Developing materials for language

teaching Second Edition Tomlinson

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/developing-materials-for-language-teaching-second-e
dition-tomlinson/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Developing Materials for Language Teaching Brian

Tomlinson

https://textbookfull.com/product/developing-materials-for-
language-teaching-brian-tomlinson/

Teaching and Developing Reading Skills: Cambridge

Handbooks for Language Teachers Peter Watkins

https://textbookfull.com/product/teaching-and-developing-reading-
skills-cambridge-handbooks-for-language-teachers-peter-watkins/

Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language Techniques for

Developing Language Skills and Grammar 1st Edition
Mohammad T. Alhawary

https://textbookfull.com/product/teaching-arabic-as-a-foreign-
language-techniques-for-developing-language-skills-and-
grammar-1st-edition-mohammad-t-alhawary/

Readings for Reflective Teaching in Schools Second

Edition Pollard

https://textbookfull.com/product/readings-for-reflective-
teaching-in-schools-second-edition-pollard/
Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and
Learning Volume III ESL Applied Linguistics
Professional Series 1st Edition Hinkel

https://textbookfull.com/product/handbook-of-research-in-second-
language-teaching-and-learning-volume-iii-esl-applied-
linguistics-professional-series-1st-edition-hinkel/

Teaching English as a Foreign Language Carola Surkamp

https://textbookfull.com/product/teaching-english-as-a-foreign-
language-carola-surkamp/

Practical Teaching Skills for Driving Instructors

Developing Your Client Centred Learning and Coaching
Skills 11th Edition John Miller

https://textbookfull.com/product/practical-teaching-skills-for-
driving-instructors-developing-your-client-centred-learning-and-
coaching-skills-11th-edition-john-miller/

Teaching Grammar Creatively Second Edition Herbert

Puchta

https://textbookfull.com/product/teaching-grammar-creatively-
second-edition-herbert-puchta/

Understanding Formulaic Language A Second Language

Acquisition Perspective Second Language Acquisition
Research Series 1st Edition Anna Siyanova-Chanturia

https://textbookfull.com/product/understanding-formulaic-
language-a-second-language-acquisition-perspective-second-
language-acquisition-research-series-1st-edition-anna-siyanova-
Developing Materials for
Language Teaching

Chapters from the first edition

Edited by
Brian Tomlinson

LON DON • N E W DE L H I • N E W YOR K • SY DN EY

 Bloomsbury Academic
An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway

London New York
WC1B 3DP NY 10018
UK USA

www.bloomsbury.com

The chapters first published in Developing Materials for Language Teaching, 2003
This ebook collection first published 2014

© Brian Tomlinson and Contributors, 2014

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without
prior permission in writing from the publishers.

No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining

from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by
Bloomsbury Academic or the author.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

eISBN: 978-1-4742-1054-6

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Typeset by Jones Ltd, London

 Contents

All Chapter Numbers Refer to the First Edition, PB ISBN: 9780826459176 (now out of print)

2 Selection of Materials 37
Rani Rubdy
5 Adapting Classroom Materials 86
Carlos Islam and Chris Mares
12 Developing Electronic Materials for Language Teaching 199
Beverly Derewianka
13 Hyperfiction: Explorations in Texture 221
Claudia Ferradas Moi
15 Materials for Beginners 256
Carlos Islam
17 Talking like Texts and Talking about Texts: How Some Primary
School Coursebook Tasks are Realized in the Classroom 291
Irma K. Ghosn
18 Materials for Specific Purposes 306
Roger Barnard and Dorothy Zemach
25 Materials for Language Awareness 422
Rod Bolitho
26 Materials for Cultural Awareness 426
Alan Pulverness
29 Materials Development and Teacher Training 479
Christophe Canniveng and Mertxe Martinez
30 A Practical Experience of Institutional Textbook Writing:
Product/Process Implications for Materials Development 490
Patrick Lyons
31 Personal and Professional Development through Writing:
The Romanian Textbook Project 505
Ruxandra Popovici and Rod Bolitho
 CHAPTER

2
Selection of Materials
Rani Rubdy

Introduction
The coursebook has become an almost universal element of ELT, playing as it
does a vital and positive part in the everyday job of teaching and learning of
English (Hutchinson and Torres, 1994). The plethora of material that continues
to be produced unabated bears ample testimony to its perceived importance not
simply as one of the main ‘tools of the trade’ in the language classroom but as
‘the visible heart’ of any ELT programme (Sheldon, 1988: 237). As Cunnings-
worth has noted, the wealth of published material that is available on the market
today makes the selection of the right coursebook a challenging task, requiring
teachers to make informed and appropriate choices when selecting coursebooks
and supporting materials (Cunningsworth, 1995: 1).
What makes it vital to develop even more accurate and revealing ways of evalu-
ating and selecting coursebooks is that materials themselves have evolved into
more complex objects. While in the early days ELT coursebooks contained mainly
reading texts accompanied by a set of comprehension questions and a few
grammar and vocabulary exercises, materials today frequently offer ‘packages’ for
language teaching and learning which include workbooks, teachers’ guides,
audio and video support and even CALL programmes with precise indications of
the work that teachers and learners are to do together in a way that effectively
structures classroom lessons (Littlejohn, 1998: 190). Indeed, materials have more
and more come to be viewed as ‘an embodiment of the aims, values and methods
of the particular teaching learning situation’ (Hutchinson, 1987: 37) to the
extent that, as Hutchinson observes, the selection of materials probably repre-
sents the single most important decision that the language teacher has to make.
The selection of materials involves matching the given materials against the
context in which they are going to be used and the needs and interests of the
teachers and learners who work within it, to find the best possible fit between
them. This calls for major strategic decisions based on informed judgement and
professional experience, forcing teachers to identify their priorities: As Littlejohn
rightly observes, ‘We need to be able to examine the implications that use of a set
of materials may have for classroom work and thus come to grounded opinions
about whether or not the methodology and content of the materials is appro-
priate for a particular language teaching context’ (Littlejohn, 1998: 190–1).
38 Rani Rubdy

The number of variables that affect the success or failure of coursebooks in

particular contexts have made it necessary to identify appropriate criteria on
which to base these decisions. The range and multiplicity of criteria that reflect
these variables in the literature typically relate to learner goals and needs,
learning styles, proficiency levels, language teaching methods, classroom contexts
and processes, as well as the potential of materials for generating motivation,
variety and interest. Approaches that evaluate and select materials only on the
basis of such overtly observable properties that reside in the texts, tasks and
activities, however, represent to some extent a static view of materials. Since
materials are a powerful stimuli for generating learning, a more dynamic
approach would be one which selects materials for their potential not only to
engage the learners’ and teacher’s attention and effort, but also to draw sub-
stantial contributions from the teacher, the learners and the collective group as a
whole that can be transformed into worthwhile learning experiences in the
course of classroom interaction.
This chapter will review the approaches and criteria that have been employed
in the selection of instructional materials in ELT and assess the theoretical and
pedagogical assumptions underlying them. In view of the fact that the require-
ments of particular learning/teaching situations are often varied, and hence
cannot be met by any one ideal coursebook, however impressive or eminent, it
will propose a framework for selecting materials which, while incorporating cri-
teria that form part of conventional wisdom, prioritizes the potential that all good
materials have for flexibility, adaptability and relevance to the changing needs,
goals and interests of the modern-day language learner.

The Roles and Functions of Coursebooks

It might be helpful to begin by examining current thinking regarding the role
and functions of coursebooks. This should help bring clarity to the act of judging
the worth of coursebooks, particularly in the face of the broad variation found
among teachers of English across the world who use them, and the diversity in the
objectives for learning English that exists among their students.
Recent years have seen a renewed debate about the desirability of ELT course-
books in facilitating the teaching and learning of English. Some scholars object to
them in principle on grounds that published materials do not always provide the
types of texts and activities that a teacher is seeking for a given class (Block, 1991).
Others argue that they tend to have a constraining effect on the freedom of
action of the teacher, predetermining the content and procedures for learners
and pre-empting creativity and exploration on the part of teachers (Prabhu,
1988). Because coursebooks are typically produced centrally by a group of ‘spe-
cialists’ for another group to use locally in a top-down fashion (Maley, 1998: 279)
they can act as instruments of institutional control or serve a range of commercial
interests (Bell and Gower, 1998: 117) that could be disempowering for teachers.
In this view, ‘The teacher becomes little more than a cipher for a prepared text’
(Hutchinson and Torres, 1994).
 2. Selection of Materials 39

To combat this trend of over-reliance on the textbook, a strong case has been
made for the promotion of teacher-generated materials (Block, 1991; Dubin,
1988) and for greater learner involvement in materials adaptation (Clarke, 1989;
Riggenbach, 1988), more in tune with a learner-centred philosophy that char-
acterizes contemporary classrooms. Block (1991), for instance, contends that the
way core language is contextualized in many commercial materials often renders
it irrelevant and outdated. He maintains that the personal touch that the teacher
can bring to his/her materials is unparalleled by the stereotypical activities that
characterize many of them. Clark (1989) pleads for creative learner involvement
in materials adaptation and shows how giving learners a more contributory role
can serve not only to make existing materials more relevant but also more
motivating for the learner.
Notwithstanding these developments, there are those who argue that ‘course-
books provide teachers and learners with a range of professionally developed
materials within tried and tested syllabus structures’, allowing teachers to spend
their valuable time more on facilitating learning than materials production (Bell
and Gower, 1998: 116). Advocacy of coursebooks has come from scholars who
strongly believe that coursebooks should be seen as a means of ‘re-skilling’ rather
than ‘de-skilling’ teachers (O’Neil, 1982; Hutchinson and Torres, 1994; Edge and
Wharton, 1998) and that, provided they are used flexibly, they can be adapted
and supplemented to meet the needs of specific classes (Bell and Gower, 1998:
117). They state the following advantages for the use of coursebooks:

1. Coursebooks fulfil a wide range of practical needs, particularly in contexts where

English is being taught in a non-English-speaking environment and where tea-
chers either lack training or sufficient time to analyse each group’s needs.
2. The coursebook helps provide a route map for both teachers and learners,
making it possible for them to look ahead to what will be done in a lesson as
well as to look back on what has been done.
3. Coursebooks provide structure and predictability, which help give partici-
pants in social interactions like lessons a safe base, a platform for negotiation
and exploration.
4. By dealing with a certain amount of routine work for teachers, the course-
book frees them to attend to more important aspects of lesson planning
(including materials adaptation and supplementation), and to concentrate
on using their creative skills.
5. Coursebooks provide teachers, particularly those lacking in training and
experience, with a sense of self-confidence and security.
6. Most coursebooks are designed and developed by experts in the field, con-
versant with current theoretical approaches and methodological practices.
The quality of sophistication in their design, content and organization would
be difficult to match with home-grown materials.
7. Coursebooks can act as agents of change, allowing innovative ideas to be
introduced within their structured framework in a way that enables teachers
and learners to develop in harmony with these new ideas. Indeed, Edge and
40 Rani Rubdy

Wharton (1998) see the ELT coursbook functioning as a genre of mass

communication, where its authors can enter into positive dialogue with teach-
ers and students on a number of issues of current significance to ELT
professionals.

Not surprising, then, to see why the selection of materials has come to involve
‘considerable professional, financial and even political investment’ – not just by
teachers and learners – but other stakeholders as well, such as administrators,
educational advisors, education ministries and state governments, making the
task a high profile one (Sheldon, 1988: 237). Conflict of interests can arise
between commercial agencies who view ELT books as big business and use
aggressive marketing strategies to exploit the situation and those committed to
the choice of a coursebook simply for its value for effective classroom use. This
explains the current polarization of views, fluctuating between the perception
that coursebooks are valid, labour-saving tools, on the one hand, and the belief
that they are just ‘skilfully marketed’ ‘masses of rubbish’ (Brumfit, 1980: 30), on
the other.
We are reminded of Allwright’s considered view about the limited usefulness of
ELT materials, expressed some two decades ago: ‘The whole business of the
management of language learning is far too complex to be satisfactorily catered
for by a pre-packaged set of decisions embodied in teaching materials’ (Allwright,
1981). Hence the feeling that published materials can at best only represent
‘poor compromises between what is educationally desirable on the one hand and
financially viable on the other’ (Sheldon, 1988: 237), thus justifying Cunning-
sworth’s (1984) cautionary note about coursebooks being good servants but bad
masters.
The debate has raised many important questions regarding the relationship
between ready-made ELT materials and the teaching and learning process that
warrant serious consideration. Some of these have been identified by Bell and
Gower (1998: 117), as summarized below:

1. Given that creativity is to be preserved as an important pedagogical principle,

how can we ensure that coursebooks do not take away investment and
responsibility from teachers and learners?
2. How can one ensure that coursebooks reflect the dynamic and interactive
nature of the learning process while at the same time maintaining the con-
sistency of the syllabus?
3. Although it is true that no coursebook can cater for all the individual needs of
all learners all of the time, how can sufficient material be provided so as to
meet most needs most of the time and provide enough flexibility to enable
teachers to individualize it?
4. If the language provided in many coursebooks is conventional rather than
real life, how can samples of use that are as natural as possible be provided?
5. If coursebooks are frequently predictable in format and content, how can the
material be made more lively?
 2. Selection of Materials 41

These questions help refocus attention on precisely the kinds of issues that are
problematic about ready-made ELT materials for which those arguing in favour of
teacher and student-generated materials see them as providing solutions in being
able to address more effectively such aspects of classroom lessons as teacher
responsibility, creativity and investment as well as learner initiative and receptivity –
indeed, just the kind of intangible attributes that inhere in good materials, or to be
more precise, in materials that provide a ‘good fit’. Because such materials are
likely to be directly responsive and relevant to the specific needs of a particular
group of teachers and learners and the circumstances of their learning, they are
likely to optimize teacher and learner contributions to the learning process and
thereby enhance learning itself. At the same time, reduced reliance on pre-
determined content and greater control over the teaching–learning process entails
greater teacher and learner freedom, creativity and choice, thus contributing to
the desirable educational goals of independence and autonomy for both.

Materials Evaluation and Selection

Ellis speaks of the strong surge of interest in the goals, roles and methods of
evaluation in recent years (Alderson and Beretta, 1992; Rea-Dickins and Ger-
maine, 1992; Weir and Roberts, 1994), and attributes this trend primarily to the
increase in the influence of mainstream educational theory and in part to the
need to carry out large-scale programme evaluations for external funding agen-
cies like the ODA, the British Council and USAID (Ellis, 1998: 217). He goes on
to make a distinction between macroevaluations of such large-scale projects, typic-
ally carried out for accountability and/or developmental purposes and micro-
evaluations. The latter are carried out by teachers on a day-by-day and lesson-by-
lesson basis and focus less on the programme as a whole and more on what
specific activities and techniques appear to ‘work’ in the context of a particular
lesson. By this definition, materials evaluation, selection and adaptation fall
under the purview of microevaluation, as does the evaluation of teachers’ and
learners’ classroom behaviours. Ellis argues that since it is microevaluation which
is compatible with many teachers’ perspective about what evaluation involves,
encouraging teachers to adopt a micro- rather than a macroperspective to
evaluation will help them undertake evaluation that accords with their own
perspective.
At this point, another distinction that will be useful to make is that between the
evaluation of materials (see Chapter 1 (Tomlinson) in this volume) and their
selection. Evaluation, like selection, is a matter of judging the fitness of some-
thing for a particular purpose. However, while it is true that the selection of
materials inevitably involves, or subsumes, a process of evaluation, evaluation can
be undertaken for a variety of purposes and carried out in a variety of ways. In the
selection of materials, on the other hand, what assumes primary importance is the
analysis of learner needs and interests and how these are addressed. Conse-
quently, in the selection of materials usually it is the most appropriate rather than
the best that wins.
42 Rani Rubdy

Additionally, since the selection of materials necessarily takes place before

classroom use, typically its concern is with what Breen and Candlin (1987) and
Breen (1989) describe as ‘tasks-as-workplans’, i.e., the analysis of materials ‘as they
are’ in a state of pre-use. This is distinct from the evaluation of ‘materials in
action’, i.e., with what actually happens in the classroom when materials are in-use
or in what in Breen’s terminology would be ‘tasks-in-process’, the point when
teachers and learners bring their own personal contributions, and from ‘tasks-as-
outcomes’, the learning that may accrue post-use. Thus while the evaluation of
materials would involve assessing how effective and useful the materials are found
to be in actual use by a specific group of teacher and students or how effective
they may have been in promoting learning, selection of materials is 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.
The framework I intend to propose in this chapter will therefore be oriented
towards analysing materials ‘as they are’ – pre-use, more in line with Littlejohn’s
(1998) proposal, than concerning itself with materials in-use or post-use and will
essentially focus on criteria for measuring the potential of what teachers and stu-
dents can do with them in the classroom. Such an evaluation is motivated by the
need to choose materials that will be relevant and appropriate for a particular
group of learners and also by the need to identify specific aspects of the materials
that require adaptation. I would, however, hasten to maintain, with McDonough
and Shaw (1993: 79), that evaluation of materials in this manner is just one part of
a complex process and that materials once selected ‘can only be judged successful
after classroom implementation and feedback’.

Existing Proposals for Evaluating Materials

Numerous evaluation checklists have been designed down the years to help teach-
ers make a systematic selection of textbooks (Tucker, 1975; van Lier, 1979; Wil-
liams, 1983; Breen and Candlin, 1987; Hutchinson and Waters, 1987; Sheldon,
1988; McDonough and Shaw, 1993; Cunningsworth, 1984, 1995; Littlejohn,
1998). These vary in the extent to which they reflect the priorities and constraints
that might characterize specific contexts of ELT teaching. Tomlinson (in this
volume) has referred in greater detail to previous approaches to evaluating
materials. Hence only a brief sketch will be attempted here.
Some of the earliest attempts at developing teacher-friendly systems for rigor-
ous assessments include the elaborate questionnaires designed by Tucker (1975),
van Lier (1979) and Williams (1983). However, these checklists have not had the
currency they deserve, partly due to their lack of ready access and also because of
the ad hoc manner in which coursebook selection is most often made (Sheldon,
1988). Furthermore, priorities in language teaching have themselves undergone
considerable change accompanying the growth of research and academic enquiry
in the last two decades.
Frequently the evaluation instruments and checklists are organized into two or
more levels or stages to reflect the decision process the teachers need to go
 2. Selection of Materials 43

through (Ellis, 1998: 220). For instance, Breen and Candlin’s (1987) interactive,
step-by-step guide to coursebook evaluation envisages two phases, one addressing
the ‘overall usefulness’ of the materials and another aiming at ‘a more searching
analysis’ with a particular group of learners and classroom situation in mind.
Arguing for the need to look below surface features to discover the value system
and assumptions underlying materials design, Hutchinson (1987) likewise views
evaluation as an interactive process involving a subjective and objective analysis of
materials and the extent to which they match teacher and student needs in a
given context. More recently, McDonough and Shaw (1993) have also proposed
two complementary stages, beginning with an ‘external evaluation’ and moving
on to an in-depth ‘internal evaluation’ of two or more units in terms of pre-
sentation of skills, grading and sequencing of tasks, kinds of texts used and the
relationship between exercises and tests.
Sheldon’s very useful framework (1988) covers a range of criteria from those
relating to purely practical factors like availability and physical characteristics
such as layout and graphics to more psychological and psycholinguistic aspects
such as learner needs and learning objectives, their assumed background, target
age range, culture, conceptual and schematic development, expectations and
learning preferences. Organizational factors such as provision of linkage,
sequencing/grading, stimulus/practice/revision, recycling and internal and
external coherence as well as criteria that address appropriacy, authenticity,
cultural bias and flexibility are also given considerable importance.
To date, the most comprehensive and thorough is Cunningsworth’s (1984,
1995) proposal for materials evaluation, taking as it does the learner’s context
and learning principles as its starting point. The general guidelines identified
(1995) and the criteria they inform are presented alongside useful case studies,
illustrated with clear examples from current published materials relating to areas
of grammar, phonology and discourse as well as the language skills.
Focusing on materials as a pedagogic device, Littlejohn’s (1998) analysis contains
two main dimensions: publication, which refers to the ‘tangible’ or physical aspects
of the materials, and design, which relates to the thinking underlying its pro-
duction and use – including its aims, how the tasks, language and content in the
materials are selected and sequenced and the nature and focus of the content.
Utilizing Breen and Candlin’s (1987) notion of process competence, Littlejohn is
interested in what learners are precisely asked to do by drawing upon their
knowledge, abilities and skills and the modes of classroom participation the activities
foster. An extremely useful aspect is his ability to show how it works in practice as
one moves through the different ‘levels’ of analysis, from a consideration of the
more easily identifiable aspects to the more abstract and complex.
Finally, Tomlinson’s (1998) ‘Introduction’ to Materials Development in Language
Teaching provides an overview of many of the tenets and basic principles of second
language acquisition that are currently relevant to an understanding of what good
materials, as well as principled judgements about them, should contain. The
value of materials for Tomlinson lies in their effectiveness in encouraging learn-
ers to make discoveries for themselves through self-investment, through intel-
44 Rani Rubdy

lectual, aesthetic and emotional engagement with authentic input, through a

sensitivity to learners’ readiness to learn, supported by opportunities for genuine
interaction and purposeful communication. Although there is no general con-
sensus on how languages are learned, most teachers would agree that many of
these principles are precisely those which are widely believed to contribute to
successful learning.
A principal problem with checklists and questionnaires of the kind discussed
above is that they frequently involve making general, impressionistic judgements
about materials rather than providing an in-depth and systematic investigation of
what they contain. Secondly, as Sheldon argues, the discursive format in which
they are presented often makes it difficult to separate description, guidance and
criticism (Sheldon, 1988: 241). A useful suggestion put forward by him is to build
a compendium of reviews culled from various sources, including ‘student-
generated’ and ‘teacher-consensus’ reviews, so that teachers can access what has
been thought and said about various books over a period of time instead of
having to reinvent the wheel anew.
Then again, as coursebook criteria are emphatically local, no one is really
certain what criteria and constraints are actually operative in ELT contexts
worldwide. Any culturally restricted global list of criteria produced cannot
therefore hope to be definitive. Nor is it possible for all the criteria identified to
be deployed simultaneously. Obviously, factors that relate specifically to each
consumer’s unique situation will get selected and even these might not be
applicable in most local environments without considerable modifications. This is
true as much for any framework of evaluative criteria proposed as it is in
expecting a perfect fit for any set of materials produced for a wide market.
Sheldon says it correctly, ‘It is clear that coursebook assessment is fundamen-
tally a subjective, rule-of-thumb activity and that no neat formula, grid or system
will ever provide a definitive yardstick’ (Sheldon, 1988: 245). The survey guides
that have been proposed, although of practical use to teachers, raise many
questions relating to how the materials should be considered and, crucially, how
one aspect should be weighted in relation to another. Ellis (1998: 221) observes,
for instance, how many of the guides specifically ask whether the materials con-
tain authentic texts, ignoring the complexity of the whole question of authenticity
in language teaching as pointed out by Widdowson (1979). He also points out
how a positive rating on a criterion of authenticity (i.e., the materials contain
authentic texts) may be matched with a negative rating on the criterion of
vocabulary load (i.e., the number of new words introduced is excessive). It is not
clear how the materials evaluator is to reconcile these conflicting ratings.
Therefore, rather than impose a system of analysis in the form of a linear, static
checklist that elicits a response of plus/minus marks, the framework I intend to
propose presents evaluative parameters as a configuration containing a cluster or
complex of criteria reflecting variables which need to be examined as interacting
with each other rather than in isolation, while simultaneously bearing a rela-
tionship with the whole. Such a composite of variables, it is hoped, will help
teachers plot out a more coherent and complete picture of the potential that a set
 2. Selection of Materials 45

of materials holds for language learning and assess their suitability to the particu-
lar circumstances of a given context, without losing a sense of their complexity.

A Framework for the Selection of Coursebooks

What aspects of materials we focus on in evaluating them will largely depend

upon the purposes one has in looking at the materials. It is possible to describe
materials in terms of the quality of the paper and binding, pricing, layout, size,
typeface and so on, but a more pedagogic focus, rather than simply a pragmatic
one, would lead one to examine those aspects of materials that more directly aid
the teaching–learning process (Littlejohn, 1998), and this is what will be aimed at
here. If we consider the selection of materials as involving two stages of analysis, as
conventional wisdom suggests, the first stage would consist of assessing the con-
tent of the book in relation to its professed aims. Thus, for example, if a course-
book states as an underlying principle of its materials that students need to
engage in authentic communication in order to develop ‘real-life’ communica-
tion skills, in the light of the current refocusing of the question of authenticity,
where it is not primarily the materials themselves that have to be authentic, but
rather the response to the materials, teachers will need to ask what the learners
are required to do with these materials and whether this response is motivated by
an authentic need to communicate, involving, say, the addressing of content
rather than form, at the very least, in assessing the validity of the claims made
(Hall, 2001). This stage would also include considering whether the target age
range, culture, assumed background and entry/exit levels of students have been
clearly specified in the blurb and the extent to which they are valid and appro-
priate to the intended learners.
The second stage of analysis would involve assessing the effectiveness of
materials in terms of the specific needs and context of the intended learners as
well as how well they serve the teaching–learning process. The framework I
propose basically addresses this stage of evaluation and consists of three broad
categories, each assessing the potential validity of the materials in relation to:

1. the learners’ needs, goals and pedagogical requirements;

2. the teacher’s skills, abilities, theories and beliefs; and
3. the thinking underlying the materials writer’s presentation of the content and
approach to teaching and learning respectively.

These I will term Psychological Validity, Pedagogical Validity, and Process and
Content Validity.
A diagrammatic representation of these in Figure 2.1 places at the very centre
of the evaluation process the three main elements of the classroom: the learners,
the teacher and the materials to represent the interaction that takes place
between them. Note that the sample of criteria representing the inner concentric
circle has to do with those features that are found to reside overtly in the texts,
tasks and activities and is therefore viewed as elements that are ‘tangible’ or
46 Rani Rubdy

Figure 2.1 A static versus dynamic model of materials evaluation

amenable to a straightforward surface level mode of analysis. If we choose to stop

with an analysis of these criteria alone such an evaluation would constitute what I
call a static mode of evaluation. The criteria indicated as part of the outer con-
centric circle, however, involve a more in-depth analysis, requiring that we ‘look
beneath the surface’ (Hutchison, 1987) to discover through a series of subjective
judgements and inferences the more dynamic features of materials design. These
are features that have to do with the more abstract qualities of flexibility, creativity
 2. Selection of Materials 47

and exploration, all of which are viewed as activating the learning process
through teacher and learner-initiated contributions and hence call for a dynamic
model of evaluation.

Psychological Validity

The need for student-centredness in recent years has made it necessary to con-
duct some sort of needs analysis, whether in the construction of a syllabus or a set
of materials. It follows that a key question in choosing a coursebook would be,
‘How does the book relate to the needs of the learners?’ We know of course that
the need to communicate lies at the heart of all language learning. Since this
involves not just communicating within the classroom but, ultimately, in the real
world outside, the materials must also take into account students’ longer-term
goals. This in turn would entail not merely teaching them ‘how to learn’ within
classroom settings by raising awareness of different styles and strategies but also
enabling them to take advantage of any opportunity to learn outside the class-
room. In terms of materials, this means that the experience of working with the
activities contained in them should provide students with confidence in their
ability to communicate despite difficulties (Hall, 2001: 230–1).
Taking this aspect of student-centredness a step further, one might wish to find
out to what extent the materials have the potential to foster self-directed, inde-
pendent learning. As Tomlinson (1998) notes, the most significant role of
materials is to involve students in decision-making about their own learning. One
way of doing this is to channel their energies towards making existing materials
more relevant and motivating; another would be to involve them in generating
their own materials out of the reading and listening texts provided, as well as
other source materials, to suit their own level and interest. Integral to the plan of
a coursebook can be made this movement from teacher-defined tasks to tasks
identified by students themselves; and from there on to a stage where student
groups define areas of interest to work on and select materials from different
sources on their own to generate task outcomes. The point is, do the materials
have built into them such opportunities for student-initiated resource generation
or is everything specified in advance?
Even where claims are made about fostering learner autonomy, the question to
ask is whether learners are involved in making decisions about their own learning
or do the materials encourage learner autonomy in a conservative sense only,
which means learners do some study without teacher intervention but have no
self-directed goals and have not developed effective learning strategies. Do the
learners have sufficient control over the meanings and interactions that are
generated in the classroom using the materials? As Edge and Wharton (1998:
296) point out, ‘if learners in classrooms can initiate interaction patterns and
create the meanings they want to personally express, then there is more chance
that they will be able to make use of such learning to exploit outside sources for
learning when they find them.’ The following criteria mirror these issues:
48 Rani Rubdy

Rationale/Learner Needs
What are the aims and objectives of the materials?
Have they been clearly spelt out?
Do they cater to the needs, wants, interests and purposes of the learners?
Are the materials appropriate and are they likely to be effective in helping
learners to acquire English?
Do the materials make a positive contribution to heightening and sustaining
learner motivation?
Do the materials give the learners confidence to initiate communicative events
and persist with the attempted communication despite difficulties?
Do the materials cater for the development of language skills that would
enable them to operate effectively in their future academic or professional life?

Independence and Autonomy

Is the learner a decision-maker or just a receiver of information?
Do the materials encourage independent language learning?
Do the materials encourage learners to guess, predict, discover, take risks, try-
out several alternatives?
Do they give learners plenty of opportunities to make choices which suit their
linguistic level, their preferred learning styles, their level of involvement in the
text and the time available to them?
Do the materials involve the learner in thinking about the learning process and
in experiencing a variety of different types of learning activities?
Do they allow sufficient time to think and reflect on their learning?
Do the materials help individual learners discover their learning styles and
preferences, study habits and learning strategies?
Do the materials provide explicit instruction on various language learning
strategies and suggest ways of using and developing them?
Is a sufficient range of strategies provided?
Do they encourage learners to evaluate their strategies or the learning activities
or its content?
Do the materials allow self-monitoring and feedback?

Self-development
Do the materials/texts engage the learners both cognitively and affectively?
Do the materials credit learners with a capacity for rational thought and prob-
lem-solving?
Do they also involve the learner’s emotions in the learning process?
Do the materials allow for the development of creative and critical thinking
skills?
Do the materials allow scope for the development of a desirable set of atti-
tudes?
Do the materials allow the individual to develop his or her talents as fully as
possible?
88 Carlos Islam and Chris Mares

reasons for adapting materials. There is quite a bit of overlap between the two
lists, but Cunningsworth draws on a knowledge of learner styles and the learner as
a whole, considerations which are absent from McDonough and Shaw’s list.
According to Cunningsworth, adaptation depends on factors such as:

The dynamics of the classroom

The personalities involved
The constraints imposed by syllabuses
The availability of resources
The expectations and motivations of the learners

Adaptation is also appropriate when materials are not ideal, as presented in the
following:

Methods (e.g., an exercise may be too mechanical, lacking in meaning, too

complicated).
Language content (e.g., there may be too much emphasis on grammar your
students learn quickly or not enough emphasis on what they find difficult).
Subject matter (e.g., topics may not be interesting to students or they may be
outdated or not authentic enough).
Balance of skills (e.g., there may be too much emphasis on skills in the written
language or skills in the spoken language, or there may not be enough on
integrating skills).
Progression and grading (order of language items may need to be changed to
fit an outside syllabus or the staging may need to be made steeper or more
shallow).
Cultural content (cultural references may need to be omitted or changed).
Image (a coursebook may project an unfriendly image through poor layout,
low quality visuals, etc.).

Candlin and Breen (1980) focus on adaptation issues that relate to materials
specifically designed for communicative language learning. Their list implies that
published materials are limited in that they do not provide many opportunities
for real communication; instead they simply provide oral practice of linguistic
structures:

Communicative materials do not provide enough opportunities for negoti-

ation (personal or psychological) between the learner and the text.
Communicative materials do not provide enough opportunities for inter-
personal or social negotiation between all participants in the learning process,
between learners and teachers, and learners and learners.
Activities and tasks do not promote enough communicative performance.
Activities and tasks do not promote enough metacommunicating opportunities.
Activities and tasks do not promote co-participation. Teachers and learners are
not involved as co-participants in the teaching–learning process.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
6244 Boles M S, Cor Cav 4K Aug
20
101 Aug
6279 Bower C
C 20
Aug
6319 Birney J Cav 4C
20
Aug
6359 Bennett A 67 K
21
Aug
6542 Blackman W 18 D
23
Aug
6551 Bannon P 7A
23
Aug
6554 Baldwin C H Cav 2K
23
149 Aug
6604 Barnett E T
I 23
Aug
6621 Bell Thos 11 E
23
Aug
6660 Blair Jno G 46 F
24
Aug
6663 Breckinridge W 73 K
24
Aug
6688 Bowman A 63 B
24
101 Aug
6701 Boyd J W
C 24
145 Aug
6704 Beemer Wm
K 24
Aug
6887 Brown T, Cor Cav 11 I
26
106 Aug
6928 Bryan L
F 26
Aug
7125 Bridaham H W 55 H
28
7181 Bemer S 184 Aug
 E 29
Aug
7347 Ball P 49 H
31
119 Sept
7460 Barnes W 64
G 1
Sept
7477 Bennett J 55 D
1
145 Sept
7541 Barnett M
K 2
143 Sept
7684 Black J
I 3
Sept
7747 Blair J G 49 E
3
Sept
7775 Brink F Cav 11 M
4
184 Sept
7940 Browers J A
F 5
Sept
7963 Brumley Fred’k 54 K
6
101 Sept
8073 Bright Adam, Cor
K 7
183 Sept
8075 Boland
I 7
103 Sept
8256 Barr P
C 9
Sept
8286 Brown L Cav 8C
9
101 Sept
8356 Brown A
H 10
101 Sept
8358 Brickenstaff W
I 10
101 Sept
8363 Bruce J B, S’t
F 10
Sept
8413 Blosser Jonas Res 7H
11
8434 Bowsteak T D, S’t 106 Sept
H 11
Sept
8499 Bicklet E H 57 K
11
101 Sept
8606 Boots E N
H 12
Sept
8719 Beattie Robert 95 D
14
Sept
8769 Boyer J M, S’t Cav 7F
14
Sept
8795 Bentley T 54 H
14
Sept
8794 Brown P 55 A
15
184 Sept
8902 Baker J
C 16
Sept
8917 Baker Wm Cav 11 -
16
Sept
9147 Blake E 69 K
18
Sept
9520 Boyler Jas 7E
22
Sept
9632 Baldwin A 51 K
24
Sept
9745 Bowers F Cav 5A
25
Sept
9809 Bonewell W W “ 14 C
26
Sept
9952 Blair Geo Art 7 -
28
Oct
10201 Burdge H Cav 3D
2
Oct
10226 Byers J 22 E
2
10260 Burns J 103 Oct
 E 3
Oct
10292 Brown G M 10 I
4
Oct
10357 Burgess H 27 C
5
Oct
10534 Buck D C Cav 2L
8
Oct
10577 Ballinger Geo 87 D
9
Oct
10674 Blackman W 84 A
11
51 Oct
10758 Beightel J F
G 12
145 Oct
10779 Boice J N
G 12
Oct
10783 Bowling J 3A
12
116 Oct
10943 Barthart I
H 14
Oct
10980 Baney Geo 4 I
15
Oct
10983 Bowyer J S 55 E
15
Oct
11024 Bunker F 55 K
16
149 Oct
11087 Bowman G
E 18
142 Oct
11322 Bissel B
F 22
Oct
11329 Bruce A 11 I
23
Oct
11434 Berk G 51 A
24
Oct
11445 Ball J, Cor 19 K
25
14504 Bain G 183 Oct
G 26
Oct
11528 Baney I Cav 4 I
26
148 Oct
11556 Baker B H
B 27
Oct
11563 Brock C 46 A
27
103 Oct
11569 Beighley W
C 27
106 Oct
11597 Blair Jno
H 28
Oct
11611 Boyer T 11 F
28
145 Oct
11635 Burr E
K 28
Oct
11674 Bolinger G 87 D
30
Nov
11818 Bayley H 66 K
4
Nov
11894 Burch W Art 2F
7
Nov
11929 Burke J D Cav 22 D
9
149 Nov
11972 Bupp L
G 12
Nov
12039 Bailey J J Art 2F
16
184 Nov
12059 Bogar David, S’t
C 17
Nov
12079 Bond C C 20 K
18
Nov
12096 Brady N Cav 5M 64
19
12168 Brubaker B P, Cor 79 D Nov
 26
Nov
12177 Braddock T 77 C
27
Jan
12418 Barrens J Cav 5G 65
9
Mar
12812 Barnett J 6D
25
July
2917 Brim Jas 56 I 64
5
184 Feb
12665 Bennett J 65
E 16
139 Mar
45 Carter Wm 64
H 14
Mar
97 Chase Wm B, S’t Cav 15 C
22
Mar
156 Compsey Jas “ 14 H
25
Apr
355 Carman F H 54 F
2
Apr
445 Coyle P 45 A
9
Apr
466 Crouch Levi 40 I
9
Apr
479 Croghan Jno, S’t Cav 3A
9
Apr
548 Case Daniel “ 8M
14
Apr
734 Conner Andrus C 4L
25
May
837 Cravener S P Cav 14 K
1
119 May
869 Curry A
E 3
May
1015 Campbell Wm Cav 8E
10
1099 Case Silas, Cor “ 2L May
14
May
1138 Carmichael G “ 18 K
16
150 May
1186 Crisholm J H
H 18
May
1206 Caldwell S A Cav 14 E
19
May
1232 Coburg M C “ 6L
20
May
1490 Coon J H “ 18 K
31
103 May
1498 Campbell H B
E 31
May
1530 Clatter F Cav 18 C
31
June
1702 Calihan Thos “ 14 H
7
145 June
1781 Cephas L
I 8
101 June
1829 Carter Wm
K 11
June
1832 Calvert R R, S’t 6B
11
June
1871 Coombs Jno Art 3 -
12
113 June
1873 Cox J A Cav
- 12
June
2069 Cooper T “ 18 K
16
June
2349 Curry R 73 F
23
June
2399 Coyle H Cav 8F
24
2455 Crouse E 141 June
 A 25
June
2695 Copple F 54 H
30
July
2713 Chapman J 7H
1
July
2849 Carron Jas Cav 4C
4
103 July
2884 Calean Sam’l
K 4
July
2995 Coleman J, S’t Cav 18 K
7
72 July
3320 Chase F M
G 14
July
3362 Clark N Cav 8D
15
July
3417 Caton W T 49 D
16
July
3430 Couch Benj 50 H
17
July
3948 Coyle Ed 58 E
25
July
3993 Curtey L 10 I
26
July
4045 Carpenter L 12 K
27
July
4117 Cantrill M 6B
28
July
4263 Conklin N 90 K
29
July
4331 Chapman J Art 3B
30
14 July
4353 Crawford M Cav
G 31
103 July
4357 Cox Jas
A 31
4369 Claybaugh G W A 2F July
31
Aug
4512 Crock H, Cor 45 A
1
103 Aug
4682 Croup W S
L 4
103 Aug
4729 Cochran C
I 4
Aug
4903 Chew Jno, Cor 18 F
6
Aug
5177 Cranes E Cav 4M
9
Aug
5375 Campbell Jas “ 3F
11
Aug
5417 Cregg J G 54 I
12
Aug
5423 Cumberland T C 14 B
12
115 Aug
5484 Conahan M
B 13
145 Aug
5578 Carpenter W C
G 14
Aug
5584 Campbell R D 11 E
14
Aug
5623 Cox H, Cor Cav 7B
14
Aug
5828 Cummings Benj 3A 64
16
184 Aug
5979 Conor J N
C 17
Aug
6237 Corbin W 49 C
20
Aug
6269 Campbell R G 11 C
20
6320 Coon George 2F Aug
 21
Cameron Wm, 101 Aug
6336
Cor A 21
Aug
6395 Connelly Wm 55 C
21
Aug
6430 Conner J 6D
22
Aug
6502 Cline J 3H
22
Aug
6615 Crawford J 77 E
23
Aug
6645 Coleman C 19 E
23
101 Aug
6746 Conly Jno
A 24
90 Aug
6913 Craft A
G 26
Aug
7045 Cobert F C Cav 11 L
27
51 Aug
7095 Carr J
G 28
103 Aug
7116 Cathcart Robt
H 29
Aug
7209 Crain J Cav 4H
29
103 Sept
7456 Craig Wm
D 1
184 Sept
7463 Clay Henry
A 1
140 Sept
7617 Curry S
C 2
Sept
7632 Carroll A Cav 2A
2
Sept
7669 Campbell G T Art 3A
3
7696 Criser M 54 F Sept
3
103 Sept
8117 Crawford J A
B 8
101 Sept
8121 Collins M
K 8
118 Sept
8169 Cole J C
K 8
Sept
8260 Chapman —— 18 A
9
Sept
8512 Coyle M, Cor 79 B
12
Sept
8594 Culver J 69 -
12
Sept
8665 Clutler L 11 C
13
119 Sept
8700 Cavender J L
E 14
Hvy Sept
8884 Cysey A 3 -
A 15
Sept
9094 Coffman Wm 13 F
18
Sept
9134 Cramer E 55 F
18
Sept
9141 Church C H, Cor 45 B
18
101 Sept
9269 Clark J
- 19
135 Sept
9396 Coats S R
C 20
Sept
9410 Combs S 1H
21
145 Sept
9508 Clonay J
F 22
9554 Crum C 149 Sept
 G 23
118 Sept
9639 Cline J
A 24
Sept
9773 Coulter G 45 K
25
Sept
9823 Cummings R 65 K
27
Sept
9886 Callahan M 52 D
27
14 Sept
9931 Conrad W Cav
M 28
Sept
10104 Campbell Wm “ 13 D
30
139 Oct
10120 Coats L R
H 1
Oct
10274 Crawford Geo 1F
3
Oct
10276 Cantler J L 13 A
3
Oct
10283 Cromich F 7H
4
Oct
10386 Cornelius Wm Cav 7 -
5
Oct
10399 Cullingford P 55 C
6
Oct
10443 Clark W Cav 5K
7
Oct
10462 Canby G C “ 2E
7
Coperhewer Wm, Oct
10497 1D
Cor 8
Oct
10541 Culberton Louis 73 B
9
184 Oct
10842 Corbin M
D 13
10847 Clark G Cav 1H Oct
13
145 Oct
11005 Coe Geo W
E 16
Oct
11025 Clark J 3D
16
184 Oct
11250 Clark H
F 21
101 Oct
11309 Clark E B
B 22
145 Oct
11370 Carrol W
B 23
184 Oct
11436 Crawford L
R 24
Oct
11438 Cole H O Cav 2L
24
Oct
11477 Campbell C A “ 11 C
26
Oct
11565 Creagan G “ 1F
27
Oct
11614 Crawford M 14 K 64
28
Oct
11656 Coyle H 54 K
30
Oct
11659 Craney Geo Cav 20 L
30
Nov
11800 Cregger W H “ 5G
4
106 Nov
11815 Chacon A W
B 4
Nov
11826 Colebaugh W 60 K
5
145 Nov
11876 Crandall L
I 6
11922 Cleaveland E Cav 10 I Nov
 8
143 Nov
11993 Crampton A B
B 13
Nov
12120 Cullen T I 31 I
22
Nov
12141 Conway C C Art 2A
23
Dec
12255 Crompton F G 71 F
10
115 Dec
12295 Cone S
E 16
138 Dec
12301 Culp P K
B 17
112 Jan
12368 Connor S 65
H 1
Jan
12424 Clark J 89 D
9
118 Jan
12487 Collins G
E 19
Feb
12599 Cassell D 20 E
6
Feb
12672 Clark F D 7C
20
Mar
12818 Copeland B Cav 14 D
29
June
1961 Culbertson Jno “ 13 B 64
14
Mar
152 Davidson H 57 I
25
119 May
866 Dorr Phineas
K 3
May
1020 Doran McK 63 D
11
May
1161 Duntler Henry, Cor 51 K
16
1338 Dooner M 2K May
24
May
1463 Davis Richard Cav 3L
29
June
1541 Deamott J K 45 C
1
June
1545 Davis Isaac Cav 8H
1
101 June
2630 Dun R B
B 29
139 June
2657 Donovan J
K 29
July
2716 Deily Wm 53 H
1
July
2938 Davis M Cav 22 B
6
15 July
3338 Degret N “
M 15
100 July
3363 Davidson Chas
M 15
July
3741 Dallin Jas Cav 8H
21
103 July
3795 Davis J
A 22
103 July
3873 Davis M H
E 24
July
3985 Dougherty J 7E
26
149 July
4087 Deron Robt
B 29
July
4202 Drenkle J A 79 K
29
184 July
5232 Dechmam Jno
G 29
4481 Dodrick Louis 50 I Aug
 1
Aug
4491 Denton M Cav 9B
1
Aug
4497 Day Wm 97 A
1
101 Aug
4625 Davis J
E 3
Aug
4711 Dort C R Cav 4H
4
101 Aug
4786 Dondle Robt
A 5
Aug
4792 Davy H, Cor 68 K
5
101 Aug
4806 Davenbrook J J
G 5
101 Aug
4885 Delaney J
A 6
14 Aug
4897 Dunbar Jno Cav
M 6
148 Aug
4910 Dean J
F 6
110 Aug
5023 Dawlin
D 8
Aug
5256 Ditztell L 73 I
10
Aug
5431 Davidson Geo 57 C
12
101 Aug
5468 Dougherty
I 13
Aug
5664 Decker J 45 B
14
Aug
5740 Day And H Cav 2H
15
Aug
5746 Doran P 99 I
15
6017 Deal F 63 A Aug
17
Aug
6045 Degroot H, S’t Cav 13 A
18
15 Aug
6176 Defree Jas
G 19
Aug
6226 Dodd J 18 F
20
153 Aug
6316 Davis Wm
A 20
148 Aug
6568 Dawney Geo
B 23
Aug
9679 Donavan D 90 B
24
Aug
6678 Dunn Johnes 69 F 64
25
Aug
6797 Dailey M 7 I
25
184 Aug
6879 Dunn Jno
A 26
Aug
7053 Dakenfelt J 55 D
28
Aug
7077 Deets R 3A
28
Aug
7282 Day S, Cor 13 A
30
110 Aug
7360 Dively J
C 31
Sept
7488 Dilks C 1K
1
50 Sept
7651 Dewell Samuel
G 3
184 Sept
7828 Dougherty J
D 4
8211 Dixon J 105 Sept
 B 8
Sept
8334 Doherty J, S’t 73 F
10
Sept
8569 Duff J, S’t Cav 4B
12
Sept
8579 Dougherty F 90 C
12
Sept
8718 Durharse B Cav 11 G
14
Sept
8828 Donnelly J 97 H
15
Sept
8887 Dean R Cav 2M
15
90 Sept
9109 Davidson C
G 18
Sept
9146 Driscoll N C 26 I
18
Sept
9191 Duffie J 52 F
18
Sept
9289 Delaney E 7G
19
Sept
10004 Davidson G, Cor 12 K
29
Oct
10193 Dougherty M Cav 3D
2
Oct
10436 Durkale Jno “ 1F
6
139 Oct
10917 Dalzell J G
I 14
Oct
11295 Derry Frederick 20 C
22
Oct
11350 Dichell Espy 55 D
23
Oct
11394 Dewitt M Cav 1E
24
11628 Davidson S 184 Oct
A 28
Oct
11988 Dickens Chas Art 2A
13
145 Oct
12136 Dalrysuffle J E
K 23
120 Jan
12399 Donley P 65
G 5
Feb
12575 Deeds J Cav 13 H
2
145 Oct
11181 Dixon B 64
K 19
May
972 Ellers Henry Cav 13 H
9
May
1081 Eisley Jno “ 18 K
14
May
1436 Engle Peter “ 14 K
28
June
2105 Elliott Jno “ 13 F
17
July
2794 Elliott J 69 D
2
July
3038 Erwin C 78 D
8
145 July
3052 Epsey Jas, S’t
H 9
103 July
3295 Elliott J P
D 14
July
3823 Ebright Benj Cav 9A
23
July
4278 Eaton Nat Rifle 1E
30
145 Aug
4761 Ellenberger P
D 5
5687 Ennies Andrew 145 Aug
 K 15
103 Aug
6424 Ewetts Jas
G 22
53 Aug
6607 Ellis F
G 23
Aug
6872 Eckles E 77 E
26
184 Aug
6889 Ensley C
A 26
Aug
7300 Ellis H H Cav 18 I
30
Sept
7657 Egan Jno 55 C
3
Sept
8066 Exline Jacob 55 K
7
143 Sept
8543 Eichnor C
F 12
Sept
8964 Earlman J 7K
16
Sept
10009 Elfrey B S 7K
29
Oct
10694 Elliott Jno H 83 D
11
Oct
10731 Erdibach C, Cor Cav 5B
11
187 Oct
10799 Ervingfelts Jacob
D 12
Nov
11834 Edgar W H, S’t 7G
5
Nov
11838 Erebedier J, S’t 5B
5
145 Nov
12001 Etters D
D 14
Feb
12673 Ebhart J, Cor 87 E 65
18