APPROACHES to MATERIALS ANALYSIS MATERIALS ANALYSIS & PRODUCTION - UNIT 1 Sue Wharton http://www.philseflsupport.com/materials_analysis.

htm Goals In this unit we will consider different frameworks for the analysis of materials as text, in order to compare and contrast their emphases. We will consider the case for a standardised approach to materials evaluation. We will look at purposes of, and criteria for, public evaluations of teachin materials. !inally, we will be in to discuss the evaluation of materials in use. "y the end of this unit you should be able to: identify the rationale behind various analytical frameworks# devise appropriate criteria for materials evaluation in your professional context# undertake focused evaluations# present the results of evaluation to different audiences.

Introduction In this unit we will look at some texts which aim to su est, to the teacher, ways of oin about the task of materials analysis. When readin a roup of such texts to ether, I think one notices two thin s: differences of emphasis as to content, and certain broad similarities as to approach. $o by considerin the differences and similarities to ether, we will et a sense of an evolvin %paradi m% for materials evaluation in our field. In addition to this, I hope that each individual reader will et a sense of their own position vis a vis the ideas presented. & list of the three main texts which will be discussed in this unit can be found with the list of references. 'ou could read them before, durin or after the main body of the unit ( I would be interested to hear how your choice affects your interaction with the ideas in the main text. )he tasks for this unit are intended to encoura e you to consider the basis for materials analysis, to critically evaluate some approaches to analysis, and to conduct your own materials evaluations. *eflection tasks are best done before you start work on the unit. &nalysis tasks should be done after readin at least the main text of the unit. )hey appear at the point in the text where they are most relevant, but you don+t need to stop and do them before movin on. *esearch tasks appear at the end of the unit. )hey will take a while to or anise: so think about them well in advance, -et us now be in by discussin some of the different emphases that can be found in texts about materials analysis. I have chosen three perspectives and in each case

will su est that the perspective leads the writer to advocate a particular style of materials analysis. *eflection task . /o you feel that teacher(produced materials have any inherent advanta es over published materials0 1r vice versa0 -ist these. When you have thou ht about this you may like to read "lock 2.33.4. *eflection task 5 /o you feel that the 6-) profession needs some sort of standardised approach to materials analysis0 )hink of at least three advanta es and disadvanta es of such an approach. /ifferences of emphasis !ocus on lan ua e & perspective which emphasises lan ua e is likely to examine both the lin uistic exposure provided by materials as input, and also the output that they mi ht naturally enerate. )hus, 7uestions mi ht be su ested about the source of the lan ua e presented: is it %authentic%0 Is it based on any sort of corpus0 Is there a balance between spontaneous and prepared lan ua e, drawn from spoken and written sources0 )he analysis may make use of certain well(known distinctions, such as that between form and function, to discuss the overall approach to lan ua e in materials. It may consider different aspects of lan ua e, like vocabulary, phonolo y, or discourse, in an attempt to discover where materials+ main lin uistic priorities lie. It may su est 7uestions about the wei htin iven to particular areas of lan ua e, such as verb roup/ noun roup/ lexis/ collocation, etc. & framework may also propose an examination of the lin uistic skills covered in materials: this, of course, would add a dynamic dimension to the static view of lan ua e we have 8ust mentioned. In focusin on skills it would underline the importance of evaluatin potential lin uistic output, and uide the analyst to look at potential interactions between materials and learners, learners and teachers, learners and other learners, and learners and the outside world. )his kind of analysis attempts to uncover the suppositions about lan ua e in teachin materials. "ut of course, it itself will also be based on certain assumptions about lan ua e. !or example: if 7uestions are asked about the selection and radin of lan ua e items, then there may be an assumption that lan ua e can be divided into units like structures or functions, and that some of these are inherently more difficult than others. &n example of an analysis with a si nificant lan ua e focus is 9unnin sworth 2.33:4 chapters ;, : and <. )he 7uestions raised in these chapters indicate a clear concern with the lan ua e as a system, and a reat many aspects of

lan ua e are discussed. In all sections the author emphasises the need to analyse the lan ua e of the materials in terms of the learners+ tar et situation, rather than as an end in itself. )he lin uistic criteria for analysis discussed by 9unnin sworth may or may not be appropriate to uide materials analysis in different professional contexts. It is our task, as readers of texts like this, to look critically at the approach and to modify it as appropriate before implementin it. !ocus on classroom activities & perspective which concentrates on classroom activities combines an emphasis on conditions of learnin with an emphasis on process aspects of lan ua e. It is often su ested that the success of the learnin experience will be influenced by the extent to which learners are able to exercise choice and initiative in the classroom, the extent to which they are able to use lan ua e to express real meanin s, and the extent to which they perceive classroom activities as relevant. It is also often su ested that knowin a lan ua e does not only mean knowin its elements, but also means usin it for a real purpose, and interactin with other lan ua e users in different situations via different channels. & focus on classroom activities in materials allows us to examine lan ua e and learnin to ether. It is easy to su est that classroom activities are not determined by materials, and this is of course true in the literal sense. =owever, it is also true that materials carry within them stron su estions about roles of learners and teachers and roles of learners vis a vis each other. )hey also contain expectations about how learners should interact with texts within the materials and with the materials as a text. It is therefore appropriate to analyse materials from the perspective of the types of classroom activity which they mi ht stimulate when used as the writer intended. &n example of such an approach is 9andlin > "reen 2.3?@4, who propose a series of 7uestions as a framework for analysis. In phase . section 5 of their 7uestionnaire, they seek to en a e theories of learnin as a tool for understandin materials, thou h we note that the choice of which theory is seen as a matter for the individual analyst. Ahase . section B encoura es the teacher/analyst first to explicate their own views on appropriate teacher roles, and then to match this view with the position of the materials under analysis. Ahase 5 section 5 a ain advocates a matchin process, this time between the materials and the teacher/analyst+s view of their roup+s learnin styles. 9andlin and "reen+s emphasis on the particular situation of the analyst, their preference for open(ended 7uestions and their desire to en a e the personal values of the teacher/analyst, may at first lead us to think that their framework does not imply its own view about the appropriacy of particular classroom activities. "ut if we look more closely we will see that this is not the case: there is an emphasis on flexibility, teacher and learner choice and indeed learner centredness, which reflects the values of the writers and perhaps the teachin contexts with which they are most familiar. $o this approach to analysis, like 9unnin sworth+s above, is not

a tool that can be used in any circumstances without bein sub8ected to prior critical analysis. !ocus on the tar et speech community )his approach to materials analysis has a reat deal in common with the %tar et situation% approach to needs analysis: both rest on the assumption that it is possible to arrive at a sociolin uistic profile of the learner+s future lan ua e use, and from there to develop a profile of their present learnin needs. $uch approaches will ask 7uestions, then, about the lan ua e(usin communities that the learner wishes to 8oin and what their roles and purposes within that community are likely to be. $uch information can then be the basis of materials analysis, as tasks in materials are examined in terms of their lin uistic and pra matic %authenticity% vis a vis the tar et speech community. )his approach to both needs analysis and materials analysis is most commonly associated with 6$A, but it can also be valid in 6GA where many learners have no clear oal in learnin the lan ua e. )his is because a class of learners in itself constitutes a speech community, whose members have authentic roles and purposes. )he more a speech community like this allows and encoura es learners to use lan ua e authentically: e to create their own meanin s and to initiate and control interaction patterns: the more likely it is to constitute an effective %trainin round% for whatever )$9s the learners later decide they want to 8oin. )he communicative tasks of a lan ua e(learnin speech community have their own ob8ectives, and these may be seen as steppin ( stones, or enablin ob8ectives, which will ive the learner a foundation and enable them to later aspire to more difficult ob8ectives, authentic for their chosen )$9. &n example of a framework for analysis based on the concept of )$9 is *oe+s 2.3?34 )ask &nalysis, printed here as appendix . at the end of this pa e. It is in the form of a hierarchy of possible enablin ob8ectives, where level . represents a task which is fully authentic in the )$9 and level .< is not directly concerned with lan ua e use at all. &s will be seen, this is an implicational hierarchy where each level also subsumes features of lower levels: so, for example, in participatin in a role play 2level :4 learners will also en a e the ob8ectives of understandin the dictionary meanin s of lexical items 2level .;4 and reproducin the sounds of the lan ua e 2level .:4. )he validity of this framework is not, of course, context(free. In particular we can see that the hierarchy assumes that the )$9 will be concerned with lan ua e use and that it is this assumption that pushes tasks based on usa e to the lower points on the scale. Whereas if we ima ine that the learner+s tar et is to pass a readin (aloud test of 6n lish, then a decontextualised read(aloud task could move from its present level .: ri ht up to level ;. $o far, then, we have looked at three approaches to materials analysis. We have

seen that all have their stren ths but that none are intended for use without critical refinement on the part of the analyst. $imilarities of approach 1ne does not have to read very many articles or books on the sub8ect of materials analysis to start ettin a sense of de8a vu. Cany texts are or anised around the principle of a very lon set of 7uestions to be asked of the materials under analysis. )wo of the three texts discussed above fit this characterisation, as do $heldon .3??, =utchinson > Waters .3?@ ch3, and Cc/ona h > $haw .33B ch ;. "y the len th of the lists of criteria, we can assume that differences of emphasis notwithstandin , each writer is aimin for comprehensiveness. $wales 2.3?D4 has criticised this tendency, ar uin that the more 7uestions one asks of a set of teachin materials, and the more sophisticated they are, the more likely one is to be disappointed. Cany of the lists of criteria 7uoted above would be extremely time(consumin and unwieldy if used unadapted. $ome writers 2such as $heldon4 attempt to make results from their checklists easily interpretable by su estin that answers to 7uestions be expressed as points on a scale. 1ther writers prefer to use open(ended 7uestions which perhaps encoura e more interpretation on the part of the analyst. !rameworks for analysis lie on a continuum from open to closed, but do not seem to differ very much in terms of the demands placed on those who mi ht attempt to use them. What, then, is the value of the checklist approach0 )he case is made by $heldon 2.3??4 in an article provided with this unit which culminates in the presentation of his own checklist, containin :B 7uestions or anised under .@ ma8or headin s. $heldon ar ues that systematic criteria for assessment are needed because of the very wide variety of 6-) textbooks available: he stron ly implies that many such textbooks are of inherently poor 7uality and so represent a trap for the unwary. In this situation, $heldon laments the lack of an established approach to materials analysis in our field: he reco nises that most teacher(trainin courses include a materials analysis element, but is unhappy with the %uneven 7uality% of these %evaluative tools% 2p5;D4. $heldon is no happier with book reviews as uidelines for materials evaluation. =e claims that reviews do not include enou h practical information or explicit evaluation, that they vary considerably in 7uality, and that they only cover a small part of what is on the market. $heldon then oes on to present his own checklist. =e makes no claims of universal applicability, statin that any lobal checklist would re7uire adaptation before bein used in particular circumstances. $heldon+s article and checklist, then, would seem to encapsulate the similarities of current approaches to materials analysis: an attempt to arrive at comprehensive and stable criteria which sits, perhaps uneasily, alon side a reco nition that %we can be committed only to checklists or scorin systems that we have had a hand in developin , and which have evolved from specific selection priorities% 2p 5;54

&nalysis task . What adaptations would you need to make to $heldon+s checklist before usin it in your teachin situation0 /raft a revised version. 9ompare your version with that of someone else who teaches in a similar situation to you. "ook reviews $o far in this unit we have looked at texts which purport to ive uidance for materials analysis. I now want to move on to consider book reviews and to examine the differences between these and teacher( enerated analyses. & teacher or /1$ mi ht typically evaluate materials havin a specific context in mind and with a view to purchase or use in that context. 6valuation like this is not intended to have relevance outside the context, or to represent a 8ud ement about the materials as a product. & book reviewer, thou h, is asked to present an analysis which is informative and fair, while at the same time deliverin a 8ud ement on the 7uality of the book, addressed to unknown people in unknown contexts. )o do this, reviewers tend to o back to principles valued in the discipline as a whole, to refer to the current consensus about materials. & close look at a book review can tell us as much about the reviewer+s views on teachin and on lan ua e, than about the material reviewed. /ou ill 2.3?@4 has attempted to summarise the criteria which book reviewers most typically use, and he provides a typical list of 7uestions. $ome of these relate to privile ed concepts or distinctions in 6!-: %Is the course linear or cyclical0% %What is the type of syllabus 2structural/functional/multi(syllabus etc4% %Is there an inductive or a deductive approach0% &t first si ht, 7uestions like this appear fairly neutral, implyin that the reviewer will provide information, and the teacher will then make 8ud ements as to suitability. "ut of course, matters are not so simple: if we make 8ud ements on the basis of a review, then we are acceptin the reviewer+s analytical framework and this in itself places limits on the kinds of 8ud ements we can make. &nalysis task 5 In appendix 5 of your hard copy binder there are two book reviews, one from )he 6!- GaEette !ebruary .33@ and one from 6-)F ;?/5. Gotice the differences between them: What criteria are the reviewers usin in each case0 What are the oals of each reviewer0 &ssessin materials in use $o far in this unit we have looked at evaluation outside the classroom. We have stressed the importance of context but we have not considered the evaluation of materials at the moment of use# nor have we looked specifically at the contribution learners can make to materials evaluation.

9andlin > "reen 2.3?@4 discuss the importance of discoverin learners+ criteria for ood materials: not only as part of the needs analysis that precedes the desi n or purchase of new materials, but also to facilitate the sensitive adaptation of existin materials. 9andlin > "reen su est that learners be asked to work with fairly open(ended 7uestionnaires, desi ned to promote reflection both about the learners+ own aims in lan ua e learnin , and about the procedures for workin in the classroom. $uch a 7uestionnaire is clearly a teachin tool in itself. Cc/ona h > $haw 2.33B ch.B4 discuss the merits of classroom observation for materials analysis. )hey discuss some basic techni7ues which can help the analyst to see how teachers and learners are actually usin particular materials. 1ne could look for example at the kinds of lan ua e use particular materials enerate, or the ways in which teachers and learners adapt materials. )here are clearly many advanta es in observin someone else+s class ( freed from the pressure of makin constant interactive decisions vis a vis materials as when actually teachin , the analyst can focus on the contribution that the materials themselves make to classroom processes. /udley 6vans > "ates 2.3?@4 discuss a lon term, in situ materials evaluation pro8ect focused on the use of their book Gucleus General $cience in 6 yptian secondary schools. )heir discussion concentrates on the research procedures used, which included teacher 7uestionnaires and roup discussions. )hey show how the research made it possible to identify the mismatches between the materials and the particular context of use, and then to adapt the materials so as to better suit local needs. 6llis 2.33@4 draws a distinction between the%predictive% or %armchair% evaluation which he claims is usually discussed in the literature, and his own proposal which is for the retrospective, empirical evaluation of materials(in(use. )his article 2provided with the unit4 thus illustrates an important direction of materials analysis at the present time. 6llis puts forward a systematic framework with which to conduct a retrospective evaluation. )his centres around the evaluation of particular tasks found in teachin materials: so it is very focused, and does not attempt to evaluate a whole teachin text. )he article describes the steps of task evaluation in detail. )he central decision to be made is, what are we evaluatin !1*0 6llis su ests three possibilities: student based evaluations, concerned with student satisfaction from the tasks: response based evaluation, concerned with the interaction which results from the tasks# and learnin based evaluation, which would aim to determine whether any measurable learnin took place as a result of the tasks. )he choice made has ramifications for the whole of the data(collection process. 6llis 8ustifies his procedure not only as a method for eneratin contextually situated evaluations but also as a teacher development activity and a possible basis for an action research cycle. )eachers who use it, he su ests, are in control of the

criteria for evaluation and of the interpretation of observed events: which is very different from %applyin % someone else+s criteria to materials(as(written(text. &nalysis, choice and desi n In this unit we have seen that a number of decisions are to be made as one embarks on a materials evaluation pro8ect: decisions as to content, focus and purpose of the analysis, as well as decisions about which method2s4 to use. )he interplay between these factors is vividly portrayed in an article by 9hambers 2.33@4 which focuses on procedures, rather than criteria, for coursebook selection within a iven institution. 9hambers advocates that the whole teachin team be involved in the decision and describes a techni7ue to make this possible. =is premise is that all of us carry mental models for % ood% materials but that explicatin these at a specific level is difficult. We need a more focused tool than simple %discussion%. =e describes a decision(makin techni7ue taken from the literature of business. =e claims that it permits the 7uantification 2and therefore direct comparison4 of factors involved in the decision, but also keeps professional 8ud ement at the centre of the process. )he techni7ue is based on a pro(forma which encoura es the identification of re7uired and desirable criteria, and allows them to be wei hted relative to each other. )he proforma is completely empty in terms of the criteria themselves: these must be roup enerated. 9hambers thus emphasises the importance of local criteria. )he importance of choosin an appropriate focus for analysis is further underlined if we consider that analysis is fre7uently not an end in itself, but rather a basis for either the si nificant adaptation of existin materials or the desi n of new ones. It is the same criteria which underpin our analysis that will uide our production: in analysis we are matchin an existin text with our beliefs about what such a text should be, and in production or adaptation we are attemptin to actually translate our theoretical position, to realise it, in teachin materials. In both cases, the startin point is the exploration, 7uestionin and refinin of our own beliefs and criteria. )his is of course a continuin process, and we hope that interaction with the ideas presented in this unit and with the literature referred to has contributed to the process for you. In the next two units, and with the aim that you will further sharpen your theoretical positions, we will look in more detail at the interactions between materials, teachers and learners. *esearch task . )his exercise may take you a while to set up, but please do persevere ( roups who have done it have found it rewardin . 'ou may be able to do it with collea ues at school, or with fellow C$c participants. Its sta es are as follows: ( arran e yourselves in roups of three ( ideally, with people who are in a broadly similar teachin situation.

( choose a unit of a textbook familiar to you all, and a ree on a particular type of learner and situation for whom you will analyse the unit ( each person individually analyse the unit from one of the three perspectives discussed at the be innin of the unit (come back to ether and compare notes. )o what extent does the focus of analysis affect your evaluation of the material0 (ask yourselves how suitable or useful you found the different frameworks0 What chan es did you make to adapt them to your situation0 *esearch task 5 &s an on oin pro8ect for the C&A component, I would like to su est that you try to involve yourselves with the pilotin and evaluation of materials which have yet to reach the commercial publication sta e. 9ontact the /evelopmental 6ditor at a publisher who is active in your part of the world, and offer the services of you and your class, Aarticipation in pilotin is an excellent opportunity to have input into the development of commercial materials. It also puts pressure on you to examine your own criteria for ood materials, as you think about what kind of feedback you can most helpfully offer the authors. If you would like to, you can use your participation in pilotin as a startin point for your C&A assi nment *esearch task B Write a review of a coursebook for the -$H "ulletin. Hnit . appendix . !*&C6W1*I !1* )&$I &G&-'$I$ by P.Roe LSU 1989 )his framework is intended as a tool for the analysis of tasks in 6-) materials ( particularly materials which aim to be communicative. & 7uick lance at the results of a )ask &nalysis will show you what +communicative+ activities the learners are likely to en a e in. It should be possible to assi n most tasks to one or more levels on the scale iven below. -evel . )here is little or no distinction between enablin and terminal ob8ectives. )asks are fully authentic and arise as a natural part of the activity of the )$9, possibly under the uidance of a +mentor+, +knower+ or more experienced member of the community, whose 8ob it is to ensure the learners+ full lin uistic inte ration. -earnin on the 8ob. )he )$9 is itself the learnin environment. 'ou pick up the lan ua e as you o alon . !elicity conditions are fully met. -evel 5 )he tasks are +authentic+, but the )$9 which enerates them is artificial, that is, the learners become the )$9 where purposes/outcomes lie in the successful ne otiation of a reed answers to tasks set by authority. )he )$9 is created for the purpose, and the outcomes to be ne otiated by it are prescribed by the course(book writer, the teacher, the learners, or any combination of these. In its most basic

form, this approach can be characterised by a task(setter who provides both the input data and an instruction/task outcome. )he task dynamics can be modelled thus: .st 9ycle Teacher/Task-Setter/Evaluator: /ata > Instruction Learner Outcome: )ask Arocess 1utput /ata Teacher's Linguistic Exploitation: 9ommentary on aspects of lan ua e arisin durin task completion 5nd 9ycle Teacher/Task-Setter/Evaluator: /ata > Instruction Learner Outcome: )ask Arocess 1utput /ata Teacher's Linguistic Exploitation: 9ommentary on aspects of lan ua e arisin durin task completion )his approach is of course only as rich as the )$9 which is called into bein . It can be 7uite rich, but it could also prove restricted and stultifyin . Its value as an enablin ob8ective depends on what set of )$9s the learners will eventually need to 8oin. )o a certain extent, of course, all classroom teachin involves some element of %classroom mana ement% and ipso facto authentic )$9 communication in this sense. !or example, the teacher instruction %Aut these sentences into the past tense, and hand in your work for me to correct% must 7ualify as such, but hardly indicates the kind of )$9 proposed above. -evel B )asks are simulations of normal )$9 tasks executed in a normal )$9 environment, with the learner in his/her tar et role and all other participants accepted by the learner as authentically fillin their role in the )$9. )hat is, each task is a +dummy run+ for the benefit of the learner, where all variables, includin sanctions, have a counterpart in the +real thin +. !or example air traffic controllers in a sophisticated simulator, dress rehearsal for a play, +mock+ examinations, a pilot flyin with a non(intervenin instructor before oin solo. &s in -evel ., lan ua e constitutes only one dimension of difficulty in the task concerned, althou h other dimensions may be kept artificially low to hi hli ht the lin uistic component for peda o ic purposes. )his enablin ob8ective prepares the learner for the real thin . !elicity conditions remain reasonably intact. "ut consider the differences in sanction between the risk of a real and simulated crash, exam failure etc.

-evel ; )asks are simulations of authentic tasks, ie are structurally related to )$9 tasks, but in an obviously +classroom+ environment, where the sanctions are lan ua e( teacher sanctions rather than those of the )$9. "ut the learner is only asked to fulfil his/her own tar et roles in the )$9. !elicity conditions are further weakened. $uccess at these tasks mi ht be seen as an enablin ob8ective for -evels . to B. -evel :: *ole(Alay )his level of enablin ob8ective represents a further waterin down of the authenticity of the task in that learners assume roles other than those they are aimin at in the )$9, or, in extreme cases, could ever be ima ined as fillin . 26 an .? year old male socialist bein asked to take the role of Crs )hatcher in a simulated 9abinet meetin .4 !elicity conditions are further weakened 2e %I+ll break your pencil if you say that a ain% mi ht be accepted in the context of the classroom as a enuine threat, but hardly %If you vote a ainst the overnment at toni ht+s division you will find yourself on the back benches in the mornin .%4 -evel < )asks are dramatisations and role interpretations of scripted, or partially scripted, scenarios. $uch tasks call many aspects of discourse strate y into play, especially the control of suprase mental features of lan ua e, and have the virtue of +feedin + hi hly contextualised lan ua e, but the outcome is one of +rendition+ rather than ne otiation. -evel @ )asks involve the learner not as participant in achievin the purposes of the )$9, but as auditor/reader/observer of text arisin in the course of transactions of a )$9 and are aimed at an %appreciation% of text 2written or spoken4. )he learners+ task essentially boils down to inferrin the effect the text mi ht produce in context. $uch tasks can be performed on: o Authentic text, by which I mean text which was actually enerated by a )$9 in the actual ne otiation of an outcome, e a4 & recordin of a telephone caller arran in an appointment. b4 & letter to the tax authorities explainin why the writer didn+t declare any unearned income. c4 /ickens+ Govel: & )ale of )wo 9ities. o Non-authentic text, by which I mean text produced by teachers/course(book writers as course material for lan ua e learners and offered as if it were text produced by third parties, 2ie persons outside the classroom situation4 e a4 & recordin by actors of the script of a telephone conversation written by a course(book author. b4 &n example of how one mi ht write a letter to the tax authorities. c4 &n abrid ed and simplified edition of & )ale of )wo 9ities written for forei n learners to the 5DDD word vocabulary level. )asks of this nature 2-evel @4 often fall under the traditional headin of + lobal comprehension+, and typically involve

inference, readin between the lines, and attention to discourse markers in written or spoken text. -evel ? &t this level, tasks are aimed at text 2spoken or written, authentic or non( authentic4 seen not so much as communicative discourse, but as containers of factual/propositional information, and without reference to those who may have ori inated or received the document. $uch tasks may be classed as traditional comprehension in which inference plays little or no part, and fre7uently involve restatement of information directly contained in the input text. -evel 3 )asks are aimed at the successful construction of clauses into sentences or analysis of sentences into clauses. -evel .D )asks are aimed at the construction of clauses by the application of the rules of syntax. -evel .. )asks are aimed at an awareness of common phrasal patternin s in the lan ua e. -evel .5 )asks focus on the relationship between the class of common utterances/phrases in the lan ua e and the class of possible effects they mi ht be used to produce in others in real discourse. 2)hat is, they focus on functional relationships4. "ut it should be noted that this is not the same thin as actual functional practice which is possible only in the context of a )$9, most enuinely in a context such as those of -evel ., or more artificially -evel 5, or, with less and less chance of felicity conditions bein met, -evels B to : of my hierarchy of enablin ob8ectives. )ake an example I have witnessed. )he teacher 2who has written forms of apolo y on blackboard4 takes &+s hand, puts it onto "+s coat, causin it to fall to the floor. ): %&, you have thrown "+s coat on the floor. 'ou shouldn+t do that. &polo ise to her at once.% &: 2*eads a form of apolo y from blackboard4 %I am sorry I threw your coat on the floor.% 29onsider the extent to which the felicity conditions for an apolo y are met by &+s utterances.4 -evel .B )asks in which the criteria of evaluation are morpholo ical. -evel .; )asks focusin on the meanin 2dictionary definition4 of words. -evel .: )asks aimed at skill in reproducin the sounds of the lan ua e, both:

a4 $e mental b4 $uprase mental -evel .< )he task consists of readin or listenin to information about the tar et lan ua e 2 rammar rules, statements about what forms realise what functions, what lexical items realise what notions etc4. $uch information can of course be conveyed lar ely in the -., thus effectively reducin the amount of classroom mana ement lan ua e. It is meant to be di ested and applied in the context of hi her level tasks. *eferences )he three main texts referred to are: Cunning !o"th A .33:: Choosing your coursebook -ondon =einemann Can#$in C & %"een M .3?@: "Which materials? consumers! an" "esigners! gui"e" in $heldon - 2ed4 6-) )extbooks and materials: Aroblems in evaluation and development 6-) /ocs .5< -ondon: Codern 6n lish Aublications Roe P .3?3: #rame$ork %or &ask nalysis &ston Hniversity -$H 1ther references are: Cha&'e" ( .33@: "Seeking consensus in coursebook e'aluation" 6-)F :./. 53( B: %$oc) D .33.: "Some thoughts on ()* materials "esign" 6-)F Jol ;:/B pp 5..( 5.@ Du#$e* E+an A & %ate M .3?@: "&he +'aluation o% an +SP te,tbook" in $heldon - 2ed4 6-) )extbooks and materials: Aroblems in evaluation and development 6-) /ocs .5< -ondon: Codern 6n lish Aublications Dougi$$ , .3?@ "-ot so ob'ious" in $heldon - 2ed4 6-) )extbooks and materials: Aroblems in evaluation and development 6-) /ocs .5< Codern 6n lish Aublications E$$i R .33@: "&he em.irical e'aluation o% teaching materials" 6-)F :./.: B<(;5 Hutchin on T & -ate" A .3?@: +nglish %or S.eci%ic Pur.oses/ learning0 centre" a..roach 9ambrid e 9HA McDonagh , & Sha! C .33B: 1aterials an" 1etho"s in +L& 1xford "lackwell She$#on L .3??: "+'aluating +L& te,tbooks an" materials" 6-)F ;5/;: 5B@(5;< S!a$e , .3?D: "+SP/ &he te,tbook .roblem" 6$A Fournal vol . pp..(5B $upplied readin E$$i R .33@: "&he em.irical e'aluation o% teaching materials" 6-)F :./.: B<(;5 She$#on L .3??: "+'aluating +L& te,tbooks an" materials" 6-)F ;5/; : 5B@(5;<