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 over-
reliance 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@ A70. (dapting their materials allo3s
them to achieve more compati2ility and fitness 2et3een the te)t2oo# and the teaching
environment1 and ma)imiBe the value of the 2oo# for the 2enefit of their particular learners
and for the most effective teaching outcomes to achieve. $t 3ould conseCuently 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 Dungc#1 -..6= Shannon1 -.5E0. %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.
Fithin 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 ESG ,English for specific purposes0 course design to realiBe 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 ESG. 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 Hu ,-../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 eCuivalents1 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 I Cuestions 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 optimiBe 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 utiliBed as the main data collection instruments1 and trainees< lesson
plans 3ere utiliBed as a supplementary source of information a2out ho3 the adaptations had
2een done. *uestionnaires ,see (ppendi) -0 3ere administered to the 96
traineesaddressing five Cuestions 3hat1 ho31 3hy1 the effect and constraints.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

8he section concerns @ aspects that arose from the data trainees< evaluation and adaptation of
the te)t2oo#1 rationales and underling principles1 effect of the trainees< adaptation and
constraints they had encountered in their adaptation process.
Trainees evaluation and adaptation o te!t"ook
$t 3as found from the Cuestionnaire that all trainees under3ent t3o stages of materials
adaptation. 8hey carried out evaluation prior to adapting the te)t2oo#. 8hey analyBed
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 ith necessary guidance! especially in terms of background information
and language points.
The textbook can help improve reading and riting.
(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 students< #no3ledge 2ase 3ith rich authentic reading materials1 encouraging self-
study1 developing students< 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 techniCues the trainees applied 3ere adding1 deleting and modifying.
(ll of them used ?adding<1 eight used ?deleting< and si) used ?modifying<. 8he techniCues
3ere utiliBed 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 Cuestions. 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 students< 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 trainees< adaptations 3as their 2elief in a possi2le
integration 2et3een traditional and communicative methods. ;n the one hand1 the trainees
recogniBed the positive effect of grammar-translation method1 3hich the te)t2oo# adhered to.
(ll trainees 2ut one regarded the te)t2oo#<s 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 dramaJroleplay ,@ trainees0 3ere
organiBed to get the students actively involved. (udio-visual aids1 realia ,pictures1 the glo2e1
and a calendar0 3ere utiliBed to help students< understanding. Gossi2le resources availa2le1
e.g. ;HG1 handouts 3ere employed to aid their teaching.
$. To cater for students" various needs
8he second main principle informing the trainees< adaptation appeared to 2e a desire to
satisfy the students< 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 students< 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 students< interest. ( num2er of trainees adapted
the level of difficulty of some e)ercises to suit students< 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 priBe. (ll this evidence reveals the
trainees< aspirations to satisfy the students< different types of needs.
%. To integrate as multiple language skills as possible in a reading lesson
8he third principle underpinning the trainees< 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 on preferences and needs
$t 3as found that the teachers< o3n needs 3ere also considered in their adaptations. 'espite
much similarity 2et3een the trainees< perceptions of the te)t2oo# and adaptation techniCues1
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 eects o materials adaptation
8here emerged a consensus among the trainees that they had achieved the desired effects.
8hey had stimulated their students< 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 ?they shared ideas 3ith each other<1 and
a rapport 2et3een the teacher and the students. Several trainees found that their teaching
efficiency 3as o2viously improved 2ecause ?providing 2ac#ground information aroused their
interest and helped the students understand the te)t= and 2ecause ?the students sho3ed great
interest in practising the provided e)ercises<. ;ne trainee reported that his students
?performed very 3ell in the play 2ecause they 3ere very 3ell prepared<. 8he follo3ing
comments revealed the trainees< positive vie3s on their adaptations.
't really did ork( )hen the students discussed the topic! most of them could say
something related to their on 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 ere all involved. They liked to
share ideas ith each other. *Trainee $+
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 shoed 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
trainee<s 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 trainees< 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 inadeCuacy of teachers< e)pertise and physical constraints.
#. 4ismatches ith traditional beliefs and practices
$t 3as found that tensions 2et3een traditional and ne3 perceptions hindered the trainees<
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 students< initial resistance to the trainee<s 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 realiBing 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 teachers< 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 organiBe 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. Ghotocopying 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 pre-
designed activities.
Discussion
8his study loo#ed at a group of teacher trainees< 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 trainees< 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 neutraliBe the
2ad points ,Ur1 -..A -5E0. 8he te)t2oo# the trainees used valued patterned drilling to lead to
grammatical andJor 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 ?#no3< its grammar I the system I 2ut they can<t
communicate in it ,+rant1 -.5E -90. (fter identifying areas for changes1 the trainees used
?adding<1 ?deleting< and ?modifying< to ma#e the te)t2oo# more suited to their students.
(s the findings indicate1 the trainees< 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 students< 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 ,;<Neill1 -.5- -7A0 and meaningful tas#s.
8he trainees< adaptations 3ere 2eneficial to teachers in the 3ay of ?res#illing them<. $t
ena2led them to go 2eyond the te)t2oo# and the classroom routines. 8hey 2ecame more
confident 2ecause of the students< su2seCuent 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 trainees< 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 reCuirements1 3hich 3as a preliminary step in their ma)imiBing 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 -@E0. 8he trainees retained its good elements and deleted
inappropriate parts to ma#e it more relevant and interesting.
$t 3as found that the trainees< adaptations 3ere underpinned 2y four ma4or principles. 8hey
3anted to develop a solid language #no3ledge 2ase and communicative competence1 to meet
students< needs1 to achieve a 2alanced development of language s#ills1 and to satisfy their
o3n preferences and needs. 8hey carried out adaptations to realiBe these four purposes.
8hree constraints emerged as salient features that merit attention. First1 the trainees< 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. 8eachers< 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 ?s3im 3ith the tide< under the pressure or ma#e some
compromise to satisfy all parties concerned.

Second1 teachers< professional e)pertise affected their adaptations1 3hich echoes the
o2servations of a num2er of researchers. >asuhara ,-..50 claims that teachers< confidence
and professional e)pertise influence their perception of 3hat they need from te)t2oo#s.
;<Neill ,-.5- -7@0 also recogniBes 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 teachers< 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 teachers< thin#ing. $t 3as
found that the limitations of availa2le resources had made teachers< ideas less feasi2le than
they originally anticipated. Lac# of resource materials and facilities considera2ly restrained
the trainees< potential.
Conclusions
8his research investigated the effects a group of teacher trainees< 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 techniCues and the effect of their
attempts. $t has thus hopefully contri2uted in its small 3ay to the enrichment of the literature
and teachers< 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 teachers<
materials adaptation to shed light on various practical issues involved in teachers< use of
materials. 8he teachers in this study used a traditional te)t2oo#1 3hich needed moderniBing to
maintain students< 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 I and
to achieve personal and professional development ,8omlinson1 /66- AE01 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 -9A0. $t also suggests training should address teachers< 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 I 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 trainees< ne3ly acCuired perceptions and practices. (
transformation1 may2e through a gradual process needs to 2e realiBed 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. Grovision 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 teachers< steady and persistent efforts to localiBe1
personaliBe and individualiBe te)t2oo#s ,>c'onough and Sha31 -..9 .A0. 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 students< 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. Doint 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
teachers< resources1 thus reducing the amount of individual 3or#. Fith a supportive team
culture esta2lished1 the institutional understanding and support is more li#ely to occur.
>oreover1 as &reen ,-.5.0 suggested1 students< 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 teachers< materials adaptation on a teacher training course1 not teachers
in normal situations1 3here the situation might 2e different. For e)ample1 ?adding<1 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 students< reactions to one trainee<s
teaching1 3hich may not have 3holly and directly resulted from the trainee<s materials
adaptation. 8he relationship 2et3een the students< vie3s and the trainee<s adaptation needs to
2e further e)plored.
8here may 2e some pro2lems 3ith the use of the Cuestionnaires although they 3ere not used
as the only source of information. 8he credi2ility of the information generated from the
Cuestionnaires is Cuestiona2le1 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
trainees< 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 teachers< 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.
Reerences
(ll3right1 %. ,-.5-0 Fhat do 3e 3ant teaching materials forK E5T61 9A,-01 pp. 7--5.
(pple1 >. L Dungc#1 S. ,-..60 You don<t have to 2e a teacher to teach this unit. 8eaching1
technology1 and gender in the classroom. 1merican Educational Research 6ournal! /E
,/01 pp. //E-7-.
&reen1 >. ,-.5.0 8he evaluation cycle for language learning tas#s. $n %. M. Dohnson ,Ed.0
The -econd 5anguage Curriculum. Cam2ridge Cam2ridge University Gress.
Cunnings3orth1 (. ,-.5@0 Evaluating and -electing E,5 Teaching 4aterials . London
Heinemann.
Cunnings3orth1 (. ,-..70 Choosing 7our Coursebook. London Heinemann.
+rant1 N. ,-.5E0 4aking the 4ost of 7our Textbook. Esse) Longman.
Harmer1 D. ,/66-0 The 0ractice of English 5anguage Teaching. Esse) Longman ,9
rd
edn0.
Hedge1 8. ,/6660 Teaching and 5earning in 5anguage Classroom. ;)ford ;)ford University
Gress.
Little4ohn1 (. G. ,-..50 8he analysis of language teaching materials inside the 8ro4an Horse.
$n &. 8omlinson ,Ed.0 4aterials Development in 5anguage Teaching. Cam2ridge
Cam2ridge University Gress.
>asuhara1 H. ,-..50 Fhat do teachers really 3ant from course2oo#sK $n &. 8omlinson ,ed0.
4aterials Development in 5anguage Teaching. Cam2ridge Cam2ridge University
Gress.
>c'onough1 D. L Sha31 C. ,-..90 4aterials and 4ethods in E5T. ;)ford &lac#3ell.
Nunan1 '. ,-.550 The 5earner-centred Curriculum. Cam2ridge Cam2ridge University Gress.
;<Neill1 %. ,-.5-0 Fhy use te)t2oo#sK E5T61 9A,/01 pp. -6@---.
%ea-'ic#ins1 G. L +ermaine1 M. ,-../0 Evaluation. ;)ford ;)ford University Gress.
%ichards1 D. C. ,-..50 8eyond Training. Cam2ridge Cam2ridge University Gress.
Shannon1 G. ,-.5E0 Commercial reading materials1 a technological ideology1 and the
des#illing of teachers. The Elementary -chool 6ournal! 5E ,901 pp. 96E-/..
Sheldon1 L. ,-.550 Evaluating EL8 te)t2oo#s and materials. E5T61 @/,@01 pp. /9E-@A.
S3ales1 D. ,-.560 ESG 8he te)t2oo# pro2lem. E-0 6ournal! -,-01 pp. ---/9.
8omlinson1 &. ,/66-0 >aterials development. $n %. Carter and '. Nunan ,eds0. The
Cambridge 9uide to Teaching English to -peakers of :ther 5anguages. Cam2ridge
Cam2ridge University Gress.
Ur1 G. ,-..A0 1 Course in 5anguage Teaching; 0ractice and Theory. Cam2ridge Cam2ridge
University Gress.
Hu1 +. ,-../0 English. &ei4ing Foreign Languages 8eaching and %esearch Gress. ,9
rd
edn0
Appendi!$ %uestionnaire or teacher trainees
1. Fhat 2oo# and 3hich specific unit,s0 did you teach in the teaching practiceK
2. Fhat do you thin# are the main advantages and disadvantages of the te)t2oo#K
(dvantages
'isadvantages
3. For one of the units you taught1 did you ma#e any adaptationsK $f yes1 could you tell 3hat
and ho3K Glease 2e as specific as possi2le. $t 3ould 2e great if you can attach a copy of
the material and Jor your teaching plan.
4. Could you tell your reasons for the adaptations you madeK
5. Fhat do you thin# of the effects of your adaptationsK
6. Fere 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 CuestionsN
The E!pert Teacher course can "e vie#ed here&
The 'kills o Teacher Training course can "e vie#ed here&