Integrated-skills based syllabus for primary schools

Towards a descriptive model of ELT materials.

We need to first paint a clear image of what has to be conveyed before we can look at the influences that might have a role in influencing the character of English language instruction materials. Therefore, the focus of this chapter is to provide a framework for characterizing materials that can subsequently be applied (in the following chapter) to the five sets of materials that serve as the primary sources of information for this thesis. However, it is important to acknowledge that any framework for describing a complicated item like a collection of teaching materials would unavoidably entail selection, running the danger of introducing explanation into the description. The risk is that, through selection, one might obliquely imply factors that shape the materials, such as, for instance, the identification of a specific theory of language learning that might imply that theory had a large part in shaping the materials. In order to determine which characteristics of materials are considered to be significant in the literature, I will first analyze a variety of existing models for description that are pertinent to teaching materials in this chapter.
In doing so, I'll be concerned with identifying and avoiding areas where current models seem to either be biased toward certain sorts of language teaching resources or to presume certain approaches to the creation of materials. In order to identify the important details that should be included in a description of the materials mentioned in this thesis, I will then try to draw on the insights we have received from this. I'll refer to this collection of elements as the description's end product. However, a description attempt that goes beyond what is stated explicitly in the materials will always need the researcher to draw conclusions about what is involved in using the items. This is why I will focus on developing a description process model that shows the multiple layers of inference needed. The appraisal of the demands imposed on students by the tasks suggested in the materials will be of utmost importance in this. Therefore, I'll also be thinking about what a "task" is and offering a theoretical framework for their examination. In order to wrap up, I'll suggest a model that combines the key elements of the process of description and the product of description. The Mackey model is helpful in that it demonstrates the need to analyze the underlying theories of language and language learning that are represented in addition to the actual content and organization of the materials. However, this time a language learning theory is not specifically mentioned, despite a deeper look at Corder's writings showing that he sees the role of such a theory as dictating the presentational strategies used in the materials. However, one evident issue with both Mackey's and Mason, J. models is that the suggested categories of analysis or steps in growth itself seem to presuppose specific conceptions of language, learning, and teaching. In both instances, it is believed that the selection, sequencing, and presentation of the teaching materials are directly derived from an analysis of language that results in a list of items and a perspective on instruction that prioritizes these items.[16]
The models will obviously be unsuitable as a basis for characterizing materials that do not focus on a linguistic specification because they are biased in favor of materials that are organized in this way. Furthermore, the methodological components of teaching materials are underexplained because the language content is prioritized in both models. Examples of teaching tactics that might be used in materials include Mackey's aspects of presentation and repetition.
Additionally, neither model takes into account the numerous additional significant aspects of classroom work that materials could raise: What is the role of the teacher? What part does the learner play? What is the breakdown of who is responsible? Who collaborates with who? What are the requirements for the learners in each task? so forth. However, their model allows for a more in-depth analysis of methodology in terms of two fundamental components: content (also known as samples of the target language) and process (also known as the actual procedures and participant roles involved in working on the content). Within content, one can differentiate between data (i.e., samples of the target language) and information (i.e., explanations and rules about the language and language use). In terms of content, the approach suggests first taking into account any possible linguistic underpinnings of the material. ⁴
The implicit and explicit focus of the materials' content is the next thing to take into account. Materials might, for instance, have an explicit concentration on covering a particular subject while also having an implicit focus on a particular grammatical or functional area. The many ways in which the content is organized and separated, as well as how continuity is established, should be taken into account next. The third component of content identified is the rigidity of this subdivision and sequence, or the intended path through the materials. Breen and Cunningsworth's approach for the language learning process starts with determining the theory of language learning that the materials either expressly or implicitly reflect. The types of teaching procedures suggested by the materials will reflect this theory.[4 ]
The nature of the teacher's and the learner's roles, as well as the contribution each of them is expected to make in the teaching-learning process, may be determined by these procedures, which may also involve decisions concerning participation – who does what with whom. The engagement of the learner's process competency is what they refer to as the final feature of the materials that they identify. It consists of four components: the learner's knowledge systems related to ideas and concepts, interpersonal behavior, and text structure; the affects, attitudes, and values that are evoked; the communication, interpretation, and negotiation skills that are required; and the way in which the reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills are utilized.
The Breen and Candlin model's strength rests in the fact that it considers not only any linguistic analysis that might come before the construction of the materials but also suggestions for classroom methods and the demands placed on the learner by the specific task types included. This makes the model more adaptable than those put out by Mackey or Corder because it should allow for the description of a variety of educational resources. Numerous characteristics cited by Breen and Candlin are also present in the final model we will look at, that put out by Richards. [20 ]The model by Richards and Rodgers was initially created to serve as a model for the description and comparison of techniques like the Silent Way, Suggestopaedia, Community Language Learning, and others, but it is obvious that it has significant relevance when examining teaching materials. The model consists of three fundamental levels of analysis, which are sometimes misleadingly depicted as categories in its graphic. The fundamental theories of language and language learning, which may be explicit or implicit, make up an approach. The definition of goals and objectives, the syllabus model being used, including the selection and grading principles, the selection of the subject matter, the different types of teaching and learning activities, the roles of the teacher and the learners, and the function of the teaching materials are all part of design.[12]
The last stage of analysis, however, procedure goes beyond examining instructional materials because it focuses on how a certain method is implemented in the classroom, how lessons actually go down, the tactics used, and the behaviors that are involved. The four models I've looked at all have certain things in common and imply that there is some agreement on what features of instructional materials will be important and should be considered when creating a description. For instance, Kramsch, C. and Whiteside, Richards and Rodgers extend Mackey and Corder's argument that the view of language and language learning are important to include methodological issues like the roles of the teacher and student.[12 ] But since each of them was created with a specific objective in mind, none of them will be adequate on their own to describe a set of language instruction resources in general. As I've mentioned before, the models put out by H. Adler and E. A. Menze (eds emphasize the role that applied linguistics plays in the creation of materials. [8]
The Breen and Candlin model allows for the consideration of additional aspects of the materials, but the assertion that the organizing principles of selection, sequencing, and subdivision are primarily related to content will not adequately account for the materials that do not put their focus on the content itself. Here, I'm considering, for instance, instructional resources whose organizing principles may be task complexity or group dynamics, or materials that encourage the class to conduct its own study and provide its own content. The model of Richards and Rodgers covers a lot of the same terrain as Breen and Lewis, M. 's, but it cannot be used to describe teaching materials because their proposed third level (process) is inapplicable.[14] However, there is one more thing to think about that applies to all the models mentioned. Making ensuring that the model does not contain any presumptions about how teaching materials are created is crucial when building a model for the description of teaching materials.
As we have already mentioned, Mackey and Corder's models seem to presume that instructional materials would (or should) be derived from linguistic analyses and learning theories that place a priority on the presentation of linguistics content. The concept that materials designers must draw inspiration from a theory of language and a theory of language development is implicit in such an assumption. This may be the case, but it is an origin statement rather than a description; it is a response to the inquiry "Why are the materials this way?" rather than "How are the materials?" Utilizing any of the aforementioned models leads to a more serious issue. Although taken as a whole, they provide a very helpful list of the topics that a description of instructional materials should include, they neglect to analyze the many levels of inference that the researcher will need to pass through. Instead of models of the description process, one may claim that they represent models of the description's end result. ⁵
We can use Richards and Rodgers' model as an illustration of this. Approach is the initial level of description according to Richards and Rodgers. "Theory of Language" and "Theory of Language Learning" make up this. As I've already mentioned, a debate of origination rather than description is where theoretical considerations belong. Although Richards and Rodgers acknowledge that it is challenging to draw any conclusions about the theoretical underpinning of either materials or methods without first carefully examining the way in which the language is represented and the suggestions that are made as to how the learners should be taught, they nonetheless do so in their own use of the model for the description of teaching methods. [15]