Language learning for work and life - Essay Example

There is a wealth of academic literature on the design, selection, adoption and evaluation of English language textbooks. Some have maintained that the design of the material should be primarily informed by L2 acquisition and teaching theory, while others have maintained the imperatives of implementing socio-culturally sensitive designs as would embrace and utilize pre-existing L1 linguistic characteristics and experiences. As pertains to the selection and adoption of L2 textbooks, with near unanimity, academia has emphasised the value of a structured selection and adoption approach, which involves both students and teachers as key stakeholders. No such consensus surrounds the evaluation of L2 textbooks and instruction material, however. Through a review of selections from recent scholarship on the topic raised, contemporary pedagogical debates and academic opinions on the issues of L2 textbook design, selection, adoption and evaluation shall be presented. Flaitz et al. (1995) maintain that both empirical and experiential evidence exposes the complexity of designing English language textbooks for L2 students. In general, the design of such material tends to revolve around grammar, syntax and vocabulary instructions, paying little heed to the fact that L2 students emanate from a very different cultural-linguistic background. That background can function as an obstacle to L2 learning, especially in instances of greater disparity between native and L2 linguistic, grammatical and syntactical rules (Flaitz et al., 1995). Consequently, and as the researchers assert, it is imperative that English language instruction textbooks and teaching material be designed towards greater responsiveness to the cultural-linguistic context in which it will be applied. Duff, Wong and Early (2002) concur, adding that the Canadian L2 experience supports the imperatives of both designing and evaluating English language teaching textbooks and material which immediately address the cultural-linguistic context of application. Studies carried out on two groups of fourth-grade French-speaking L2 learners over the span of one academic semester, validated this assertion. The group which was taught through a standard commercial English language instruction textbook attained a discernibly lower level of linguistic competency than the group which was given the alternate, cultural-linguistic sensitive, textbook (Duff, Wong and Early, 2002). The findings of the study indicated the importance of designing English language instruction material according to the stated criteria. Proceeding from the above stated theoretical assumption Carrell (1984) and Hayes and Schrier (2000) contend that L2 English language instruction textbooks and teaching material should be evaluated on the basis of the explicated criteria. Specifically stated, when assessing the value and possible effectiveness of L2 teaching materials, it is incumbent upon evaluators to do so in light of the cultural-linguistic context of implementation. The reading exercise materials should draw from the students' cultural background and should utilize symbols, places, names and events that are both culturally familiar and identifiable. The instruction material should be presented in terms that are not just familiar to the student but which allow him/her to constructively utilize their pre-existing linguistic tools and knowledge for the more effective absorption of the new. Conceding to the imperatives of designing L2 textbooks towards greater cultural-linguistic sensitivity, and the subsequent evaluation of the effectiveness of such material through an assessment of the extent to which it does so, Byrnes (2000) argues the psychological validity of this design and evaluation criteria. The primary obstacle to effective L2 learning is learner psychology. Expounding upon this, Spielmann and Radnofsky (2001) state that empirical studies have effectively established the fact that the L2 learning environment is primarily dominated by tension, emanating from learner anxiety towards that which is not only foreign but, alien. Accordingly, it is incumbent upon L2 textbook designers to address the referenced tension and anxiety, and breakdown the psychological barriers to L2 absorption, through the direct embrace of that which is culturally and linguistically familiar to students and, the responsibility of L2 instruction material evaluators to assess the value of the material according to this criterion (Byrnes, 2001; Spielmann and Radnofsky, 2001). Eschewing the cultural-linguistic criteria of evaluation, Williams (1983) argues for the design and application of a more systemic evaluative approach. Recognising that the inherently complex nature of L2 teaching material evaluation has spawned various evaluation paradigms, Williams (1983) believes that the design and implementation of a single, comprehensive assessment framework would allow for both more consistent evaluation standards and impose optimal design criteria upon textbook designers. Within the context of the stated, he proposes a evaluative scheme which assesses the effectiveness of the material from pedagogical, linguistic, general and technical perspectives. Textbooks should, therefore, be evaluated on their inclusion of general linguistic instructions and rules, their simplified presentation of linguistic techniques, such as grammatical and syntactical rules, their embrace of practice material, as in reading passages, which both teach language, as in vocabulary and grammar, and can function to guide students' writing skills and, lastly, on their provision of phonetics guides (William, 1983). The argued for, theoretically-informed, evaluation criteria would further function as a guide for the design of L2 textbooks. Concurring with the assertion that evaluative paradigms should be theoretically based and should function, not only as a framework for assessing the instructional value of L2 material but for the design of L2 material, Olivares-Cuhat (2001) proposes the application of a checklist. The checklist, as proposed, primarily draws from pedagogical precepts pertaining to L2 learning and, accordingly, seeks the measurement of the extent to which the material is "strategically, rhetorically and linguistically" consistent with L2 learning strategies and theories (Olivares-Cuhat, 2001, n.p). In other words, as recommended by Olivares-Cuhat (2001) evaluation checklists should not only be informed by L2 learning and teaching theory but should be directed towards the assessment of instructional value according to the L2 material's compliancy with L2 theory. Largely rejecting the articulation of evaluation frameworks on the basis of theoretical assumption, Ellis (1997) argues for the implementation of empirical evaluation methodologies. Proposing a two-part evaluative framework, Ellis (1997) maintains that L2 instruction material and textbooks should first be assessed according to predictive standards. The implication here is that L2 teachers would independently evaluate the material in accordance with one of the numerous established evaluation checklists. Following evaluation and selection, the textbook/material is adopted. Subsequent to the use of the material, the second step in the evaluation process begins. Referred to as the retrospective evaluation process, teachers/evaluators are called upon to either "impressionalistically" assess the material according to their own perspectives of its efficacy or by involving the student and asking for their input on the material used (Ellis, 1997, p. 37). This evaluative approach, therefore, embraces the input of key stakeholders, both teachers and students. Crandall and Basturkmen (2004) propose that L2 material be evaluated according to more pragmatic concerns. As the researchers contend, empirical and experiential evidence suggests that even upon the attainment of a high degree of L2 competency, L2 students do not acquire conversational fluency and often misuse words, leading to their interpretation as "rude" (Crandall and Basturkmen, 2004, p. 38). In response to this particular concern, Crandall and Basturkmen (2004) assert that L2 teaching material should be evaluated according to their practical value and their worth assessed on the basis of whether or not they embrace the imperatives of teaching conversational/practical linguistic skills. Rather than dispute any of the proposed evaluation paradigms, and conceding to the fact that the majority are probably supported by a wealth of empirical and theoretical evidence, Chambers (1997), argues for the design and implementation of a standardized evaluative paradigm, within the context of single schools or districts. As he explains, L2 teaching is a complex and complicated undertaking and more often than not, individual instructors have their own preferences for teaching theories and styles. Accordingly, it is probable that each has his/her own preferences regarding L2 teaching materials. Schools generally rise above evaluation and selection controversies by imposing the choice of teaching materials upon L2 instructors. According to Chambers (1997) this is a counterproductive as it engenders resistance among L2 teachers towards the instruction material. It is in light of the stated that Chambers (1997) recommends that L2 teachers, whether or the school or district level, be involved in the design of the evaluation framework and the subsequent section of the material. Needless to say, this is a practical recommendation which constructively draws upon the teachers' pool of L2 teaching experiences. As the literature reviewed in the above has sought to demonstrate, there are multiple strategies and theoretical approaches to evaluation of L2 teaching material, most of which are supported by a wealth of empirical evidence. Often, and as experiential and empirical evidence demonstrates, it is best to undertake the evaluative process following the identification of a set of criteria which, apart from addressing the essentials of linguistic theory and second language instruction strategies, address the particularities of the cultural-linguistic context of application. Bibliography Byrnes, H. (2000) Shaping the discourse of a practice: The role of linguistics and psychology in language and teaching.' The Modern Language Journal, 84(4). Carrell, P.I. (1984) Schema theory and ESL reading: Classroom implications and applications.' The Modern Language Journal, 68(4). Chambers, F. (1997) Seeking consensus in textbook evaluation.' ELT Journal, 51(1). Crandall, E. and Basturkmen, H. (2004) Evaluating pragmatics-focused materials.' ELT Journal, 58(1). Duff, P.A., Wong, P. and Early, M. (2002) Language learning for work and life: The linguistic socialization of immigrant Canadians seeking careers in healthcare.' The Modern Language Journal, 86(3). Ellis, R. (1997) The empirical evaluation of language teaching material.' ELT Journal, 51(1). Flaitz, J. et al. (1995) Raising general awareness of language learning strategies: A little bit goes a long way.' Hispania, 78(2). Hayes, N. and Schrier, L. (2000) Encouraging second language literacy in the early grades.' Hispania, 83(2). Olivares-Cuhat, G. (2001) An alternative evaluative approach for L2/FL composition textbooks.' Academic Exchange Quarterly, 5(3). Spielmann, G. and Radnofsky, M.L. (2001) Learning language under tension: New directions from a qualitative study.' The Modern Language Journal, 85(2). Williams, D. (1983) Developing criteria for textbook evaluation.' ELT Journal, 37(3). Read More