Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Sociocognitive-Transformative Instructional Materials Design Model for Second Language (L2) Pedagogy in the Asia Pacific: Development and Validation

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current developments in second language (L2) pedagogy and the introduction of twenty-first century education compel scholars, educators, and leading education agencies in the Asia Pacific region to revisit their respective curriculum and framework for designing and preparing their English language teaching materials. However, after surveying available literature and studies in L2 pedagogy, it could be posited that there is paucity of a materials design model that would address these developments. Hence, this paper offers a sociocognitive-transformative materials design model to guide ESL and EFL teachers, material developers, and publishers in the Asia Pacific region in preparing instructional materials based on sound theories, principles, and practices. The process of model development was anchored on the grounded theory which allows a theory or model to emerge from the data. In the context of this study, the data (i.e., scholarly literature) was obtained from the top journals in applied linguistics and second language pedagogy. It is from these data that the preliminary model was developed. Using a three-pronged validation approach, findings confirmed the robustness of the model from both theoretical and practical perspectives. The findings further confirm the possibility of integrating current and relevant pedagogical concepts without contradicting one another and without contradicting other established L2 pedagogical frameworks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akbari, R. (2008). Postmethod discourse and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 42(4), 641–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Applebee, A. (1986). Problems in process approaches: Toward a reconceptualization of process instruction. In A. Petrosky & D. Bartholomae (Eds.), The teaching of writing (pp. 95–113). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, W., & Rixon, S. (2008). Materials for teaching English to young learners. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), English language learning materials (pp. 38–58). London: Continuum International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitve approach to second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 525–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. London: Oxford University Press.

  • Barrot, J. (2013). A macro perspective on key issues in English as second language (ESL) pedagogy in the postmethod era: Confronting challenges through sociocognitive-transformative approach. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. doi:10.1007/s40299-013-0119-4

  • Belchamber, R. (2007). Overcoming Asian stereotypes: Opportunities for enhancing learner participation in Chinese ELT classes. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 6(2), 59–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J., & Gower, R. (1998). Writing course materials for the world: A great compromise. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (pp. 117–129). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing in the university: A multidimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), 9–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2011). Grounded theory: A practical guide. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breen, M., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., & Thwaite, A. (2001). Making sense of language teaching: Teachers’ principles and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 22(4), 470–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byram, M. (1993). Language, culture and curriculum. Culture and language learning in higher education (Special issue), Vol. 6(1). London: Multilingual Matters.

  • Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byram, M., Gribkova, B., & Starkey, H. (2002). Developing the intercultural dimension in language teaching. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carney, R., & Levin, J. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castelli, P. (2011). Reflective learning in practice: Transforming experiences in a graduate global leadership curriculum. A paper presentation in Academic and Business Research Institute Conference 2011. Nashville, Tennessee.

  • Church, A. H. (1997). Managerial self-awareness in high-performing individuals in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 281–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Citrome, L. (2007). Impact factor? Shmimpact factor! The journal impact factor, modern day literature searching, and the publication process. Psychiatry, 4(5), 54–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, J. (2003). An intercultural approach to English language teaching. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dat, B. (2008). ELT materials used in Southeast Asia. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), English language learning materials (pp. 263–280). London: Continuum International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 42–63). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egbert, J. (2007). Quality analysis of journals in TESOL and applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 157–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, N. (1998). Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning, 48, 631–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed language learning and task-based teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 713–728). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, Z. (1996). Illustrations, texts, and the child reader. What are pictures in children’s storybooks for? Reading Horizons, 37, 130–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007). Checking for understanding: Formative assessment techniques for your classroom. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleenor, J. W., Brutus, S., & McCauley, C. D. (1996, August). Does self–other rating agreement moderate the relationship between personality and leader effectiveness? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario.

  • Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. (1992). Emergence versus forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmer, J. (2001). Coursebooks: A human, cultural and linguistic disaster? MET, 8(4), 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, J., & Major, J. (2004). Guidelines for designing effective English language teaching materials. The TESOLANZ Journal, 12, 50–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, H. (2007). Vocabulary learning in an automated graded reading program. Language Learning and Technology, 11(3), 64–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning-centered approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janzen, J. (2007). Preparing teachers of second language reading. TESOL Quarterly, 41(4), 707–729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ko, M., & Wang, T. (2013). EFL learners’ critical literacy practices: A case study of four college students in Taiwan. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(3), 221–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 59–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, R. (2013). Formative use of summative tests: Using test preparation to promote performance and self-regulation. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22, 69–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lantolf, J., & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 38–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litz, D. (2005). Textbook evaluation and ELT management: A South Korean case study. Asian EFL Journal (online). Retrieved from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Litz_thesis.pdf.

  • Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2006). Pushing the methodological boundaries in interaction research: An introduction to the special issue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 169–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maley, A. (1998). Squaring the circle—reconciling materials as constraint with materials empowerment. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (pp. 279–294). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masuhara, H., & Tomlinson, B. (2008). Materials for general English. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), English language learning materials (pp. 17–37). London: Continuum International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (2003). Materials and methods in ELT: A teacher’s guide (2nd ed.). Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, I. (2002). Materials evaluation and design for language teaching. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mezirow, J. (1978). Perspective transformation. Adult Education Quarterly, 28(2), 100–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mezirow, J. (2009). An overview on transformative learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning (pp. 90–105). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J. (2004). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassaji, H. (2002). Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language reading comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives. Language Learning, 52(2), 439–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunan, D. (1991). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunan, D. (1998). Teaching grammar in context. ELT Journal, 52(2), 102–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olt, M. (2007). A new design on plagiarism: Developing an instructional design model to deter plagiarism in online courses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University. Retrieved 29 May 2012, from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol5no2/Olt_dissertation.pdf.

  • Pacific Policy Research Center. (2010). Twenty first century skills for students and teachers. Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools, Research & Evaluation Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partnership for Twenty First Century Skills. (2009). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf.

  • Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning, conditions, processes, outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pienemann, M. (1998). Developmental dynamics in L1 and L2 acquisition: Processability theory and generative entrenchment. Bilingualism, 1, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rashidi, N., & Safiri, F. (2011). A model for EFL materials development within the framework of critical pedagogy. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 250–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C., & Cooke, M. (2009). Authenticity in the adult ESOL classroom and beyond. TESOL Quarterly, 43(4), 620–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, P., & Ross, S. (1996). The development of task-based assessment in English for academic purposes programs. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 455–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruhlemann, C. (2008). A register approach to teaching conversation: Farewell to standard English. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 672–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce, & W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, J. (2005). Teaching grammar through community issues. ELT Journal, 59(4), 298–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D. (1987). The reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 72, 118–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedure for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, L., & Guo, L. (2013). Multiliteracies in an outcome-driven curriculum: Where is its fit? The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,. doi:10.1007/s40299-013-0082-0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, B. (2005). The future for ELT materials in Asia. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2(2), 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, B. (2008). Language acquisition and language learning materials. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), English language learning materials (pp. 3–13). London: Continuum International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traore, M., & Kyei-Blankson, L. (2011). Using literature and multiple technologies in ESL instruction. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(3), 561–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 115–135). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., & Coleman, J. (2009). A survey of internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education in China. ReCALL Journal, 21(1), 113–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters, A. (2006). Thinking and language learning. ELT Journal, 60(4), 319–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiangui, Z. (2005). Learning theories and second language learning. CELEA Journal, 28(5), 120–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yen, K., et al. (2013). Interobserver agreement in the clinical assessment of children with blunt abdominal trauma. Academic Emergency Medicine, 20(5), 426–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, E., & Lee, H. (2013). Do effects of self-assessment differ by L2 language level? A case of Korean learners of English. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(4), 731–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. (2004). Cognitive and sociocultural perspective: Two parallel SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 35–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Commission on Higher Education-Philippines and by the De La Salle University-University Research Coordination Office.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Ave, Malate, Manila, Philippines

    Jessie S. Barrot

Authors
  1. Jessie S. Barrot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessie S. Barrot.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barrot, J.S. A Sociocognitive-Transformative Instructional Materials Design Model for Second Language (L2) Pedagogy in the Asia Pacific: Development and Validation. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 24, 283–297 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-014-0179-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-014-0179-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation