbal materials, and materials-as-content/ materials-as-language.
2.2.3. Materials for IELTS training
IELTS was first intended to assess if candidates are ready to study, work or live in countries where English is the main medium. Therefore, the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES), the producer of IELTS, was unwilling to publicize any documents or materials related to the test for fear of negative washback (Terry, 2003). Brown (2004) mentions “cram courses and teaching to the test” as an example for such washback (p. 29). Due to its widespread recognition, IELTS has gone from an assessment tool for “a small, specialist candidature of prospective graduate and undergraduate…, and vocational/ occupational training students…” (Terry, 2003, p. 66) to a profitable business. Approximately three and a half million tests were taken in 2018, which is far higher than just 43.000 candidature in 1995. This may result from the fact that the test has a significant influence on high-stakes decisions, not only in academic but also in professional worlds. In Vietnam, for instance, students do not have to sit in the national examination for the language test if they have achieved band 4.0 in the IELTS examination, according to the official dispatch 2115/BGDĐT-QLCL by the National Ministry of Education and Training. Likewise, an IELTS qualification or the like is also a prerequisite to graduate in some universities and colleges, namely the National Economic University, Ton Duc Thang University, or Ho Chi Minh Vocational