OM

Ian McGrath – Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching

CHAPTER 1- A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO MATERIALS EVALUATION

Ian McGrath takes us through the very basic conceptual definition/perspective of

defining ‘material’ in the context of language learning and teaching by
propounding that it is not/could not just be relegated to books but could include
‘realia’ – real time objects, and representations – drawings, graphic representations
etc. Any such material can be utilized for language teaching with specific advice
on how to use them.

He draws our focus to ‘text’ materials which we understand as those that have been
particularly designed or naturally formed for language learning and teaching. Other
sources also include teacher-written and learner – generated materials1.

While we look at ‘course book’ as a textbook on which a course is based, McGrath

speaks about various attitudes that surround course books by bringing in the
concept of metaphors and how we use them in our daily lives to understand and
communicate concepts. He goes on to say how the choice of a metaphor to
describe a course book defines the attitude of teacher towards it.

He thinks it’s useful to categorize metaphors as ‘choice’ and ‘control’metaphors

and stresses that it is the context in which a teacher is placed which influences
his/her choice of a ‘control’ metaphor. Examples given .

McGrath discusses the concerning tendency of some teachers to view the course
book as ‘holy book’ going on to say that neither the teachers nor the learner need
restrict their perspective thus. He mentions about the two fringes that exist in the
teaching community as those who follow the course book to the T and those who
do not use it at all out of scorn despite not finding suitable material. In between are
the ones that base their teaching on a book with a specific idea of how to use them.
 Before he puts forward before us the arguments for and against course-book based
teaching, he makes a point that where the primary users of a course book could be
teachers and learners, the secondary users could be anyone from Education
ministry officials to Heads of Depts in a school, Education Ministry officials,
parents, training officers in companies, textbook writers, publishers etc. their use
being pertinent to bringing about a standard and relevance to what is being taught
and thereby arriving at diverse evaluative perspectives.

In continuum , whilst the extensive use of textbooks can pose problems of teacher
dependence owing to the deskilling effect the course books might have on both
teachers and learners, there is hope in ‘resource packs’ sets of materials that can
help guide the teachers to effectively modify and adapt the contents. The said
resource packs could range anything from learner’s guides, ideas books to rationale
books.

While some educationalists opine that global course books can never satiate local
needs, others have felt that a course book is an useful aid in providing a base.
Hence we can safely arrive at that a ‘suitable’ course book helps to make teaching
effective and meaningful.

Talking about the selection of a textbook, Mc Grath says its objectives could be as
diverse as one could understand. It is however important for teachers as primary
users to reflect and critically leverage upon the book as a source and/or an aid.
Apart from its contents, we observe that a textbook is often chosen not just because
of its contents but also due how it looks(visual appeal) it becomes increasingly
important for teachers to be aware of what is actually ‘suitable’ or not.

Where evaluation (of how effective a coursebook is) is concerned, Mc Grath

suggests that trialling is a highly reliable method. And obtaining feedback from
other users forms an important pre requisite to a successful trialling. He talks about
the adoption of arm chair evaluation process as an effective mode to make
coursebook selection happen. Aiding us to a great extent in this are the ‘pre-use
evaluation’(macro dimension) and ‘in-use evaluation’(micro dimension) 2 stages.
The observation of the said material in use is also greatly beneficial to make this
entire process of selection more robust.
We must’ as McGrath points out, acknowledge that while a ‘post-use evaluation’
(of both teachers and learners) helps us in rounding off this cyclic process
valuable and real, it can also be understood if this becomes a challenge for teachers
who are often found under pressure to finish syllabus and terms.

QUESTIONS:

1. What could form part of learner-generated materials?

2. Am I right in attaching the macro and micro to pre-use evaluation and in-use
evaluation respectively?