Brian Tomlinson has worked as a teacher, teacher trainer, curriculum developer, film extra, football coach and university academic in Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Nigeria, Oman, Singapore, UK, Vanuatu and Zambia, as well as giving invited presentations in over seventy countries. He is Founder and President of MATSDA (the international Materials Development Association), an Honorary Visiting Professor at the University of Liverpool and a TESOL Professor at Anaheim University. He has over one hundred publications on materials development, language awareness, teacher development and second language acquisition, and he has recently co-authored with Hitomi Masuhara The Complete Guide to the Theory and Practice of Materials Development for Language Learning (Wiley, 2018) and SLA Applied: Connecting Theory and Practice (Cambridge University Press, 2021). E-mail: brianjohntomlinson@gmail.com

 

Abstract

This article explores the possible benefits of offering learner choice when developing, adapting and using language learning materials. It does so by referring to the literature and by reporting the results of a study in which professionals from different countries were invited to respond to a brief questionnaire about offering choice to learners. Nearly all the respondents were in favour of offering choice because doing so can help learners to personalise their learning, make it more meaningful and relevant and help them to become more autonomous. These respondents suggested promising ways of offering choice but a few respondents were not enthusiastic about offering choice and pointed out the difficulties learner choice can pose for standardising teaching and testing, as well as for teacher preparation.

The author also gives his own views on the benefits of offering learner choice, looks at whether coursebooks typically offer learner choice and makes suggestions for how materials developers and teachers could usefully offer learner choice when they are writing or adapting materials.

 

Introduction

For over fifty years I have been offering choice in my teaching and in my materials development. Initially I did so more by instinct than by informed theory. However, as I progressed I made use of my observations, reading and research to develop such principles of language acquisition as personalisation, meaningfulness and agency which then informed when, why and how I offered choice. I have always found that most learners have responded positively to being offered choice and that their motivation and engagement tended to improve when they were doing what they wanted to do. My assumption has therefore always been that teachers and learners would welcome and benefit from choice and I have always recommended offering it in my teacher training and in my publications.

 

The Literature on offering learner choice

In order to find out what the literature on second language acquisition (SLA) says about learner choice, I have looked at numerous well-respected books on SLA, such as some of those written or edited by Susan Ballinger, Rod Ellis, Susan Gass, Eli Hinkel, Shawn Loewen, Michael Long, Alison Mackey, Hitomi Masuhara, Loudes Ortega, Masatochi Sato, Ulf Schütze and Brian Tomlinson. However, I cannot find any reference to learner choice in the chapter headings or in the Index of these books. I did though find an interesting discussion about voluntary and involuntary learners on pages 89-91 of Long (2015) and wondered if there is any evidence that learners who choose to learn a language tend to be more successful in doing so than the many learners who are compelled to learn a language. I have also looked at many of the major books on language teaching methodology and materials development, such as some of those written or edited by Ron Carter, Nigel Harwood, Ian McGrath, Jo McDonough, Hitomi Masuhara, Freda Mishan, David Nunan, Willy Renandya, Jack Richards, Christopher Shaw, Ivor Timmis and Brian Tomlinson and I have not found any substantial reference to learner choice. I have however found a section on learner autonomy in Choi and Nunan (2021) which provides a useful table on p. 436 summarising options which could be made available to learners so that they can select from, modify and create materials. For example, they suggest that, ‘Learners are made aware of the different types of procedures in the materials they are using’ and that they then ‘rank order different procedures such as practising model conversations, role plays, interview surveys, from most to least interesting/useful.’ (Choi and Nunan, 2021, p. 436). I have also found numerous references to choice in Arnold (1999) and in Bao (2018). It turns out though that the only substantial discussion of choice in Arnold (1999) is in relation to the equally important subject of teacher choice and that the other references are very brief (e.g. in an account of learners choosing activities in Denmark on p. 146 and with reference to self-assessment on p. 286). The main chapter in Bao (2018) featuring reference to choice is Tin (2018). In it she talks about the role of learner choice as a determiner and product of learner autonomy and focuses on the importance of ‘disciplined use of constraints’ (p. 96) in helping learners to make creative choice.

I have also found a few articles which seem to indicate potential beneficial effects of learner choice. For example, Mozgalina (2015) reports on two studies investigating the effect of task choice on intrinsic motivation and task engagement. Interestingly the task conditions with less choice achieved greater student task engagement and task motivation, which suggests to me that choice is potentially beneficial but too much choice can distract or confuse students.  Patall, Cooper and Civey Robinson (2008) also found in a meta-analysis of 41 studies that choice enhanced motivation, as well as effort, task performance and perceived competence (especially with young learners). On the other hand Flowerdew and Schraw (2003) found that in one of their experiments choice did not have a positive effect on cognitive engagement but did have a positive effect on attitude and effort. In another experiment they found that self-paced readers given a choice of how long to spend on reading spent less time and performed more poorly on cognitive measures than readers who had no choice. However, they also found that choice of time had a positive effect on affective engagement. Phung, Nakamura and Reinders (2021) also conducted a study on the effect of choice on affective engagement. They found that when 24 Thai university students did two opinion gap tasks, choice without constraint achieved cognitive engagement and enjoyment but did also result in anxiety.

Saraceni (in press) is a strong proponent of learner choice and in her chapter proposing an important role for learners in the adaptation process she says, ‘Materials should be flexible, in the sense that they should provide learners … with the possibility of choosing different activities, tasks, projects and approaches, thus of adapting the materials to their own learning needs’. Billsborough (2017) is an equally passionate supporter of offering learner choice. She claims it increases motivation and suggests, for example, letting learners choose which questions to answer, what persona to take on when taking part in a writing or speaking activity, what order of activities to follow in a lesson, what homework to do and how to present it.

It was disappointing to find there is little empirical support in the literature for offering learner choice but reassuring not to find any author or study actually opposing the offering of learner choice. To find out what other practitioners feel about offering learner choice I designed and administered a very simple questionnaire.

 

The questionnaire

Procedures

I e-mailed teachers, teacher trainers and researchers around the world and told them I was interested in finding out their views about the offering of choice to language learners for an article I was writing.

I asked them if they would be willing to contribute their views and, if so, if they would provide brief answers to the following questions:

1. Do you think materials should offer learner choice?
2. Why?
3. If your answer to 1 is ‘Yes’, please give an example of how materials can offer learner choice.

30 professionals agreed to participate in the study, with 28 supporting offering learner choice and two expressing their opposition. All 30 of the respondents signed a form giving their consent to their responses being used in compiling the data and 28 consented to their responses being quoted and their names being attributed.

Reasons for offering choice

The 28 respondents who supported offering learner choice gave 39 different reasons for doing so. The most prevalent were:

1. learners are different (for example, in their personalities, interests, preferred learning styles and proficiency) (8)
2. encourages motivation (7)
3. can enhance engagement (7)
4. can promote learner autonomy (6)
5. caters for learner needs ()
6. allows for personalisation (4)
7.  can promote a sense of learner ownership (3)
8. can promote learner agency (2)
9. can increase learner investment in learning (2)
10. involving learners in decision making empowers them (2)

Of the other reasons given one was especially powerful (‘in the case of young learners ‘choice’, according to the United Nations, is one of the ‘Rights of the child’ (Article 12)’) and a number reflected current concerns in the language teaching world (e.g. ‘embraces diversity and inclusion’, ‘most classes are mixed ability classes’, ‘makes the textbook more appealing and less monotonous to both teachers and learners’, ‘it implies that you trust learners to make decisions’, ‘respects the learner voice’). Perhaps the respondent I agreed with most was Douglas Bell, who said:

I tend to equate ‘learner choice’ with personalization and giving students the freedom to take from materials what they feel is most useful for them …  it encourages learners to think for themselves and make their own connections … Fundamentally, I believe we should always be striving to widen, rather than restrict.

Interestingly none of the respondents referred to any research or theories but most of their justifications involved creating conditions which have been found to promote language acquisition. For example, agency, autonomy, confidence, creativity, enjoyment, engagement, learner needs and wants, motivation, personalisation, relevance, richness and variety are justified as determiners of intake and of eventual acquisition in Schütze (2017) and in Tomlinson & Masuhara (2021).

Examples of ways of offering choice

The respondents suggested many different ways of offering choice including:

• offering a choice of how to present a piece of work (e.g. written text, audio file, video)
• offering a choice of how many questions to answer or how many tasks to do
• having a shortened, simpler version of a text in the main unit and the original version in an Appendix and then giving a choice of which text to use for the tasks  
• inviting learners ‘to choose between learner-centred and teacher-centred tasks. In a teacher-centred task students are given a picture to describe to their partner; in a learner-centred task they are asked to draw their own picture’ (Rod Ellis)
• offering ‘choice of text difficulty and/or task difficulty.  For example, learners are given a choice of three texts on the same topic and with the same task but at three levels of difficulty.’ (Alan Maley)
• asking learners to find texts which interest them and to bring them to class for the teacher to use
• offering ‘different activities with no compulsion to do them all. Different tasks and/or types of interaction. In particular, allowing the learner’s opinion to be valid as against a ‘correct’ answer imposed from on high. (Dave Allan).

These are all options I have experienced (either in my classes or in other teachers’ classes) and they are options I would endorse.

Three reasons for not offering choice

Two respondents were opposed to offering learner choice because, for example:

• learners are not aware of their actual needs
• there is a need to balance learner choice with institutional realities such as standardisation and assessment
• many learners feel it is the teacher’s responsibility to make informed choices for them
• it is unrealistic to expect teachers to create or adapt materials to cater for different learner choices.

In my view these are not reasons for not offering learner choice but realities to take into consideration when doing so (for example, by explaining to learners why you want to offer them choice, inviting them to trial an options approach and then giving them a choice of continuing with options or following a teacher determined approach). All the reasons expressed are valid points but using them to deny learners choice is a good example of how learner needs are rarely given priority. In my experience the needs of politicians, of curriculum developers, of assessors, of managers, of publishers, of teacher trainers and of teachers are given greater consideration than the needs of learners, often to the potential detriment of learner achievement.

What do the learners think?

Some of the respondents to my questionnaire asked some of their students what they thought about being offered choice. I have seen 37 responses from students in Indonesia, Malaysia and the USA. 22 students wanted to be offered choice and 15 did not.

All eight learners in the USA were in favour of being offered choice as were all three learners in Malaysia. The reasons given were that this would open minds, increase confidence and make the course more relevant (USA) and because the students were at different levels and had different preferences (Malaysia).

Reasons given by the Indonesian students for wanting choice included that every student had a right to decide what to learn and that doing this created a sense of responsibility. The main reason for not wanting choice was that teachers were trained and experienced and they were not.

The examples of choice the learners provided included:

• Selecting materials from various websites
• Choosing from different learning platforms
• Choosing the way of being evaluated

An interesting learner view of being offered choice is expressed in Mulling (2022). When giving feedback on the extensive reading element of a self-access course for young adult Brazilians, three students said that they would only like to see a follow up activity after the reading of the text if it was optional. They said that they would be happy to do it if they chose to do it and they would not feel guilty if they did not do it because they would have chosen not to.

 

Choice in global coursebooks

At the moment very few global coursebooks seem to offer learner choice, perhaps because doing so could reduce their value as sources of easy to mark and reliable tests for teachers to use and because of fear of losing sales in cultures which favour teacher-centred approaches.

I have just gone at random to a unit in three currently popular Intermediate EFL global coursebooks and I have found that:

• Outcomes Intermediate Student’s Book (Dellar & Walkley, 2018) has ten pages of activities but only one activity offers choice. On p. 89 the students in pairs are asked to decide on a ‘film/exhibition/play’ they want to invite other students to and then to have a conversation with a student from another pair and invite them to the event (following a prescribed conversation structure and making the conversation similar to one they have just listened to).
• In Cambridge English Empower Starter (Doff et al., 2016) there is only one activity which gives learners any choice in the eight pages of activities. This is an activity which invites learners to choose a city and a country from a previous activity, write them down on a piece of paper and then give the piece of paper to the teacher. The learner then takes a piece of paper from the teacher and tries to find the learner who has chosen that city and country (p. 9).
• In Cutting Edge 3 Upper Intermediate Students Book Unit 11 (Bygrave, Cunningham and Moor, 2014) the only activity in ten pages offering choice is one which asks learners to ‘choose one of these cases or a similar case you have read about’ and then summarise it and be prepared to express an opinion about it (p. 111).

Obviously this small sample might not be representative of what is offered by global coursebooks but I have observed global coursebooks in use in many different countries and I do not recollect seeing an activity being used in which learners were offered choice. There are though some coursebooks written on coursebook development projects and for local publishers which offer choice to learners. For example, almost every unit in On Target (1996) offers choice of content, text and/or activities to Namibian secondary school students and Search 10 (Naustdal Fenner & Nordal-Pedersen, 1999) offers many choices to Norwegian secondary school students.

 

Teachers as materials developers

Most teachers around the world seem to be using global coursebooks and, if they are in favour of offering learner choice, they need to adapt their coursebook and/or develop extra materials of their own. I hope the examples suggested by the respondents to my survey will help them and that the following examples taken from my own teaching experience can help them too.

1. With a class of lower intermediate level university students in Japan I used the following procedure:

• I told the learners they were going to listen to a poem called ‘First Day at School’ and then asked them to see pictures in their minds of themselves getting ready for their first day at school. I told them what to visualise and what to talk to themselves about (e.g. ‘You are about to leave home to go to school for the first time. Look in a mirror How do you look? How do you feel?’)
• The learners chose one memory of that first day to share with a partner.
• The learners listened to me reading ‘First Day at School’ (McGough, 1998) and visualised what the child in the poem was doing.
• Each learner drew a picture of what they could remember of the child’s first day at school.
• In groups the learners shared and discussed their drawings and then chose one to represent the group. They read the poem together and as they read it they added details to their drawing (sometimes after calling me over to help them understand a line in the poem). Then they shared and discussed their group drawing with another group.
• For homework the learners individually wrote either the conversation between the boy and his mother when she came to pick him up from school or a poem or story entitled ‘First Day at University’.
• In the next class the learners read the poem again before focusing on the numerous rhetorical questions in the poem and trying to work out their functions.
• The learners revised their homework making use of anything they had discovered about the rhetorical questions.

This is an example of a text-driven activity in which a potentially engaging text drives the activities rather than a predetermined teaching point (Tomlinson,in press; Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2018, 2021).

2. The teacher takes into class a number of English newspapers and elicits from the learners the type of sections they are likely to find in the papers (e.g. news, sport, fashion, entertainment). The learners decide if they want to work individually, in pairs or in groups and then choose which section they want to read. They separate their section from one of the papers and read it. Then they select from it something they think will interest the other learners in the class and rewrite it for the class newspaper (getting help from the teacher when needed). They share their article with an ‘editor’ individual, pair or group and help each other revise their articles. Finally they submit their article to the teacher for publication in the class newspaper.
3. Learners in a very well-resourced college in the UK chose which option to do in English on two afternoons a week from a list which included pottery, sculpture, art, cookery, politics, football and pub architecture.
4. Groups of learners in a primary school in Vanuatu chose which character from their textbook to represent in puppet form. The puppets were hung from the classroom ceiling and when a group’s character appeared in a coursebook activity one of the group members was chosen to activate and voice the puppet.
5. Teenage students at a college in the UK visualised an interesting old lady they knew. Then they listened to me reading a poem about an old lady and tried to visualise that lady. They were asked, ‘Do you like the old lady?’ and told to talk to themselves about their answer before sharing it in a pair or a group. They were then given photos of three old ladies and asked to decide in their group which one wrote the poem.

                 The learners read the poem and then chose one of the following activities to do       

(either individually or with others):                                  

1. Learn to recite the poem in the voice of the old lady.
2. Paint a picture of the poem.
3. You are the old lady. Write a letter to your son in Sydney.
4. Every day in summer the old lady goes to the park and sits on the same bench by the pond. Today there’s an old man sitting on the bench. Write the conversation between the old man and the old woman.
5. You are a member of the old lady’s family. Hold a meeting with other members of the family to decide how you can help her.
6. Answer the following ten comprehension questions about the poem.

The learners chose which activity to do and how to do it and afterwards decided whether or not they wanted to present the product of their activity to the class (e.g. show their painting and answer questions about it).

 

My position

My position is that I strongly advocate the offering of choice to learners providing they are willing to be offered choice and the teachers do not impose their choices on the learners. My rationale is that doing so can match the attested second language acquisition principles of providing a rich, comprehensible and meaningful exposure to the language in communicative use, of stimulating affective and cognitive engagement, of increasing intrinsic motivation, of individualising and personalising learning, of making learning more meaningful, of providing refreshing variety, of providing achievable challenge and of providing opportunities for purposeful communication. For discussion and justification of these principles see Tomlinson & Masuhara (2018, 2021).

 

Further suggestions for offering learner choice: Types of choice

Choice of core material

Learners can be given samples of core materials (e.g. of four different coursebooks) and be asked to choose one of them, either individually or as a class. Individuals could form groups who have made similar choices and sometimes share with other groups what they have done.

Choice of mode

Learners can be asked, for example, if they want to follow a coursebook or follow a digital course. They can also be asked if they want to read about a topic, listen to a talk on it or watch a video about it. The choices could be made individually or by small groups and later learners can share what they have learned about the topic.

Choice of level

Learners can be asked to select the level of a text to read or listen to and/or the level of the activities they do afterwards. For example, in Senegal a class of adults chose which of three different versions of the same text to read, with one being the original authentic text, one being a slightly shortened and slightly simplified version and the other being a considerably shortened and simplified version. After reading their selected text the learners formed groups in which at least one member had read version 1, one version 2 and one version 3. They then worked together on the same task based on the shared content of the texts.

Another approach to offering choice of level is one I took at a UK College when students decided which class to join after experiencing a number of classes during the first week of their course.

Choice of text

The learners could select a text from a menu of texts on the same topic and then work together on the same generic tasks, that is tasks which could be done in response to any text of a particular genre (e.g. newspaper editorials), topic (e.g. friendship) or issue (e.g. freedom of speech). For details of generic tasks and of flexi-materials see Maley (2013).

Choice of activity

The learners could read, listen to or view the same text and then choose from a menu of activities. For example, the learners could view an extract from a film and then choose between writing a review of it, acting the scene with an extra character, writing the script for the next scene or analysing a particular linguistic or pragmatic feature which is salient in the film.

Choice of amount

The learners could decide how many pages their story will be, how many questions they are going to answer or how many pages of an extensive reader they are going to read for homework. This can be particularly useful in a mixed ability class as it allows learners to work at their own speed and level of difficulty.

Choice of voice

Materials can offer learners a choice of voice, as one of my MA students once did in her materials by letting students sample three different mentor voices and then asking them to decide which voice they wanted to listen to on their self-access course. Textbooks could do the same by offering a choice between the conventionally formal voice of the author(s) and a more personal, informal, chatty voice.

Choice of feedback

Learners could choose how much feedback is given by the teacher and how it is given. For example, they could choose whether the feedback is given during an activity or after it, whether it is given to individuals or in generalisations to the whole group or class, and whether it is written or spoken.

Choice of cooperation

Learners could choose whether to work individually, in pairs, in groups or as a whole class and they could choose who they work with (see Sato & Ballinger (2016) for evidence of the value of peers collaborating in socially cohesive groups).

Choice of teacher

In a College in the UK learners were offered the opportunity to sample lessons given by different teachers at their chosen level for a week and then to decide which teachers they would prefer to learn with. Not surprisingly this was very popular with the learners but unpopular with the teachers.

 

Conclusion

The obvious conclusion for me is that the indications are that learner choice, though sometimes difficult to administer, can be beneficial to learners and can make positive contributions to their acquisition of language and their development of communicative competence. I am therefore recommending that materials should be written incorporating learner choice, that teachers should adapt their materials to add choice and that teacher development courses should include training in offering learner choice. I am also recommending that empirical research should be undertaken to find out just what the benefits of learner choice can be. I am thinking of, for example, experiments which compare eventual performance on an experimental course which differs only from a control course in that it offers choices of content and activities. I am also thinking of experiments which compare the motivation, the engagement or performance of learners doing an activity they have chosen with that of learners doing an equivalent activity which they have not chosen. I just hope that more choice is soon offered to more learners and that they enjoy and gain from this development.

 

References

Arnold, J. (Ed.). (1999). Affect in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bao, D. (Ed.). (2018). Creativity and innovations in ELT materials development: Looking beyond the current design. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Bilsborough, K. (2017). Choice in the ELT secondary classroom. IATEFL Young Learners.

https://ylsig.iatefl.org/2017/02/02/choice-in-the-secondary-elt-classroom-reflections-suggestions/

Bygrave, J., Cunningham, S., & Moor, P. (2014). Cutting edge 3 upper intermediate students book. Harlow: Pearson.

Choi, J., & Nunan, D. (2021). Learner contributions to materials in language teaching. In J. Norton & H. Buchanan (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of materials development for language teaching (pp. 429-440). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Dellar, H. & Walkley, A. M. (2018). Outcomes intermediate student’s book.  Andover: Cengage.

Doff, A., Thaine, C., Puchta, H., Stranks, J., & Lewis-Jones, P. (2016). Cambridge English empower starter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Flowerday, T., & Schraw, G. (2003). Effect of choice on cognitive and affective engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 96, 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670309598810

Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

Maley, A. (2013). Creative approaches to writing materials. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (2^nd ed., pp. 167-188). London: Bloomsbury.

McGough, R. (1998). First day at school. In Philip, N. (Ed.), The New Oxford book of children’s verse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mozgalina, A. (2015). More or less choice? The influence of choice on task motivation and task engagement. System, 49, 120–132. Doi10.1016/j.system.2015.01.004

Mulling, A. (2022). A combined approach to the evaluation of language learning materials: What can we learn from the design and use of English M1? Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Portsmouth.

Naustdal Fenner, A. & Nordal-Pedersen, G. (1999). Search 10. Oslo: Gyldendal.

On target (1996). Ministry of Basic Education and Culture. Windhoek: Gamsberg Macmillan.

Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 270–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.270

Saraceni, C. (in press). Adapting materials: A personal view. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (3^rd ed.). London: Bloomsbury.

Phung, L., Nakamura, S., & Reinders, H. (2021). The effect of choice on affective engagement: Implications for task design. In Hiver, P., Mercer, S., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (Eds.), Learner engagement in the language classroom (pp. 163-181). Avon: Multilingual Matters.

Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (2016). Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 1-32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Schütze, U. (2017). Language learning and the brain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tin, T. B. (2018). Promoting autonomy through creative tasks: Broadening possibilities within constraints. In D. Bao (Ed.), Creativity and innovations in ELT materials development: Looking beyond the current design (pp. 96-106). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Tomlinson, B. (Ed.) (in press). Using text-driven and other principled frameworks for developing language learning materials. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (3rd ed.). London: Bloomsbury.

Tomlinson, B. & Masuhara, H. (2018). The complete guide to the theory and practice of materials development for language learning. Hoboken: Wiley.

Tomlinson, B. & Masuhara, H. (2021). SLA applied: Connecting theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Please check the Pilgrims f2f courses at Pilgrims website.

Please check the Pilgrims online courses at Pilgrims website.