MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT FOR TESOL

VIVA PRESENTATION

HOANG, THANH DUNG

U2272436
Outline

01 Target learners

02 Evaluation of published materials

03 Aims of materials

04 Core principles
 1. Target learners
30 Vietnamese sophomore students pursuing a non-English major.
English proficiency level: B1 CEFR.
Student Needs:
• To develop 4 English skills, especially Speaking
• To acquire real-life language outcomes to deal with familiar situations.
Interest: Topics that are relatable, intriguing and discussion-evoking.
Attitudes: respectful and hard-working
Setting: A class in a Vietnamese university where English is compulsory and a B1
standard is required. Previous English instruction in most Vietnamese schools mainly
prioritized grammar and reading instead of fluency, and communicative abilities (Tran
et al., 2021).
Motivation: Motivated by the goal of reaching the B1 CEFR and higher demand of
English competence in the job market and social contexts.
Preferred learning styles: center around interactive activities, fostering pair and group
discussions on captivating topics to engage affectively and elicit confidence in
Speaking.
2. Evaluation of published materials
Book: New English file - Student's book
Level: B1 CEFR (Intermediate)
Authors: Oxenden, Latham-Koenig
Publisher: Oxford University Press

How I evaluate the materials:

(adapted from Evaluation Framework of Brian Tomlinson
& Hitomi Masuhara, 2008; 2013)
8 criteria are considered and a score for each question is
provided (1 is the lowest, 3 is the highest):
 A summary of my evaluation
• Variety of Text Genres: including articles, stories,
and leaflets, etc. -> different styles of English.
• Listening Activities: Various contexts and accents -
> real-life spoken English.
• Personalization and Localization: relate to learners'
own countries and communities -> relevance.
• Interesting Texts: engaging and interesting to read,
fostering curiosity.
• Various speaking Activities: including discussions,
interviews, and personal reflections.
• Cultural Awareness: cultural aspects beyond the
UK.
• Adapted Texts: texts are adapted to illustrate language points -> limit
exposure to authentic language use.
• Visual Appeal
• Limited Cognitive Engagement: not challenge learners cognitively or
encourage critical thinking or creativity.
• Lack of Diverse Activity Types: Most are exercises or question-based
rather than games, debates, or videos, etc.
• Explicit Grammar Instruction: limit opportunities for language
exploration.
• Communication Focus: answer qs about texts or practicing language
features rather than using English for non-linguistic outcomes.
• Cultural Focus: the predominant focus is still on the UK and European
countries.
A summary of my evaluation

To provide language tools and
exercises that prepare students
to handle everyday situations
they may encounter while
using English
3. Aims
To develop student’s To develop student’s To help students achieve B1
General English with 4 communicative (CEFR) level of language
skills (Listening, competence in English proficiency
Speaking, Reading and
Writing)
 4. Core Principles for
Materials development

Learners are exposed to a rich, recycled, Learners are provided opportunities to use
meaningful and comprehensible input of language in use. language to achieve communicative purposes.

Learners can benefit from noticing

Learners are affectively engaged.
salient features of the input.

(adapted from Tomlinson' Principles, 2010)

 Learners are exposed to a rich, recycled, meaningful
and comprehensible input of language in use.

Theory Example
• Various text types (both Reading & Listening): dialogue (lesson 1A, 2B),
• Comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985)
announcement (lesson 1B) brochure (lesson 1B), a person’s talk (lesson
• The role of rich and meaningful input
2A), article (lesson 2C), narrative (lesson 3A, 3B, unit 4), phone
(Tomlinson, 2013) and relevance (Krashen,
conversation (lesson 3C), video (unit 4), etc.
1982)
• Relevant, contextualized, personalized activities and tasks: making a
• The role of recycled input
phone conversation, giving a presentation, writing & speaking about a
(Nunan, 2004)
personal experience, interviewing, writing about customs, filling out a
form, planning a trip, etc.
• Extensive exposure: Further practice sections (unit 1,2,3),reading for
pleasure (handbook, lesson 3), listening for pleasure (song, lesson 2,
videos, unit 4)
• Grammar features, lexis and functions are recycled in lessons.
 Extensive exposure

Recycled input
 Learners are affectively engaged.

Theory Example

• Affective filter (Krashen, 1982) • Topics are relevant, intriguing, global and discussion-
• Role of affect in learning language provoking (travel, culture and society and university life)
(Arnold, 1999) • Opportunities for Localization (p.23, p.28, p.32, etc.).
• Affective engagement (Tomlinson, 2013) • The materials offers a lot of personalization and

encourages learners to relate to their own world

experience and views (p.11, p.30, p.46, etc.).
• Related discussion (in pairs or in groups) before and after

reading/listening.
Localization Personalization
 Learners are provided opportunities to use language
to achieve communicative purposes.

Theory Example

• Output hypothesis (Swain, 2005 as cited • Various speaking activity genres: Open-ended discussions

in Nava & Pedrazzini, 2018) (p.11, p.23, p.28), role-play (p.53), interviews (p.14, p.36),

• Interaction hypothesis (Long, 1996 as presentations (p.17, p.32), storytelling (p.43, p45), personal

cited in Tomlinson, 2013) thoughts sharing (p.30, p.46), etc.

• Declarative vs. Procedural Knowledge • Pre/Post-listening/reading communicative activities

(VanPatten et al., 2020) • Contextualized communication: Scenarios (p.36, p.53)

• Learners not only involve answering questions about texts or

practicing language features but also communicate to achieve

non-linguistic outcomes. (p.17, p.32, p.36)

Speaking activity genres
 Learners can benefit from noticing
salient features of the input.

Theory Example

Schmidt's Noticing Hypothesis: Schmidt, 1990 Opportunities to make discoveries of Grammar

(as cited in Schmidt, 1992) features, lexis and functions in the input .
 References

Arnold, J. (2019). the importance of affect in language learning. Neofilolog (Poznań. Online), (52/1), 11-14. https://doi.org/10.14746/n.2019.52.1.2

Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.

Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman

Nava, A., & Pedrazzini, L. (2018). Second language acquisition in action: Principles from practice. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge university press.

Oxenden, C., & Latham-Koenig, C. (2006). New English file (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Schmidt, R. (1992). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual review of applied linguistics, 13, 206-226.

Tomlinson, B. (2008). English language learning materials: A critical review. London; New York: Continuum.

Tomlinson, B. (2013). Second language acquisition and materials development. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Applied linguistics and materials development
(pp.11-30). Bloomsbury Academic.

Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H. (2013). Adult coursebooks. ELT Journal, 67(2), 234. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct007

Tomlinson, B. (2010). Principles and procedures of materials development. In N. Harwood (ed.). Materials in ELT: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.)

Tran, N. G., Ha, X. V., & Tran, N. H. (2021). EFL reformed curriculum in Vietnam: An understanding of teachers’ cognitions and classroom practices. RELC Journal, 54(1), 166-182.

VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (2020). Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (3rd ed.). Routledge.