Selecting Supplementary Materials For Ielts Training

College of Technology (Tam & Tung, 2019). That explains the flourish of IELTS preparation courses.

It is evident that the market of IELTS-oriented coursebooks has thrived over the past few years entail preparation courses and an overwhelming majority of them are for Academic candidates (Wilson, 2010). These books vary from at least band 3.5 to upper

7.5 to meet the needs of different learners. In order to make it more straightforward for learners to choose an appropriate one, they usually include the precise IELTS band scores or the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) rather than terms such as “Foundation,” “Pre-intermediate,” “Intermediate,” or “Advanced” which are “too broad for the kind of detailed planning that […] materials development involves (Richards, 2001, p. 146). For example, the Objective IELTS Intermediate published by Cambridge University Press is supposed to be “designed for learners aiming at band score of 5.5 or 6”, while the IELTS Express Intermediate by Thompson for “candidates at bands 4-5.5”. It is axiomatic that although all are labeled as intermediate levels, the former just states what learners may achieve but not who is suitable to use, whereas the latter, conversely, details the target users and lacks the outcomes. Through this example, it is acknowledged that the band scores or CEFR attached to IELTS books are also vague on either outcomes or learners’ available knowledge in some situations.

These materials are not only diverse in levels but also purposes. They can be put into three categories stretching on a spectrum (Saville & Hawkey, 2004, p. 85). At one extreme, there are books featuring practice tests, while those committing to the IELTS examination are located in the middle. On the other end, books are indirectly related to the test, and their subject matters are suitable for preparation programs. The examples for the first category can be found in the famous series of IELTS Practice Tests published annually by Cambridge University Press or 6 Practice Tests for the IELTS by Kaplan.

Representatives of books dedicated to the IELTS examination may include Complete IELTS by Cambridge University Press, IELTS Express by Thompson, or IELTS graduation by Macmillan. As for the last type, it is unlikely for these materials to be published separately as a single set, except for those published in-house or those (e.g., Prepare! by Cambridge University Press) used for Cambridge English Qualifications (i.e., at the same time provide knowledge on general English and focuses on a CEFR level). They rather accompany the second category to form a series. For instance, the series of Mindsets for IELTS by Cambridge University Press comprises a bridging level on which universal knowledge is centered instead of particular IELTS content.

Sheldon (1988) comments that language programs throughout the world are normally associated with an English language qualification. However, the washback effects of those IELTS preparation courses are still puzzling researchers. In terms of performance, Green (2006) confirms that there was little disparity in the academic writing scores between two student groups, in non-IELTS and IELTS courses. On the other hand, Estaji and Tajeddin’s (2012) replicated research shows greater improvement in the academic writing scores of students in IELTS courses compared to those in non- IELTS. Meanwhile, there is consistency regarding learners’ motivation to study, test anxiety, test-taking strategies, and their expectation toward IELTS. Noticeably, researchers seem to agree on the fact that the examination candidates do not focus on test preparation strategies alone (negative washback). They also care about how to enhance language ability (positive washback) (Green, 2006; Rashidi & Javanmardi, 2011; Allen, 2016). Based on these students’ wants and needs, Terry (2003) assumes that “the best preparation books are those that develop the linguistic competencies that will be required of the learners in their target contexts, as well as helping them to acquire the test-taking strategies that will facilitate a good performance in the test” (p. 58). Green (2007), cited in Hashemi and Daneshfar (2018), share the same point of view that to improve IELTS scores, materials for the examination should merge “regular teaching

and prior preparation.” This perspective ostensibly strengthened when Saville and Hawkey (2004) mention one textbooks rater’s opinion of the similarity between skills developed in an IELTS-oriented book and academic skills. Moreover, Lewthwaite (2007) found a significant overlap between the requirement of IELTS writing tasks and what was needed in a writing course. However, it has been acknowledged that a number of textbooks emphasize the skills and information to enhance test performances (see Yue, 1997, An Investigation of textbook materials designed to prepare students for the IELTS Test: A study of washback; Terry, 2003, IELTS preparation materials for a more in-depth discussion). In order to maintain the positive washback and improve learners’ scores, the test-related materials should also pay attention to language proficiency in general, and thus, IELTS course books need supplementing.

2.3. Supplementary materials in IELTS classrooms

Supplementary materials, according to Tomlinson (2011b), are those “designed to be used in addition to the core materials of a course” and “…usually related to the development of the skills of reading, writing, listening or speaking rather than to the learning of language items” (p. xvi). From another perspective, supplementary materials result from a so-called process of supplementation, which is nothing more than “adding something new” (McGrath, 2002, p 80). There has been little literature on this practice as it is frequently considered a variation of adaptation (adding new elements) or mentioned in relation to authentic materials (McGrath, 2013, p. 82). Looking from a more independent perspective, supplementation caters to a wider range compared to adaptation. Although the two share the same purpose of introducing something new, they are different in the level of originality. The originality here refers to “a continuum of scale stretching from very simple forms of adaptation at one end to more extended forms of supplementation” (ibid.). For example, at the level of adaptation, teachers can add more questions to an exercise in the textbooks or change the order of activities. As for

supplementation, they may add a new task or text to the current materials. It can be a story for extensive reading or a song to improve learners’ mood. It is noticeable that adapting relies heavily on the textbooks in use and, therefore, is easier than finding and designing something completely new – supplementing. The given examples also depict two forms of supplementation which are motivated by cognitive and affective considerations (McGrath, 2002, pp. 80-81). In order to supplement a coursebook effectively, teachers can count on other sources such as alternative textbooks or generate their own materials to meet the unique needs of the class (Garinger, 2002; McGrath, 2013). Therefore, they ought to be capable of selecting and developing materials.

2.3.1. Selecting supplementary materials for IELTS training

A number of teachers also feel doubtful if supplementary materials are necessary because clearly it creates more workload for them, and it is, therefore, more reasonable to adapt the main course books with different activities. Nonetheless, the industry of commercial material design has witnessed a considerable thrive in the past decades, and the widespread of online storage has made it possible to access resources developed by either publishers or teachers. For example, Oxford University Press alone has introduced nearly two hundred book titles and series accompanied by various supplementary resources such as audios, videos, interactive student software, and online practice in just one realm of ELT. These book titles and series also cover a wide range of purposes from classroom use to reference and to self-study. The world-class publisher, interestingly, is rather ingenious when offering different products in different markets – or regions. This may stem from the bloom of a number of market-specific courses worldwide. Apart from well-known coursebook publishers, teachers have another choice of worksheets designed by their colleagues. Websites such as Islcollective, Busyteacher, or Allthingstopic provide many downloadable materials for ELT use. Indeed, Block (1991) has realized this fact and commented that

“[…] whereas fifteen years ago a teacher might well complain about the unavailability of materials to practice this or that structure or this or that vocabulary field, today, with the plethora of language-teaching materials on the market, the problem often seems to be one of knowing what to choose in a veritable land of plenty.” (p. 211)

It is quite sensible for many to assume that finding and selecting supplementary materials nowadays has never been so effortless. Although teachers may have more choices, there are more demands for evaluation to be conducted before the selection process (McDonough et al., 2013, p. 51).

Before a supplementary material is put into use, a series of steps ought to be undergone to ensure the material fit and match the course objectives, learners’ need, and other context-related factors. The procedure of “matching needs to available solutions” is usually referred to as material evaluation (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987, p. 97). The evaluation process is divided into stages. Rea-Dickins (1994), by summarizing and echoing the works by Sheldon (1987) and Breen (1989), argues that there are three phases of evaluating materials, namely pre-use, in-use, and post-use – as referred to in Masuhara (2011). Ellis (1997a) describes two types of evaluating language teaching materials – predictive and retrospective evaluation. The former aims at selecting the most suitable materials based on teachers’ purpose, whereas the latter helps to determine if the chosen materials really match with expectations. It seems that predictive evaluation is carried out more often than the other and corresponds to the pre-use evaluation. Although there has been an endorsement of more care and attention to the in-use and post-use evaluation, these forms are beyond the purview of materials selection. To have more insight into this notion, it is fruitful to pinpoint the similarity and differences between materials evaluation and selection. Evaluation bears a resemblance to selection in that the two target at “judging the fitness of something for a particular purpose,” yet they are distinct in the scope of inclusion. Whereas selection, embracing a process of evaluation,

centers merely on learner needs and interest and the way these are coped with, evaluation varies in purposes and means of conduct; for example, the effectiveness and usefulness of materials in real use or in enhancing learning. The selection of materials, moreover, is necessarily prior to classroom use and “[…] concerned with the potential that a set of materials may have in effectively and efficiently supporting learning, as a ‘frame’ for learning and teaching opportunities”. Consequently, it agrees with the pre-use or predictive evaluation more than the whilst-use and post-use (Rubdy, 2003, p. 41-42).

Although material evaluation tends to be a subjective process (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Sheldon, 1988; Ellis, 1997a; Jordan, 1997), there are several systematic measures and criteria which can be adopted. Hutchinson and Waters (1987) propose a four-step evaluation process comprising Defining criteria, Subjective analysis, Objective analysis, and Matching. These scholars also presented some common criteria for both subjective and objective analysis – audience, aim, content, and methodology. Such criteria can also be found in Nation and Macalister (2010), whose perspectives are on coursebook evaluation and curriculum design (p. 165). Another checklist focusing more on material content belongs to Sheldon (1988) (Figure 2.3). It is worth noticing that these criteria lists should not be taken rigorously. The items are subject to different contexts and thus, dynamic. For example, Hutchinson and Waters (1987) have taken the factor of tasks into account, whereas the other authors appear to abandon it. Although Sheldon concludes “coursebook assessment is fundamentally a subjective, rule-of-thumb activity, and that no neat formula, grid, or system will ever provide a definitive yardstick,” there are ways to have objective or “empirical evaluation.”

While many may think that conducting empirical evaluation will expand the workload of teachers, it does not necessarily mean assessing the whole set of materials

– macro-evaluation – but dividing them into more manageable components – micro- evaluation (Ellis, 1997). Ellis links the micro-evaluation of teaching materials to tasks

because they are much narrower than evaluation addressing at the curriculum level (e.g., Nation & Macalister, 2010). Therefore, in IELTS training programs, it is possible to formally assess the effectiveness of supplementary materials through test tasks.

Figure 2. 3

Sheldon’s Textbook evaluation sheet

FACTUAL DETAILS

Title:

Author(s): ……………………………………………………………………..……………………… Publisher: ……………………………………………Price:………………………………………….. ISBN:…………………………………………………No. of Pages:………………………………… Components: SB/TB/WB/Tests/Cassettes/Video/CALL/Other: …………………………………….. Level:…………………………………………………Physical size: : ………………………………. Length: : …………...…Units …………….Lessons/sections…….…………Hours……….….…....... Target skills: ……………………………………………………………………..…………………… Target learners: ……………………………………………………………………..………………… Target teachers: ……………………………………………………………………..………………… ASSESSMENT (*Poor **Fair ***Good ****Excellent)

Factor Rating and comments

Rationale

Availability

User definition

Layout/graphics

Accessibility

Linkage

Selection/grading

Physical characteristics

Appropriacy

Authenticity

Sufficiency