Unit 2. Current language learning trends.

Implications for materials development.

[2.1] Prerequisites for content and language

learning

[2.2] Task-based approach

[2.3] Text-driven approach

[2.4.] Project work.

2
UNIT
 Outline
UNIT 2

2.1. Perequisites for content and language learning

Definition

2.2. Task-based
approach

TBCLT Task-Based Content

and Language Teaching

2.3. Text-driven approach

2.4. Project work

 CLIL materials development
Unit 2: Current language learning trends. Implications for materials development.
MIEB

Overview of the unit

One of the historical issues of language learning that may have been transferred to the
relatively new field of “CLIL” is that of the mismatch between what research indicates
is best for learning and what the teachers really do in the classroom; in our case, not
only teachers, but materials designers and developers. What current research indicates
is best for language learning seems to be transferring to the praxis in slow motion, or
even worse, the initial amazement at the new working goals and procedures may give
way to the traditional transmission-based teaching tipped with target language
presentations or activities.
Language and content learning materials must provide opportunities for knowledge
construction in the special environment of CLIL. We have to tune up language learning
research and general pedagogy principles to facilitate a successful learning experience.

The objectives of the unit are:

 Get familiar with SLA and CLIL principles for materials development
 Acknowledge task-based approach and its potential for CLIL
 Analyse the possibilities of text-driven approach for CLIL contexts.

Suggested readings:

Resources:
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based
 A short video where the subject (objectives, contents, methodology,
language learning and
resources, timing, evaluation) will be presented
teaching. Studies in
 A group debate on the forum
Second Language
 A final online test which can be self-corrected.
Acquisition (Vol. 26).
http://doi.org/10.1017
/S0272263104293056

Ellis, R. (2009). Taskbased

language teaching:
sorting out the
misunderstandings.
International Journal
3
of Applied Linguistics.
http://doi.org/10.1111
 CLIL materials development
Unit 2: Current language learning trends. Implications for materials development.
MIEB

2.1. Prerequisites for content and language learning.

Language and Materials principles.

There is some controversy on how we learn in general and how we acquire languages in
particular. Drawing from research evidence on the topic, we are going to set the
prerequisites1 learning materials have to meet for CLIL to take place. This section of the
unit pivots on language learning principles and related material development ones as
an implication of research.2

2.1.1. Learners are exposed to a meaningful and

comprehensible input of language

CLIL is by definition an approach that provides learners access to a rich input; due to
the importance of coordinating content and language in the methodology, the
authenticity of the texts is mandatory. Because of the nature of the topics, the linguistic
potential of the texts can often be recycled, minimizing the lexical load on the learner.
We do not have to worry about texts being bland and lacking meaning, the to the point
nature of CLIL will ensure the texts on maths, science, music, etc. will be rich in
meaning; we just need to focus on comprehension by means of varied exposition to the
information (video, reading either screen or paper) and its further manipulation (pair,
collaborative groups, asking the teacher).
Extensive reading, viewing, listening, should be included in learning dynamics will give
the students the opportunity to enjoy rich and meaningful input (Krashen, 2005;
Tomlinson, 2003).

2.1.2. Learners are affectively engaged

Affective engagement has been proved a sine qua non condition for effective learning
(Anderson et al., 2005; Arnold & Brown, 1999). Texts and activities that have an
affective impact on students have a higher probability to be understood and
remembered.

1
Based on Tomlinson (2015).
2
Based on the original structure for language learning materials in Tomlinson (2010).
 CLIL materials development
Unit 2: Current language learning trends. Implications for materials development.
MIEB

2.1.3. Learners are cognitively engaged

Challenging but achievable tasks that require critical and creative thinking (Anderson
et al., 2005) will facilitate language and content acquisition. Searching for information,
problem-solving and negotiation are cognitive engagement procedures.

2.1.4. Learners are provided the necessary scaffolding

techniques to foster attention to form whilst
focusing on meaning

In order to achieve deep, long learning processing of information that leads to an

improvement in language acquisition, learners have to be invited to reflect on the
language they are using. CLIL and its natural method, task-based learning, guarantee
that the main concern of the activities is meaning, rather than focusing on grammar or
vocabulary without paying attention to meaning (Ellis, 2002, 2003). A discovery
approach where the learner invests in awareness of structures and vocabulary leads
to many cognitive and affective benefits, from metacognition to motivation and higher
self-esteem.

2.1.5. Learners are granted opportunities to manipulate

the content in the target language

We learn to walk walking, to read reading and communicative competence is achieved

through communication; this seems to be a platitude, but if we take a close look at the
activities in the curriculum and the ones in coursebooks, the real communication
element is more often than not obliterated, we need the posing and solving of problems,
opinions, views, etc. rather than just buying a piece of clothing or booking a room.
CLIL learning involves developing high-level thinking (Bloom’s HOTS) (Bloom, 1956).
Tomlinson (2015:9) states that his analysis of course books shows how creativity seems
to be the less catered for skill; interesting enough, (Anderson et al., 2001, 2005),
propose creativity as the top HOT in their revision of Bloom’s taxonomy. Tomlinson
(2015 a, b) provides indication on how to use the traditional coursebooks creatively.
 CLIL materials development
Unit 2: Current language learning trends. Implications for materials development.
MIEB

2.2. Task-based approach.

In a task-based lesson language is subdued to the very nature of the task, the real needs
of the learner as she is facing the task; task and meaning first seems to be the motto.
This seems to be a platitude, however we have gone through a number of
misconceptions on what task-based learning is (Rod Ellis, 2009)

Ellis (2009:242) enumerates the advantages of a task-based approach:

1. TBLT offers the opportunity for ‘natural’ learning inside the classroom.
2. It emphasizes meaning over form but can also cater for learning form.
3. It affords learners a rich input of target language.
4. It is intrinsically motivating.
5. It is compatible with a learner-centred educational philosophy but also
1. allows for teacher input and direction.
6. It caters to the development of communicative fluency while not neglecting
2. accuracy.
7. It can be used alongside a more traditional approach

We need to define what is a task first, then investigate how to design them for foster
language use and acquisition.

2.2.1. Task. A definition

As (Ellis, 2000:194) points out, “Task’ is both a means of clinically eliciting samples of
learner language for purposes of research and a device for organizing the content and
methodology of language teaching. However, as Bygate, Skehan and Swain (2000b)
point out, ‘task’ is viewed differently depending on whether the perspective is that of
research or pedagogy”. We need to focus on the teachers’ perspective in this section,
that of units of work in the development of academic curriculum.

Ellis (2000:195) attempts a definition: “A task is a ‘workplan’; that is, it takes the form
of materials for researching or teaching language 3. A workplan typically involves the
following: (1) some input (i.e. information that learners are required to process and
use); and (2) some instructions relating to what outcome the learners are supposed to
achieve”.

Tasks must meet the following criteria (Ellis, 2009:223):

1. The primary focus should be on ‘meaning’ (by which is meant that learners should
be mainly concerned with processing the semantic and pragmatic meaning of
utterances).
2. There should be some kind of ‘gap’ (i.e. a need to convey information, to express an
opinion or to infer meaning).
3. Learners should largely have to rely on their own resources (linguistic and non-

3
Emphasis added.
 CLIL materials development
Unit 2: Current language learning trends. Implications for materials development.
MIEB

linguistic) in order to complete the activity.

4. There is a clearly defined outcome other than the use of language (i.e. the
language serves as the means for achieving the outcome, not as an end in its own
right).

If we apply this criterion to a fill in the blanks exercise, we can clearly see the
difference, grammar and vocabulary exercises do not meet criterion 1 nor 4.

Fig. 1. Task vs. activity (Ellis 2000: 197)

This distinction is of key importance for CLIL materials development, with

task meeting the basic premises for a successful CLIL experience.

2.2.2. Task-Based Content and Language Teaching

(TBCLT).

Samuda and Bygate (2008:18) make the connection with educational theory quite
explicit, “many of the principles underlying the design and use of what we now call
‘tasks’ in second language pedagogy owe their genealogy to development in general
education over the last century. Meaning negotiation serves to draw learners’ attention
 CLIL materials development
Unit 2: Current language learning trends. Implications for materials development.
MIEB

to linguistic form in the context of a primary focus-on-meaning and in so doing induces

the ‘noticing’ that has been claimed necessary for acquisition to take place (Schmidt,
1990). (Skehan, 2000:199).

It suggests that the kinds of interactional modifications hypothesized to contribute to

L2 acquisition are likely to be more frequent in tasks that: (1) have a required
information exchange; (2) involve a two-way (as opposed to one-way) exchange of
information; (3) have a closed outcome; (4) are not familiar to the interactants; (5)
involve a human/ethical type problem; (6) involve a narrative discourse mode; and (7)
are context-free (in the sense that the task does not provide contextual support for
communication) and involve considerable detail.
Tasks may also be viewed from a socio-cultural perspective, where “participants always
co-construct the activity they engage in, in accordance with their own socio-history and
locally determined goals” and “‘performance depends crucially on the interaction of
individual and task’ rather than on the inherent properties of the task itself." (Ellis,
200:208). This view underlines the key role of interaction in the success of the task,
and scaffolding (understood as dialogic assistance of learners) seems to mediate
learning.
In our role as materials developers we need to take into account this fact when
designing tasks, cooperative working groups seems to be the logical learning
arrangement for this purpose.

Ellis (2000:212) quoting Willis (1996: 35–6) identifies the purposes of task-based
language instruction:

1. to give learners confidence in trying out whatever language they know

2. to give learners experience of spontaneous interaction
3. to give learners the chance to benefit from noticing how others express
similar meanings
4. to give learners chances for negotiating turns to speak
5. to engage learners in using language purposefully and co-operatively
6. to make learners participate in a complete interaction, not just one-off
sentences
7. to give learners chances to try out communication strategies
8. and to develop learners’ confidence that they can achieve communicative
goals.
 CLIL materials development
Unit 2: Current language learning trends. Implications for materials development.
MIEB

Tasks should ideally be integrative, ‘input- providing’ and ‘output-prompting’. A

task-based lesson may involve three phases (the pre-task phase, the main task phase,
and the post- task phase), although only one of these (the main task phase) is
obligatory. Tasks can be performed in a whole-class context, in pairs, in groups, or by
learners working individually. (Ellis, 2009:224).
Ellis (2009:234) advocates the use of consciousness raising tasks (CR), or language
awareness tasks (Tomlinson, 1994, Bolitho & Tomlinson, 1995). A number of
principles must be met to have a proper implementation of TBCLT4:
» The tasks must be tailored to the proficiency levels of the students (e.g. if the
students have limited proficiency, tasks should initially be of the input-providing
rather than output-prompting kind).
» Tasks need to be trialled to ensure that they result in appropriate L2 use and
revised in the light of experience.
» For TBLT to work, teachers need a clear understanding of what a task is.
» Teachers and students need to be made aware of the purpose and rationale for
performing tasks (e.g. they need to understand that tasks cater to incidental
learning of the kind that will facilitate their communicative skills).
» Ideally, the teachers involved in teaching a task-based course must be involved in
the development of the task materials.

2.3. Text-driven approach

Tomlinson (2003, 2013) develops a framework in which the language focus is informed
by the text, rather than the text being selected to illustrate a particular feature of
language. In terms of text selection. Tomlinson underlines the need for cognitive and
affective engagement, the potential of a text to allow learners to connect with their own
lives and worlds, and the suitability of the degree of challenge posed by the text, both in
cognitive and affective terms.
Special relevance is attached to text selection, what in our CLIL framework won’t pose a
problem, then a sequence of activities is designed taking learners trough a learning
process where they start getting ready to experience the text, engage with it on a
personal level, reflecting and producing meaningful language; finally attention is driven
to linguistic elements on the text (Tomlinson, 2013).
Tomlinson (2013: 110) offers a framework for text-driven approach:

4
Adapted from Ellis (2009).
 CLIL materials development
Unit 2: Current language learning trends. Implications for materials development.
MIEB

Text Experien Develop

Text Intake
collection experienc Readiness response Input
& activities tial ment response
e activities activities activities
selection

5
Fig. 2. Steps in text-driven approach

» Text collection
In a text-driven approach, the collection of texts at our disposal as materials developers
or as teachers is a key element in the curriculum development. A careful selection of the
texts in the non-linguistic areas is almost taken for granted, math, science, art teachers
are supposed to find meaningful texts; language teachers can help to guarantee deep
processing reading which can facilitate language acquisition. Those texts “can also help
the learners to develop the confidence and skills which can give them access to valuable
input outside and after their course”. (Tomlinson, 1999c: 62). The format the text is
going to be read is again of key importance, it will not have the same impact a text on
The School of Athens and questions and an interactive site with hyperlinked text
leading to a webquest.

» Text Selection
In the next step different measures have to be taken in order to tune the texts to CLIL
criteria, it is of key importance to analyse if they may conform to:
»The 4Cs
»The CLIL matrix

5
Based on the classification in (Tomlinson, 2003: 111-121)
 CLIL materials development
Unit 2: Current language learning trends. Implications for materials development.
MIEB

»The language tryptych

Following Tomlinson (2003:111) there are a number of criteria to take into account
when selecting our texts, namely:

» Is the text likely to engage most of the target learners cognitively and
effectively?
» Are the target learners likely to be able to connect the text to their knowledge of
the world?
» Are most of the target learners likely to be able to achieve multidimensional
mental representation of the text?
» Is the text likely to stimulate divergent personal responses from the target
learners?
» Is the linguistic and cognitive level of the text likely to present an achievable
challenge to the target learners?
» Is the emotional level of the text suitable for the age and maturity of the target
learners?
» Is the text likely to contribute to the personal development of the learners?
» Does the text contribute to the ultimate exposure of the learners to a range of
text types (e.g., narrative, description, persuasion, information, justification,
etc.)?

» Text Experience
At this stage the material developer has to read the text taking into account its learning
potential, at the beginning managing CLIL basics for each text may seem a bit steep,
however, once CLIL basics as pointed out above have been mastered and automatic
analysis of the potential will provide the clue on its application for the target students.

» Readiness Activities
Once the texts are considered from a learning potential, the first stage is planning
readiness activities that prepare the learners for the CLIL experience. Learners need to
activate high order thinking skills rather than facing the text from a sheer decoding
procedure.
The process to bear in mind when designing the activities that foster connections
arousing attention and generating appropriate information processing paths are the
following:
 CLIL materials development
Unit 2: Current language learning trends. Implications for materials development.
MIEB

» Visualizing » Relate to their lives

» Drawing » Share their knowledge
» Connect » Make predictions
» Infer » Title
» Articulate their views

» Experiential activities
These are “whilst reading” activities to be given to the learners just before
reading/listening/watching the text and they should direct them towards their own
mental representation of the information (f.i. in a maths or text asking the learner to
visualize in her brain the information described by the problem or the equation; the
same might work for a music script. Another example may be to give the students just
parts of the texts where they have to fill the rest of the information).

» Intake response activities

Here the learners are invited to start from their mental representation of the text and
share it with peers, teacher or both. This is the ideal stage for negotiation in the process
of learning.

» Development activities
These activities intend to create meaningful language production, we may include here
not only peers or teachers, but even the world (blog entry, twitter, forum, etc.). In this
phase, the learners are at the top of Bloom’s revised pyramid (Anderson et al., 2001,
2005; Bloom, 2000). For example, reading about a new mobile phone (the i37) the
cooperative groups design a new improved version in the class and they also create a
commercial.

» Input response activities

These are linguistic activities oriented towards the discovery of the language used for
communication, language awareness (Svalberg, 2007, Bolitho et al., 2003; Carter,
2003) or consciousness raising tasks (CRT), (Ellis, 2003, 2009). Asking learners to
reflect on the language and make inferences on how it is articulated may help them
develop intake of structures and vocabulary.
 CLIL materials development
Unit 2: Current language learning trends. Implications for materials development.
MIEB

» Interpretation Tasks
When appropriate, taking the student to think about the intentions of the text may help
them develop critical and creative thinking skills. For example, posing deep questions
on the text (intentions of the author, morale of the story), creating debates about the
issues in the text, critical reviews, interviews with author or characters (Tomlinson,
2011)

» Awareness Tasks
Students still need a step forward in linguistic terms, gain language awareness on
communication strategies, discourse features, genre characteristics or text type features
as Tomlinson (2003:116) states: “The awareness tasks usually involve investigation of a
particular feature of a text plus ‘research’ involving checking the typicality of the
investigated feature by analysing the same feature in use in other, equivalent texts.”

Take for example text mining (Saslow, 2013), once we have taken the suggested steps,
the teacher highlights language items that the students understand, but wouldn’t use
umpromted. Here the goal is to focus on vocabulary that students know rather than
only the one they do not know, giving a “new life” to that language items.
Table 1 below summarizes text-driven approach and provides a good guide to the
creation of text-driven materials.
 CLIL materials development
Unit 2: Current language learning trends. Implications for materials development.
MIEB
 CLIL materials development
Unit 2: Current language learning trends. Implications for materials development.
MIEB
 CLIL materials development
Unit 2: Current language learning trends. Implications for materials development.
MIEB

Table 1. A summary of text-driven framework (Tomlinson 2003:119-121)

2.4. Project work.

David Graddol points out in the Guardian Weekly online CLIL debate, ‘When
[CLIL]works, it works extraordinarily well, but it is actually quite difficult to do well.’

Mehisto et al. (2008:7) enumerate CLIL characteristics: 

» Implies innovation, new ways of working and changing the way we do things.
» Contributes to an integrated academic work replacing fragmentation.
» Creates fusion between subjects that have been apart.
 CLIL materials development
Unit 2: Current language learning trends. Implications for materials development.
MIEB

» Invites convergence between the learning of content and language.

» Encourages independent and co-operative learning.
» Contributes to create a common purpose and forums for lifelong development.
» Adds extra value to language learning.
» Helps students build integrated knowledge and skills for an increasingly
integrated world. 

A sound way to integrate task-based learning and cooperative groups my be doing

cross-curricular project work, we can tackle different parts of the curriculum in a
natural way using all the skills in the target language with a functional purpose whereas
promoting learner autonomy.

There is not strong scientific evidence on the benefits of project based work (PBW) in
CLIL environments, however, the evidence of its positive effect for learning in general
and language learning in particular should suffice for including PBW in CLIL classroom
dynamics (Bell, 2010; Gary, 2015; Kurzel & Rath, 2007; Mookdaporn Panasan &
Prasart Nuangchalerm, 2010; Musa, Mufti, Latiff, & Amin, 2011)
A project offers the students the possibility to get involved in the decisión on what to do
and collaboratively decide how to complete a project whilst the teacher plays a more
supporting role.

Gallacher (2004) lists some advantages of project work:

» Increased motivation - learners become personally involved in the

project.

» All four skills, reading, writing, listening and speaking are integrated.

» Autonomous learning is promoted as learners become more responsible

for their own learning.

» There are learning outcomes -learners have an end product.

» Authentic tasks and therefore the language input are more authentic.

» Interpersonal relations are developed through working as a group.

» Content and methodology can be decided between the learners and the

teacher and within the group themselves so it is more learner centred.
 CLIL materials development
Unit 2: Current language learning trends. Implications for materials development.
MIEB

» Learners often get help from parents for project work thus involving the
parent more in the child's learning. If the project is also displayed parents
can see it at open days or when they pick the child up from the school.

» A break from routine and the chance to do something different.

» A context is established which balances the need for fluency and

accuracy. Haines (1989)

Gallacher (2004) also offers a model for planning the project and evaluates their pros
and cons. This framework for language learning projects can be easily extrapolated to
CLIL, basically because their very essence is cross-curricular; it is important just to
remember to follow the basic CLIL criteria.

Activity 2

Assessing initial proposal against language learning

criteria for CLIL

PLEASE GO TO THE SUBJECT FORUM TO COMPLETE THIS ACTIVITY

Students are asked to use the information in this unit (criteria, task-based and text-
driven approaches) as a rubric for assessing their initial proposal (Activity 1) and then
modify accordingly sharing the process and final product with the community in the
forum.
 CLIL materials development
Unit 2: Current language learning trends. Implications for materials development.
MIEB

References

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E.,
Pintrich, P., … Wittrock, M. C. (2005). Review Reviewed Work(s): A Taxonomy
for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives Complete Edition. Source: Educational Horizons.

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E.,
Pintrich, P. R., … Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching
and Assessing : A Revision of Bloom’ s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
Spring. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

Arnold, J., & Brown, H. D. (1999). A Map of the Terrain BT - Affect in Language
Learning. In Affect in Language Learning. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=ZYs9Jx0DZncC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=affect+in+language+lea
rning+arnold&ots=WyCze95kIB&sig=QXd2AhvATmnLtTuMlHe904l_uP8%5
Cnpapers2://publication/uuid/AEFA61A2-B7EF-4120-815F-A5CEE23F8EFE

Available from: Center for Adult English Language Acquisition. 4646 40th Street
NW, Washington, DC 20016. (2000). Adult ESL Language and Literacy
Instruction: A Vision and Action Agenda for the 21st Century. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/61873531?accountid=14549
http://search.proquest.com/docview/61873531?accountid=14549

Bell, S. (2010). Project-Based Learning for the 21st Century: Skills for the Future.
The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas.
http://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415

Bloom. (2000). Revised Bloom ’ s Taxonomy. Thinking.

http://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.6374

Bloom, B. (1956). A Taxonomy of Cognitive Objectives. In A Taxonomy of Cognitive

Objectives.
 CLIL materials development
Unit 2: Current language learning trends. Implications for materials development.
MIEB

Bolitho, R., Carter, R., Hughes, R., Ivanič, R., Masuhara, H., & Tomlinson, B. (2003).
Ten questions about language awareness. ELT Journal, 57(3), 251–259.
http://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.3.251

Bolitho, R. and B. Tomlinson. 1995. Discover English. New edn. Oxford: Heinemann.

Carter, R. (2003). Key concepts in ELT: Language awareness. ELT Journal.

http://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.1.64

Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching

Research, 4(3), 193–220. http://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400302

Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit

knowledge? Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002073

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition (Vol. 26). http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104293056

Ellis, R. (2009). Taskbased language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings.

International Journal of Applied Linguistics. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-
4192.2009.00231.x

Gallacher, Lynn. (2004). “Project work with teenagers.” Teaching English, British
Council. Available at<
http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/articles/project-work-with-
teenagers>(Accessed September 1st 2018).

Gary, K. (2015). Project-Based Learning. Computer.

http://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2015.268

Krashen, S. (2005). Free voluntary reading: New research, applications, and

controversies. Anthology Series-Seameo Regional Language Centre.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-009-9142-7

Kurzel, F., & Rath, M. (2007). Project Based Learning and Learning Environments.
 CLIL materials development
Unit 2: Current language learning trends. Implications for materials development.
MIEB

Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology.

Mookdaporn Panasan, & Prasart Nuangchalerm. (2010). Learning Outcomes of

Project-Based and Inquiry-Based Learning Activities. Journal of Social
Sciences. http://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2010.252.255

Musa, F., Mufti, N., Latiff, R. A., & Amin, M. M. (2011). Project-based learning:
Promoting meaningful language learning for workplace skills. In Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.05.027

Svalberg, A. (2007). Language awareness and language learning. Language

Teaching, 40, pp 287308 doi:10.1017/S0261444807004491

Tomlinson, B. 1994. ‘Pragmatic awarenessactivities’. Language Awareness. 3/3:

119–29.

Tomlinson, B. (2003). Developing Principled Frameworks for Materials

Development. Developing Materials, (October), 107–129.

Tomlinson, B. (2011). Principles and procedures of materials development (Part 2).

Folio. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Tomlinson, B. (2013) Developing Principled Frameworks for Materials

Development in Developing Materials for Language Teaching (2nd Edition -
1st Edition 2003) ed. Tomlinson, B. Bloomsbury. London.

Tomlinson, B. 2015a. Creative use of coursebooks. In Maley, A. , Creativity -for a

change. In T. Pattison (Ed.) IATEFL 2014 Harrogate conference selections (pp.
105-109). Faversham: IATEFL

Tomlinson, B. 2015b. Challenging teachers to use their coursebooks creatively. In A.

Maley & N. Peachey (Eds.), Creativity in the language classroom (pp. 24-28).
London: British Council.
 CLIL materials development
Unit 2: Current language learning trends. Implications for materials development.
MIEB

Further readings

Tomlinson, B. 2015b. Challenging teachers to use their coursebooks creatively. In A.

Maley & N. Peachey (Eds.), Creativity in the language classroom (pp. 24-28).
London: British Council

This work effectively challenges teachers to get out of the track for affective-effective
reasons. Starting with the basic principle of the localisation of materials, Tomlinson ask
teacher to have another look at their materials or at the course book and challenge the
tasks associated with the texts. Tomlinson ask the teachers to design materials that
push their students to being imaginative, and creative instead of just being analytical
when dealing with language learning, the idea behind the project is that of engaging the
learners’ minds and utilising their existing skills.

Bolitho, R., Carter, R., Hughes, R., Ivanič, R., Masuhara, H., & Tomlinson, B. (2003).
Ten questions about language awareness. ELT Journal, 57(3), 251–259.
http://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.3.251

This informative work explores the role of explicit knowledge about language in the
process of language learning and the role that such explicit knowledge about language
plays in language teaching and how such knowledge can best be mediated by teachers.
Bolitho et al. also explore some of the reasons why language awareness has to some
degree remained on the periphery of mainstream practices in language teaching and
teacher education.
The paper explores questions concerning the theory and practice of language
awareness, its descriptive orientations, its relationship with critical social dimensions,
and its connections with current theories of language teaching and learning.

Kurzel, F., & Rath, M. (2007). Project Based Learning and Learning Environments.
Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology.
 CLIL materials development
Unit 2: Current language learning trends. Implications for materials development.
MIEB

This work describes the characteristics of Project Based Learning and provides a good example
of learning and report on a multimedia course where this methodology was pursued. The
instructional materials are reported on and the artefacts/documentation developed by students
dis- cussed. The implications of PBL on the use of online learning environments are discussed
and a model to provide alternate instruction in an online environment is offered and analysed.

Kurzel and Rath offer and intesting model for the CLIL content areas, informing about
materials, working structures, phases of the PBL and the implications of their study