Second Source of Information: Analysis of Course Materials Used to Teach

As noted above, the pre-sessional programme was designed around the use of a collection of commercially available coursebooks. It is generally accepted that when used as a key component of teaching and learning, coursebooks can influence greatly the instruction that takes place in the classroom (Harwood, 2010; McGrath, 2013). As such, an analysis of the coursebooks that were used and how they were employed was immediately relevant to student learning and socialisation in writing (Mickan, 2013). In my role as tutor on the pre-sessional programmes, I was able to identify which texts would be the most relevant to the analysis. The choice was based on identifying which materials explicitly taught modality, in the first instance, and then which materials developed the learners’ writing skills. From the eight coursebooks that were examined, a total of four were selected together with the materials provided in a 2- hour workshop on developing writing skills of business case study reports. The materials that formed the basis of the analysis were the following:

 Language Leader Advanced (Cotton, et al., 2010) (henceforth, LLA), a General English coursebook used in Modules One and Two.

 English for Business Studies (Walker & Harvey, 2008) (henceforth, EBS), an English for Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP) coursebook used in Modules Three and Four.  English for Academic Study Series: Writing (Pallant, 2009) (henceforth EASS Writing),

a writing skills development coursebook focused on writing discursive essays, used in Modules One, Two and Three.

 Business Case Study Workshop materials (henceforth BCSW), a two-hour workshop introducing the skills needed to write business case study reports, given in Module Three.  Academic Writing Skills for Graduate Students (Swales & Feak, 2004) (henceforth, AWGS), a writing skills development coursebook focussed on writing research reports, used in Module Four.

3.6.2.2 Analysis of Input Materials Used to Teach Modality

Much of the literature written on materials analysis and evaluation focuses on the pre-selection evaluation of coursebooks in order to make a final recommendation for use in the classroom

(McDonough, Shaw, & Masuhara, 2013; McGrath, 2016; Tomlinson, 2011, 2013). This study conducted a post-hoc analysis based on Littlejohn's (2011, p.185) framework. Post-hoc analyses look at materials that have already been selected and are, or have been, in use. The research reviewed the teaching input of modality and determined what link, if any, existed between the materials and the language expression noted in the amateur writer texts. Figure 3.5 below details the three steps to be conducted in Littlejohn’s framework, which allows knowledge (objective and subjective) to be built up gradually in order to generate inferences about the materials being used. As the programme was well defined with detailed module learning outcomes (see section 3.5.2 above), together with the strict use of multiple source materials, I did not make inferences about aims, roles or the ‘demands on the learners’ process competence’ (see Step 3 of Figure 3.5). I did, however, cross reference the module aims with the results of the expression of modality in the amateur texts, in order to determine if there was any potential influence between the teaching of modality and learner expression in the three text types under analysis. It was the hope that the results of the materials analysis would provide information for the course designers and managers at the Language Centre to be able to make their own interpretations and evaluations on the appropriacy of the design of the materials and to decide, if action is needed to reject, adapt or supplement the materials according to their learning and teaching context.

Each of the source materials were analysed in turn, by completing an external (macro- ) analysis (Step One of the framework) which reviewed, as far as possible, objective information including: author names, publishers, year of publication, type of text, level of student, intended audience, external components, add-ons and extras, the route through the materials (specified or unspecified), the layout and design, syllabus and language skills, topics and methodology. This first step information was important as it uncovered the authors’ claims and helped to understand the underlying theoretical and methodological frameworks the material syllabi were based on. This information was in addition to other macro evaluation data (as stated by Ellis, 2011, p.215). With this information to hand, I then carried out a finer-grained analysis in Step Two.

STEP 1. “WHAT IS THERE?” ‘objective description’  Statements of description

 Physical aspects of the materials  Main steps in the instructional sections

STEP 2. “WHAT IS REQUIRED OF USERS?” ‘subjective description’  Subdivision into constituent tasks

 An analysis of tasks: what is the learner expected to do? Who with? With what content? STEP 3. “WHAT IS IMPLIED?” ‘subjective description’

 Deducing aims, principles of selection and sequences  Deducing teacher and learner roles

 Deducing demands on learner’s process competence Adapted from Littlejohn (2011, p.185)

Figure 3.5 Three-step framework for post-hoc materials analysis

The second step in the analysis was an internal (micro-) analysis which was based on Richards and Rodgers (2001, cited in Littlejohn, 2011) design elements and aimed to identify the thinking that underlay the materials. This stage was used to identify where instances of explicit teaching of modality occurred, both as language items and as part of writing skills development tasks. The types of tasks were analysed in order to view what the learners were expected to do and what features of modality they were encouraged to practice and learn. Reference was made to the final working definition of modality in order to compare which elements of the framework of modality were covered, and which elements were missing. It should be noted that the definition of ‘task’ that was used in this research was also taken from Breen and Candlin (1987, cited in Littlejohn, 2011), who stated that it was ‘any proposal contained within the materials for action to be undertaken by the learners, which has the direct aim of bringing about the learning of the foreign language’ (p.188). It was a broad-based definition and covered both meaning-focused work (such as skills and communicative development work) as well as form-focused (language focused) work, where a particular grammar point was to be reviewed. In line with Ellis (2011, p.215), once the data was combined with information regarding course aims and objectives, the micro analyses helped to inform the macro-evaluations and vice versa. However, it was the micro-analysis which provided the greatest value to the materials analysis, as it provided the ‘basis for deciding whether specific tasks work, and also because they serve as a source of teacher self-reflection and development’ (Ellis, 2011, p.217). The analysis of the teaching materials was used to answer Research Question 2.

3.6.3 Third source of information: Analysis of tutor cognition and their underlying beliefs of