Chapter Review

by
Dharmahutama Handoyo CK | 1212819022

TASK 8: Developing Materials for Language Learning

Book : English Language Learning Materials: A Critical Review

Section : Part 2, Different Types of Materials
Chapter : Chapter 2, Materials for General English
Author : Hitomi Masuhara and Brian Tomlinson
Publisher : Brian Tomlinson, 2008
ISBN : 978-0-8264-9350-7 (hardback)
Page : 17 - 37

Introduction

In this chapter the authors firstly try to explain how GE's current coursebooks can be used in
the UK and overseas. The authors will ask whether this coursebook are meeting the needs and
wants of target students and teachers. Secondly, by reporting the results of their evaluation of
the seven most recent textbooks, the authors see how these sample coursebooks match SIA
principles. Then the aouthors will conclude by presenting the author's personal views as a user
about possible future directions for the coursetbooks. Our objective for this evaluation was
specifically focused to see if these samples of coursebooks mirror what is recommended by
SIA studies (Ellis in press; Tomlinson 1998b; Cook 2001).

Body

What Kinds of ELT Contexts are General English Coursebooks Catering for? What are
the Needs and Wants of the Teachers and Learners who use these Coursebooks?

The major global coursebooks seem to be mainly targeting two different kinds of teaching
contexts: 'General English' in English-speaking countries and 'English as a Foreign Language'
in non-English-speaking countries. Such dual roles of the same coursebooks may be evidenced
by the fact that four of (he recently published seven coursebooks (2001-2006) randomly
selected for the review for this chapter acknowledge language teaching institutions in England
and overseas as providers of feedback or as piloting institutions (see Donovan 1998 and
Singapore Wala 2003 for publishers' accounts of the piloting of coursebooks).

Much of English-speaking countries that are of interest to students from all over the world who
want to study English for various purposes including academics (i.e. FLAP) and professional
reasons (e.g. ESP, Business English) such as the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia and New
Zealand. In this case, GE students also expressed their desire to expand their vocabulary and
grammar to consolidate them. Many of them feel that their English is 'not good enough' and
that they make 'lots of mistakes' when they speak or write in English.

“The contents of recent coursebooks seem to respond to the general needs and wants of GE
learners in that they all cover skills, vocabulary and grammar. Publishers launch new or revised
coursebooks fairly frequently and supply language teaching institutions with fresh but similar
GE materials for new learners and repeaters who come and go year after year.” The authors
describe that the publisher always launches new coursebooks from year to year to meet the
general wants and needs of GE students which cover skills, vocabulary and grammar.

In this case naturally raising awareness of the importance of English as a tool for international
communication, however, gradually changing the perceptions of students, teachers and
administrators.

Are the GE/EFL coursebooks meeting users' needs and wants?

The results of a survey conducted by the authors contain responses as diverse as, Teachers have
tended to be native speakers from English-speaking countries and teaching has mainly taken
place in language schools, colleges and universities in which courses focus on developing the
four language skills for communication.

The authors conducted a survey in which both of the GPL and EFL stated that coursebooks
give ideas for experienced teachers to plan their lessons and scripts for teachers who are new
or lack of confidence in using English in classrooms. and also the students appreciate the
variety of activities and the colorful appearance of coursebooks. but there are differences in
context between GE and EFL, similarities and differences in the context of GE and EFL.
Comparison of GE and EFL reveals that there are actually more differences than similarities.

In this survey, the authors surveyed GE students who received 119 responses indicating that
they would appreciate materials which help them to manage everyday interactions in the
specific English-speaking environment that they are in. and GE teachers who received 60
responses. Going through responses in our survey, we felt that no matter how good the
materials may be, they could never manage to satisfy the different needs and wants that come
from the different learning contexts, learning styles, cultural norms and experiences of each
individual learner. It would be simply unrealistic to expect global materials to satisfy all the
needs and wants of learners.

Instead, as Tomlinson (2006) points out, every party involved in materials production and
consumption should take their share of responsibility. Learning would be far more effective if:

curriculum developers and materials writers started to cater more to divergent needs and
wants, if teachers more readily and confidently adapted materials for their specific learners
and if learners are encouraged and helped tomake more decisions lor themselves.
(Tomlinson 2006: 1)
The author tries to argue strongly that learners are more likely to succeed if curriculum
developers, materials writers and teachers all try to ensure effective intake that leads to
language acquisition as the most important goal rather than focusing solely on providing the
'required' input and assuming that teaching will lead to learning. Which is the author invites
the reader to evaluate if the current coursebooks are effectively facilitating intake, language
acquisition and development.

An evaluation of a sample of ELT materials used in the UK

In order to find out about the degree of match between currently used GE / EFL materials, the
authors randomly selected seven student books for evaluation.

Key to materials evaluated:

Material 1 (Beginner) = Crace, A. & Quintana, J. (2006), Reach Book 1. Oxford

University Press.
Material 2 (Elementary) = Le Maistre, S. & Lewis, C. (2002), Language to do
(Elementary). Longman Pearson Educational
Material 3 (Low Intermediate) = McCarthy, M., McCarten, }. & Sandiford, H. (2006),
'touchstone Book 3. Cambridge University Press.
Material 4 (Intermediate) = Harmer, J. (2004), just Right. Marshall Cavendish.
Material 5 (Upper Intermediate) = Kay, S., Hird, J. & Maggs, P. (2006), Move.
Macmillan.
Material 6 (Upper Intermediate) = Harris, M., Mower, I). & Sikoryska, A. (2006), Neiu
Opportunities. Pearson Longman.
Material 7 (Advanced) = Pulverness, A. (2001), ('.hangingSkies. Swan.

The authors emphasize that evaluation is only focused on the match between our 14 criteria
based on the SLA principles and what we see on the pages of Student Books. the evaluation is
not meant to recommend or criticize any of these coursebooks.

Summary of the authors views of the main strengths and weaknesses of the sample

The authors noted some interesting new developments, however, in that five out of seven
samples did include language awareness sections. This trend seems to reflect the recent shift in
our view of language description. Corpusbased studies of language have been demonstrating
that levels of language traditionally considered to be separate (e.g. grammar and vocabulary)
are in fact closely interwoven in the construction of meanings and of texts, both spoken and
written (Carter and McCarthy 1997). Such a view of language calls for more holistic
exploration of language in use in social and cultural contexts and the Language Awareness
Approach (Bolitho et al. 2003) is a pedagogic answer to such a call. The authors provide several
characteristics of the courses which stand out to us as likely to facilitate or inhibit language
acquisition and development. from material 1 to material 7.
Conclusion

GE materials and EEL materials cater for different contexts. By trying to satisfy two different
groups of learners, coursebooks seem to be unable to set clear objectives and to choose suitable
approaches. As a result, neither GE nor EEL. users seem to feel that their materials completely
satisfy their needs and wants.Materials producers on the other hand may feel that they cannot
possibly meet the specific needs and wants of different users and, at the same time, make
materials production to be economically viable.

GE / EFL material is expected to be able to introduce interesting people and their views and
opinions from various ethnic groups (eg novels, articles, news reports) as well as from a British
or American perspective. and offers opportunities for helpful language / cultural / critical
awareness students to reflect on the use of their own language as well as others.
 References

Tomlinson, B. (2008). English Language Learning Materials: A Critical Review. London:

Continuum International Publishing Group.