Investigating English Teachers Materials Adaptation

Chunmei Yan Chunmei Yan is an associate professor in the School of Foreign Languages at the Central China Normal University in China. Her research interests include English teaching methodology and English language teacher education. E-mail chunmei!yan"yahoo.co.u# Menu $ntroduction %esearch &ac#ground and 'ata Collection 'ata (nalysis and $nterpretation 'iscussion
Conclusions %eferences (ppendi) *uestionnaire for teacher trainees

Introduction (s %ea-'ic#ins and +ermaine ,-../ /.0 point out1 there has 2een a tendency for overreliance on classroom teaching materials 3ith non-realistic e)pectations made of them in English language teaching. Little4ohn ,-..5 /670 o2serves that for many teachers and learners1 materials appear as faits accomplis1 over 3hich they have little control. Some teachers regard te)t2oo#s as immuta2le and almost mythical o24ects. 8hey tend to teach the te)t2oo# itself1 rather than use it as a resource for creativity and inspiration1 a learning tool for their learners and a means to an end in their teaching ,Cunnings3orth1 -..7 -9.0. :arious pro2lems 3ith materials have 2een addressed 2y a num2er of researchers. ; Neill ,-.5/ -790 suggests that the te)t2oo# can only provide props and frame3or# for classroom teaching< and no te)t2oo# can e)pect to appeal to all teachers or learners at a particular level. =c'onough and Sha3 ,-..9 590 also propose that te)t2oo#s1 internally coherent although they may 2e1 they may not 2e totally applica2le. S3ales ,-.560 contends that any given course2oo# 3ill 2e incapa2le of catering for the diversity of needs 3hich e)ists in most language classrooms. (ll3right ,-.5- .0 also maintains that given the comple)ity of the 3hole 2usiness of the management of language learning1 even 3ith the 2est intentions no single te)t2oo# can possi2ly 3or# in all situations. Sheldon ,-.55 /9.0 addresses lac# of cultural appropriacy of some te)t2oo#s1 i.e. the thin#ing underlying the te)t2oo# 3riting may 2e different from or in conflict 3ith the assumptions held 2y the teachers. 8he pro2lems mentioned here are 2y no means e)haustive1 2ut the #ey point remains teachers1 3ith direct personal #no3ledge of their classroom teaching1 should see te)t2oo#s as

their servants instead of masters< as a resource or an ideas 2an# 3hich can stimulate teachers o3n creative potential ,Cunnnings3orth1 -.5> ?70. (dapting their materials allo3s them to achieve more compati2ility and fitness 2et3een the te)t2oo# and the teaching environment1 and ma)imi@e the value of the 2oo# for the 2enefit of their particular learners and for the most effective teaching outcomes to achieve. $t 3ould conseAuently lead to the improvement of the te)t2oo# in the sense of 2eing a2le to suit the particular situation and empo3ering and res#illing the teachers ,(pple and Bungc#1 -..6< Shannon1 -.5C0. %ichards ,-..5 -970 argues that teachers should approach te)t2oo#s 3ith the e)pectation that deletion1 adaptation1 and e)tension 3ill 2e normally needed for the materials to 3or# effectively 3ith their class. Dithin this 2ac#ground1 this study investigates 3hat teachers actually do in materials adaptation1 including 3hy they ma#e the changes and to 3hat effect their adaptation influences their teaching. $t intends to fulfill t3o aims. Firstly1 from a conceptual perspective it see#s to shed light on salient issues concerned 3ith teachers materials adaptation and there2y fill up some of this vacuum in the literature. Secondly1 from a practical perspective the research aims to dra3 implications for teachers use of materials. Research Background and Data Collection Research background 8he focus of this study 3as a Sino-&ritish teacher training programme 2ased in Central China1 3here the author 3or#ed as a teacher trainer. 8he one-year full-time course offered three components English language s#ills1 EL8 ,English language teaching0 methodology and ESE ,English for specific purposes0 course design to reali@e three parallel goals to improve teachers English proficiency1 to upgrade their e)pertise in general EL8 methodology1 and to develop their capacity in the area of ESE. 8eaching practice 3as arranged in the methodology module for t3o 3ee#s to3ards the end of the course. $t 3as intended to provide the trainees 3ith an opportunity to apply the theories they had learned from the course. 8he teaching practice 3as underta#en in the Faculty of Foreign Studies in a middle-ran#ing university1 3here the pro4ect 3as 2ased. 8here 3as a cohort of 96 teacher trainees. 8hey 3ere assigned to teach three-year-diploma classes1 3ho 3ere academically inferior to four-year undergraduates. 8hey all used &oo# > of English 3ritten 2y Fu ,-../01 2ut taught different units 2ecause of different paces of the normal teachers teaching. 8he coures2oo#1 a set of intensive reading course2oo#s consisted of 5 volumes for use over four years1 the first > volumes for the foundation-stage learners1 the last > for advanced learners. $t used a format consisting of a te)t for reading ,766 to -666 3ords0 follo3ed 2y a list of ne3 3ords 3ith parts of speech and their Chinese eAuivalents1 and sometimes an e)planation of meaning and use in English. (lso included in this list of 3ords 3ere phrases and idiomatic e)pressions. $n the first four 2oo#s1 there 3ere also sections on phonetics 3ith

e)ercises and short dialogues. (ll volumes included various e)ercises Auestions on the te)t1 grammar e)ercises and translation e)ercises. 8his study intended to investigate ho3 the teacher trainees had used the te)t2oo#1 i.e. 3hat changed they had made to the te)t2oo# to optimi@e its potential and the effect of their teaching. 8his study 3ould hopefully yield important implications for the practice of and research in EL8 and teacher training. Data Collection *uestionnaires 3ere utili@ed as the main data collection instruments1 and trainees lesson plans 3ere utili@ed as a supplementary source of information a2out ho3 the adaptations had 2een done. *uestionnaires ,see (ppendi) -0 3ere administered to the 96 traineesaddressing five Auestions 3hat1 ho31 3hy1 the effect and constraints. Data Analysis and Interpretation 8he section concerns > aspects that arose from the data traineesG evaluation and adaptation of the te)t2oo#1 rationales and underling principles1 effect of the traineesG adaptation and constraints they had encountered in their adaptation process. Trainees evaluation and adaptation o te!t"ook $t 3as found from the Auestionnaire that all trainees under3ent t3o stages of materials adaptation. 8hey carried out evaluation prior to adapting the te)t2oo#. 8hey analy@ed advantages and disadvantages of the te)t2oo# first to identify possi2le areas for adaptation. Nota2ly there 3ere some discrepancies of opinions a2out the features of the te)t2oo#. 8he trainees identified a num2er of advantages of the te)t2oo#.
The textbook provides a variety of interesting texts on different topics. The textbook supplies self-study materials for learners. The textbook can prepare learners for exams. The textbook provides authentic materials. The textbook provides sound grading and sequencing of the material. The textbook provides teachers and language points. The textbook can help improve reading and riting. ith necessary guidance! especially in terms of background information

(pparently1 more than half of the trainees 3ere impressed 3ith the variety of topics. Nearly half of them appreciated the self-study materials it provided 3ith students. Nearly one third of trainees felt the te)t2oo# to 2e suita2le for e)am purposes. (ll in all1 the main perceived advantages of the te)t2oo# 3ere its focus on the language system and its potential of

e)panding studentsG #no3ledge 2ase 3ith rich authentic reading materials1 encouraging selfstudy1 developing studentsG language competence and preparing them 3ell for e)ams. 8he trainees also identified some disadvantages of the te)t2oo#.
The textbook focuses on reading and riting! hile ignores speaking and listening. The textbook is out-of-date. The textbook does not suit the students" needs. The textbook provides little variety of activities. The textbook is language-focused.

8he main disadvantage of the te)t2oo#1 as most trainees o2served1 3as its lac# of 2alance on the four language s#ills. $t attached much importance to reading and 3riting1 2ut overloo#ed spea#ing and listening. (nother ma4or dra32ac# 3as its out-of-dateness. Some further pro2lems 3ere the limited varieties of activities1 its focus on the language1 and lo3 level of relevancy to students. 8he ma4or adaptation techniAues the trainees applied 3ere adding1 deleting and modifying. (ll of them used HaddingG1 eight used HdeletingG and si) used HmodifyingG. 8he techniAues 3ere utili@ed either at a particular stage of the lesson1 or all the 3ay through the lesson. $t 3as found that the trainees added 2ac#ground information1 3arm-up activities1 language practice e)ercises1 group 3or# and reading comprehension Auestions. 8hey deleted some translation and grammar e)ercises and detailed e)planations of 3ords. Some trainees adapted the te)t into a play for students to perform1 some modified it into a ta2le1 some changed dialogues into a roleplay. Trainees underlying rationales and principles $t 3as found that the trainees 2ased their adaptation on > principles -0 to integrate traditional and communicative methods1 /0 to cater for studentsG needs1 90 to integrate as multiple language s#ills as possi2le in a reading lesson1 and >0 to meet their o3n preferences and needs. #. To integrate traditional and communicative methods 8he first main principle guiding the traineesG adaptations 3as their 2elief in a possi2le integration 2et3een traditional and communicative methods. ;n the one hand1 the trainees recogni@ed the positive effect of grammar-translation method1 3hich the te)t2oo# adhered to. (ll trainees 2ut one regarded the te)t2oo#Gs language-focusedness as an advantage. 8hey felt the need for learning grammar1 voca2ulary1 idioms and e)pressions. =ore than one-third added some e)ercises to consolidate the language. ;n the other hand1 plenty of evidence emerged that the trainees 3ere highly receptive to communicative methods and tried to apply them. 8hey accorded value to language forms1 2ut

at the same time attempted to lecture moderately. Some trainees reduced grammatical e)planations1 sentence translations and 3ord study e)ercises. Some trainees created more student interactions in various forms in dealing 3ith the e)ercises1 3hich 3ere normally conducted in a traditional presentation-practice-production model ,Harmer1 /66- 560. +roup discussions ,/ trainees01 3arm-up activities ,/ trainees01 and dramaIroleplay ,> trainees0 3ere organi@ed to get the students actively involved. (udio-visual aids1 realia ,pictures1 the glo2e1 and a calendar0 3ere utili@ed to help studentsG understanding. Eossi2le resources availa2le1 e.g. ;HE1 handouts 3ere employed to aid their teaching. $. To cater for students" various needs 8he second main principle informing the traineesG adaptation appeared to 2e a desire to satisfy the studentsG needs. =ost trainees suggested that they 3anted to motivate the students to ma#e their learning easier. $t 3as found that adaptations 3ere carried out at different stages of their teaching. Some trainees added 3arm-up activities at the 2eginning of the lesson1 e.g. introducing 2ac#ground #no3ledge1 aims and o24ectives to stimulate the studentsG interest. Some trainees tried adaptations in the middle of their teaching. 8he ma4ority of trainees added e)tra e)ercises or activities to maintain the studentsG interest. ( num2er of trainees adapted the level of difficulty of some e)ercises to suit studentsG linguistic and intellectual needs. ( fe3 trainees deleted unnecessary language e)ercises and detailed e)planations of grammar. Some trainees added language e)ercises to help the students master the language forms. Several trainees re3arded the game 3inners a small pri@e. (ll this evidence reveals the traineesG aspirations to satisfy the studentsG different types of needs. %. To integrate as multiple language skills as possible in a reading lesson 8he third principle underpinning the traineesG adaptations 3as a desire to integrate as many language s#ills as possi2le in a reading lesson. 8he ma4ority of trainees felt that listening and spea#ing had 2een ignored in this te)t2oo#. *uite a fe3 trainees suggested that although reading s#ills should 2e the focus of the te)t2oo#1 it 3as also necessary to create opportunities for the students to spea# and listen. Some trainees modified the te)t into a play to practise four s#ills on the one hand< and to add more variety to classroom teaching on the other. &. To meet their o n preferences and needs $t 3as found that the teachersG o3n needs 3ere also considered in their adaptations. 'espite much similarity 2et3een the traineesG perceptions of the te)t2oo# and adaptation techniAues1 there emerged some divergence. 8his divergence 3as derived from their individual needs and 3ants1 their individual e)periences1 personalities and preferences. For e)ample1 although they all deleted some language e)ercises1 the deleted parts differed. =ost of them added some language e)ercises1 2ut they highlighted different foci. =any of them added 3arm-up activities at the 2eginning of the lesson1 2ut their foci 3ere varied - some focused on the voca2ulary< and some on the topics. Several trainees modified the te)ts to some e)tent1 2ut

the forms 3ere diversified1 either a ta2le1 a drama1 or a roleplay. Trainees vie#s a"out the e ects o materials adaptation 8here emerged a consensus among the trainees that they had achieved the desired effects. 8hey had stimulated their studentsG interests1 created a light and lively atmosphere and generated more student involvement. =ost trainees felt re3arded and encouraged 2y the high level of interest their students displayed. 8hey ac#no3ledged that the 2oosted student interests had 2een conducive to the cultivation of a vivid and rela)ing atmosphere 3here Hthey shared ideas 3ith each otherG1 and a rapport 2et3een the teacher and the students. Several trainees found that their teaching efficiency 3as o2viously improved 2ecause Hproviding 2ac#ground information aroused their interest and helped the students understand the te)t< and 2ecause Hthe students sho3ed great interest in practising the provided e)ercisesG. ;ne trainee reported that his students Hperformed very 3ell in the play 2ecause they 3ere very 3ell preparedG. 8he follo3ing comments revealed the traineesG positive vie3s on their adaptations. 't really did ork( )hen the students discussed the topic! most of them could say something related to their o n study. )hen they presented their ideas! every group reported voluntarily. *Trainee %+ ,irstly! ' felt satisfied ith the effects of my adaptations because ' could appropriately use hat ' learned in my teaching practice. -econdly! most of my students felt interested and a lot of fun. They felt they could learn a lot by .playing" in this ay. *Trainee #/+ 0erhaps my adaptations made the students feel fresh and interesting! and this as good for classroom management. *Trainee ##+ The students seemed to like this kind of activity. They share ideas ith each other. *Trainee $+ ere all involved. They liked to

1ll the adaptations ere quite successful! for the learners" needs ere met. *Trainee &+ 0roviding background information helped the students understand the text and made them interested. The students sho ed great interest in practising the provided exercises in class and obviously it increased my teaching efficiency. *Trainee #+ $t 3as also found that there 3as a change of attitude in some students to3ards the teacher traineeGs methods. Some students 3ere apathetic at first. 8heir interest and enthusiasm gre3 gradually. 1t first some students didn"t listen to me and didn"t speak! but later most of them could speak and follo me. 2They began to like my teaching. They gained some confidence in English learning. *Trainee 3+ Constraints in trainees" materials adaptation

(s sho3n previously1 the traineesG adaptations 2rought a2out positive effects. $t 3as also nota2le that the trainees had encountered o2stacles in their effort1 as the ma4ority of trainees reported. 8he emerging constraints 3ere threefold mismatches 3ith traditional 2eliefs and practices1 inadeAuacy of teachersG e)pertise and physical constraints. #. 4ismatches ith traditional beliefs and practices

$t 3as found that tensions 2et3een traditional and ne3 perceptions hindered the traineesG actions. ( fe3 trainees ac#no3ledge the traditional teacher-centred teaching approach and e)am-orientated education system as disincentives in their adaptations. 8hey noted that the grammar-translation method 3as still dominant in the ma4ority of language classrooms. 8eachers 3ere still regarded as omniscient and omnipotent #no3ledge imparters in many teaching conte)ts1 3hile students as recipients of #no3ledge. 'etailed e)planations of te)ts and #ey to the e)ercises 3ere still most endorsed 2y teachers and 3elcomed 2y students1 3hich 3as sho3n previously 2y studentsG initial resistance to the traineeGs methods. (dditionally some students sa3 2rief e)planations of grammar #no3ledge as a disadvantage and did not seem to 3elcome teacher-made materials as much as the te)t2oo#. Some students sa3 roleplays as games for fun. 8he trainees had to compromise sometimes to maintain a high teacher profile throughout their teaching. $. 'nadequacy of trainees" professional expertise

$t emerged from the data that most trainees had not fully achieved their anticipated effect. ( variety of reasons 3ere identified related to their professional competence. Some trainees felt it difficult to manage group 3or# and time 3ith the large classes. $t at times happened that not all students 3ere involved1 or limited specific outcomes 3ere achieved of the group 3or#. Some trainees 3ere dissatisfied 3ith their language proficiency1 3hich had impaired their confidence in steering the class. 8he yet-to-develop e)pertise in teaching and adapting materials 3as a further hindrance to reali@ing their plans. $t 3as highly la2our-intensive to ma#e the outdated contents interesting and communicative. %. Constrained resources

$t 3as found that the limitations of resources availa2le had made teachersG ideas less feasi2le than they had originally assumed. ( num2er of trainees complained a2out the practical pro2lems concerning resources and physical constraints. Some trainees suggested that unmova2le furniture made it difficult to organi@e group discussions. 8hey said that there 3ere limited materials to select from. ;ne trainee mentioned that the large classes 3ere pro2lematic 2ecause it 3as hard for one teacher to monitor all groups. 8here 3ere very limited references and materials in the Faculty for the trainees to refer to. Ehotocopying 3as almost impossi2le due to unavaila2ility of facilities1 thus increased the difficulty of producing supplementary materials. (ll these constraints had led to the difficulty of carrying out predesigned activities.

Discussion 8his study loo#ed at a group of teacher traineesG materials adaptation in their teaching practice. $t 3as found that all trainees made changes to the te)t2oo# to varying degrees and their adaptations 3ere generally satisfying. 8he traineesG adaptation1 first of all1 involved evaluation of the te)t2oo#. 8e)t2oo# evaluation 3as a preliminary to ma#e the most of the good points and compensate for or neutrali@e the 2ad points ,Ur1 -..? -5C0. 8he te)t2oo# the trainees used valued patterned drilling to lead to grammatical andIor le)ical mastery of the structures 2eing focused on ,Harmer1 /66- 560. $ts main pro2lem 3as that students might 2e still incapa2le of using the language at the end of their conscientious studies they may H#no3G its grammar J the system J 2ut they canGt communicate in it ,+rant1 -.5C -90. (fter identifying areas for changes1 the trainees used HaddingG1 HdeletingG and HmodifyingG to ma#e the te)t2oo# more suited to their students. (s the findings indicate1 the traineesG adaptations made their teaching more engaging and communicative1 and therefore 2eneficial to the students1 the teacher trainees and the te)t2oo#. 8he o2vious effect on the students 3as the increase of the studentsG active involvement in the classroom activities in a more rela)ing and supportive environment. 8he students 3ere freed from the 2oring process of going through the e)ercises item 2y item1 and engaged in spontaneous and creative interactions ,;GNeill1 -.5- -7?0 and meaningful tas#s. 8he traineesG adaptations 3ere 2eneficial to teachers in the 3ay of Hres#illing themG. $t ena2led them to go 2eyond the te)t2oo# and the classroom routines. 8hey 2ecame more confident 2ecause of the studentsG su2seAuent recognition of their adaptations. $n a 3ord1 through the process of adaptation the trainees might have 2ecome more critical a2out te)t2oo#s they used1 and developed an a3areness of the need to use them more creatively. 8he traineesG adaptations 3ere found to 2e conducive to the improvement of the te)t2oo#. $t allo3ed them to identify the strengths and 3ea#nesses and ho3 3ell the te)t2oo# matched their reAuirements1 3hich 3as a preliminary step in their ma)imi@ing the potential of the te)t2oo#. 8he te)t2oo# the trainees used 3as rather dated1 2ut it still contained some sound ideas for teaching 3hich 3ere hidden 2eneath dull presentation or out-of-date topics ,Cunnings3orth1 -..7 ->C0. 8he trainees retained its good elements and deleted inappropriate parts to ma#e it more relevant and interesting. $t 3as found that the traineesG adaptations 3ere underpinned 2y four ma4or principles. 8hey 3anted to develop a solid language #no3ledge 2ase and communicative competence1 to meet studentsG needs1 to achieve a 2alanced development of language s#ills1 and to satisfy their o3n preferences and needs. 8hey carried out adaptations to reali@e these four purposes. 8hree constraints emerged as salient features that merit attention. First1 the trainees G thin#ing underlying their adaptations might 2e in conflict 3ith the traditional and conventional 2eliefs

and teaching paradigms. (s some trainees suggested1 the educational environment 3as predominantly e)am-orientated1 3hich acted as a 2aton for administrators1 teachers and students. 8he principle criterion for good teachers 3as the amount and the range of #no3ledge they possessed. 'etailed e)planation of te)ts and #ey to e)ercises 3as most 3elcomed 2y the students. 8eachersG materials adaptation 3ould inevita2ly cause an)iety in some students1 especially those poor students 3ho 3ere concerned a2out e)ams1 3hich mainly tested contents of the te)t2oo#s. Some trainees e)pressed their 3orry a2out the appropriateness of their adaptations1 e.g. use of group3or# might 2e regarded as 2eing irresponsi2le. 8hey tended to Hs3im 3ith the tideG under the pressure or ma#e some compromise to satisfy all parties concerned. Second1 teachersG professional e)pertise affected their adaptations1 3hich echoes the o2servations of a num2er of researchers. =asuhara ,-..50 claims that teachersG confidence and professional e)pertise influence their perception of 3hat they need from te)t2oo#s. ;GNeill ,-.5- -7>0 also recogni@es that it is very li#ely that teachers are una2le to ma#e adaptation and improvisation 2ecause the lesson might develop in a num2er of 3ays 3hich could not 2e predicted e)actly 2eforehand. 8he effect of teachersG design and teaching 3ould 2e seriously impaired unless their language proficiency and professional e)pertise reached a certain high level. $t 3as found that various #inds of difficulties the trainees had encountered e.g. the level of language proficiency1 the in-cooperativeness of some students1 large classes1 etc. had undermined the effect of the their adaptations. 8hese findings support the claim made 2y Nunan ,-.55 --70 that in addition to e)perience1 teachers need the time1 opportunity and support to reflect on that e)perience through a variety of professional development activities 3hich should include professional development programmes1 collegiate consultations and action research pro4ects. 8hird1 under-resourced teaching conte)ts affected fulfillment of teachersG thin#ing. $t 3as found that the limitations of availa2le resources had made teachersG ideas less feasi2le than they originally anticipated. Lac# of resource materials and facilities considera2ly restrained the traineesG potential. Conclusions 8his research investigated the effects a group of teacher traineesG materials adaptation in their teaching practice in a cross-cultural in-service teacher training pro4ect in China. $t has produced a detailed picture of 3hy the trainees used those techniAues and the effect of their attempts. $t has thus hopefully contri2uted in its small 3ay to the enrichment of the literature and teachersG professional development particularly in terms of active use of their te)t2oo#s. 8he study carries important practical implications in a num2er of dimensions. From a research perspective1 it highlights the necessity of doing further research on teachersG materials adaptation to shed light on various practical issues involved in teachersG use of materials. 8he teachers in this study used a traditional te)t2oo#1 3hich needed moderni@ing to maintain studentsG interest and enhance their learning. 8he research findings 3ould 2e useful

insights to teachers 3ho are still using outdated te)t2oo#s in some places in the 3orld. From the perspective of training methodology1 it suggests that materials development is an effective 3ay of helping teachers to understand and apply theories of language learning J and to achieve personal and professional development ,8omlinson1 /66- ?C01 and teacher education programmes need to provide monitored e)perience of the process of developing materials. 8hey should provide participants 3ith s#ills in evaluating and adapting te)t2oo#s and other commercial materials and prepare teachers for appropriate 3ays of using te)t2oo#s ,%ichards1 -..5 -9?0. $t also suggests training should address teachersG concerns and constraints in their materials adaptation. $t is essential to give teachers the #no3ledge and s#ills needed to evaluate and adapt te)t2oo#s J prepare them to use te)t2oo#s as sources for creative adaptation ,%ichards1 -..5 ->60. 8he study suggests a need to reform the e)am-orientated education system and e)am foci1 3hich 3ere in conflict 3ith the traineesG ne3ly acAuired perceptions and practices. ( transformation1 may2e through a gradual process needs to 2e reali@ed from the emphasis on the language system per se to the development of a2ilities to tac#le real-life tas#s. 8his change 3ould entail recognition and effort of all relevant parties ranging from educational authorities to teachers. 8he study implies a need of institutional support to teachers in materials development. (n a3areness needs to 2e developed among administrators of the necessity to #eep updating te)t2oo#s1 and encourage and empo3er teachers to choose the most appropriate te)t2oo#s availa2le for their classes ,Hedge1 /6660 and to use their te)t2oo#s actively. Erovision of resources and facilities 3ould 2e necessary. Furthermore1 more in-service training opportunities need to 2e created for teachers to #eep updating their perceptions and upgrading their e)pertise. 8he study also suggests the need for teachersG steady and persistent efforts to locali@e1 personali@e and individuali@e te)t2oo#s ,=c'onough and Sha31 -..9 .?0. 8eachers need to 2uild a3areness of 3hat teaching resources provide and of the care that needs to 2e ta#en in selecting and e)ploiting them ,Hedge1 /6660. $n the adaptation process1 they should ta#e account of course o24ectives and studentsG needs. 8heir effort1 small or su2stantial1 3ould help enhance their professional competence. 8o ma#e their effort more effective1 a possi2le solution may 2e to encourage colla2orative materials adaptation. Boint team efforts may provide teachers 3ith opportunities to share e)perience and e)pertise1 to e)change various s#ills1 talents and points of vie31 to pool their perceptions and e)perience and to 2uild teachersG resources1 thus reducing the amount of individual 3or#. Dith a supportive team culture esta2lished1 the institutional understanding and support is more li#ely to occur. =oreover1 as &reen ,-.5.0 suggested1 studentsG vie3s on the te)t2oo# are 3orth canvassing. $t should 2e ac#no3ledged that there are some limitations of this research. 8his research 3as focused on a group of teachersG materials adaptation on a teacher training course1 not teachers in normal situations1 3here the situation might 2e different. For e)ample1 HaddingG1 3hich

3as most commonly used 2y the trainees1 may 2e more difficult to carry out in a poorly resourced teaching situation1 3here time is much more at a premium. 8eachers in normal situations may therefore not ma#e so ela2orate efforts to adapt their te)t2oo#s1 and they may not 2e as conscious of the adaptations as the trainees 3ere. (s far as the effects of the materials adaptation are concerned1 there is an element of novelty value1 i.e. anything ne3 is al3ays interesting in the short term although it may not 2e so effective as it appears in the longer term. (lso the intervie3 3ith the students reveals studentsG reactions to one traineeGs teaching1 3hich may not have 3holly and directly resulted from the traineeGs materials adaptation. 8he relationship 2et3een the studentsG vie3s and the traineeGs adaptation needs to 2e further e)plored. 8here may 2e some pro2lems 3ith the use of the Auestionnaires although they 3ere not used as the only source of information. 8he credi2ility of the information generated from the Auestionnaires is Auestiona2le1 as it relies1 li#e all instruments of this #ind1 on the truthfulness and proper understanding of the respondents. Student perceptions of effect of the teacher traineesG materials adaptation generated from the intervie3 3ith a small num2er of students might not 2e appropriately representative. Ho3ever1 in spite of the a2ove limitations1 the research has dealt 3ith a num2er of practical issues concerned 3ith teachersG materials adaptation. $t provides a 2asis for investigating further 3hich aspects teachers feel most difficult and need help. ( more detailed and deep research is made possi2le 3ith this research as a useful starting point. Re erences (ll3right1 %. ,-.5-0 Dhat do 3e 3ant teaching materials forK E5T61 9?,-01 pp. 7--5. (pple1 =. L Bungc#1 S. ,-..60 You donGt have to 2e a teacher to teach this unit. 8eaching1 technology1 and gender in the classroom. 1merican Educational Research 6ournal! /C ,/01 pp. //C-7-. &reen1 =. ,-.5.0 8he evaluation cycle for language learning tas#s. $n %. M. Bohnson ,Ed.0 The -econd 5anguage Curriculum. Cam2ridge Cam2ridge University Eress. Cunnings3orth1 (. ,-.5>0 Evaluating and -electing E,5 Teaching 4aterials. London Heinemann. Cunnings3orth1 (. ,-..70 Choosing 7our Coursebook. London Heinemann. +rant1 N. ,-.5C0 4aking the 4ost of 7our Textbook. Esse) Longman. Harmer1 B. ,/66-0 The 0ractice of English 5anguage Teaching. Esse) Longman ,9rd edn0. Hedge1 8. ,/6660 Teaching and 5earning in 5anguage Classroom. ;)ford ;)ford University Eress. Little4ohn1 (. E. ,-..50 8he analysis of language teaching materials inside the 8ro4an Horse. $n &. 8omlinson ,Ed.0 4aterials Development in 5anguage Teaching. Cam2ridge

Cam2ridge University Eress. =asuhara1 H. ,-..50 Dhat do teachers really 3ant from course2oo#sK $n &. 8omlinson ,ed0. 4aterials Development in 5anguage Teaching. Cam2ridge Cam2ridge University Eress. =c'onough1 B. L Sha31 C. ,-..90 4aterials and 4ethods in E5T. ;)ford &lac#3ell. Nunan1 '. ,-.550 The 5earner-centred Curriculum. Cam2ridge Cam2ridge University Eress. ;GNeill1 %. ,-.5-0 Dhy use te)t2oo#sK E5T61 9?,/01 pp. -6>---. %ea-'ic#ins1 E. L +ermaine1 M. ,-../0 Evaluation. ;)ford ;)ford University Eress. %ichards1 B. C. ,-..50 8eyond Training. Cam2ridge Cam2ridge University Eress. Shannon1 E. ,-.5C0 Commercial reading materials1 a technological ideology1 and the des#illing of teachers. The Elementary -chool 6ournal! 5C ,901 pp. 96C-/.. Sheldon1 L. ,-.550 Evaluating EL8 te)t2oo#s and materials. E5T61 >/,>01 pp. /9C->?. S3ales1 B. ,-.560 ESE 8he te)t2oo# pro2lem. E-0 6ournal! -,-01 pp. ---/9. 8omlinson1 &. ,/66-0 =aterials development. $n %. Carter and '. Nunan ,eds0. The Cambridge 9uide to Teaching English to -peakers of :ther 5anguages . Cam2ridge Cam2ridge University Eress. Ur1 E. ,-..?0 1 Course in 5anguage Teaching; 0ractice and Theory . Cam2ridge Cam2ridge University Eress. Fu1 +. ,-../0 English. &ei4ing Foreign Languages 8eaching and %esearch Eress. ,9rd edn0

Appendi!$ %uestionnaire or teacher trainees

-. Dhat 2oo# and 3hich specific unit,s0 did you teach in the teaching practiceK

/. Dhat do you thin# are the main advantages and disadvantages of the te)t2oo#K (dvantages

'isadvantages

9. For one of the units you taught1 did you ma#e any adaptationsK $f yes1 could you tell 3hat and ho3K Elease 2e as specific as possi2le. $t 3ould 2e great if you can attach a copy of the material and Ior your teaching plan.

>. Could you tell your reasons for the adaptations you madeK

7. Dhat do you thin# of the effects of your adaptationsK

?. Dere there any constraints in the process of your adaptationK $n other 3ords1 are there any factors 3hich prevent you from adapting the 3ay you plannedK

8han#s very much for ans3ering the AuestionsN

The E!pert Teacher course can "e vie#ed here& The 'kills o Teacher Training course can "e vie#ed here&