Presented by:Mohsen Saberi & Sadiq Omarmeli

  Language teaching materials developed in-house by teachers have the potential to meet local needs in a way that global materials cannot(Tomlinson,2000)  In-house materials can address learners in the context of their own culture,focuse on content that is real to learners introduction

  However commercial course books often have more credibility with students who may be seduced by the glossy cover and assume that as they are published there is a guarantee of high quality and they think that these books are written by expertise

  A recent paper related to Persian gulf context criticize the use of global materials among Arabs students being culturally inappropriate,being unsuited to local teaching but still Arab learners assume that they are superior to in- house materials

  In this chapter,we describe an in-house materials development project at Sultan Qaboos University in Oman,we hope to find out if the materials are effective and to identify areas for improvement

  The setting is one of the universities in Oman it is an state funded English medium  Most of the students who enter the university are required to study English for up to 18 months in the Intensive English Language Programme(IELP)  Students take an in-house placement test and are put into one of five levels ranging from level 2(high beginner)to level 6(high intermediate) The setting

  The materials writing project was focused on improving the writing skills of the lowest level students,that is,students in level 2,3 and 4 of the IELP

  The project sprang from general dissatisfaction within the language Center with the approach to writing that was being followed in the IELP and the result it was producing  The course primarily focused on teaching students grammatical functions with little focuse on communication or meaning The genesis of the materials writing project

  As part of an initial needs analysis,72 texts written by students in level2 analyzed by a team of teachers  The result was:many students look at writing as learning a formula and just a matter of putting the right word in the right slots

  In response to the findings of the needs analysis,the University decided to produce a series of in-house writing and language use books to try to change the approach to writing and the students’ attitude toward writing

  The first step towards changing the students’ attitude to writing was to engage them in what they were writing about this led to the decision to base the units on texts,both to engage the students and to provide a meaningful stimulus for writing  We hoped that the students would begin to experience a sense of personal engagement to their writing The course books:explore writing

  The starting point for the writers was finding authentic input texts that were likely to be engaging and meaningful to the learners by using short stories,letters,…  The activities in the book are designed to allow the learners to react to the texts as real readers and to think and talk about the content

  The writing tasks arise out of the texts as a response to what the students read for example student may replay to a letter or write an opinion article responding to a topic

  1.brainstorming  2.writting the first draft  3.directing back the learners to the initial texts  4.going back to their own texts and modify them in accordance to what they have learned from the text  5.after they edit their own writing they edit their classmate writing too  6.writting the second draft which is submitted to the teacher Writing tasks

  1.Developing criteria:  The first step of evaluating was taken before the material writing began when teacher& writers wrote a set of criteria to guide the development of the material for example;  To what extent do the materials encourage inductive learning  To what extent do the writing activities have an authentic purpose evaluation

  2.Pre-use evaluation and piloting  During the production of materials extensive feedback on each unit was provided by other members of the team,and then by editorial group  At the piloting stage,teachers and learners who were using the material filled in feedback forms as they finish each unit in class

.3 sources of data collection 1.student 2.teachers 3.examination papers The surveys were used on the course criteria and were used to solicit the students and teachers opinions about the course Methodology

  The focus is on  1.engagement  2.wiring skills  3.language use results

  Most of the students and teachers felt that the materials were engaging, the teachers were more positive about the engagement of materials than the students. engagement

  90 percent of teachers and 80 percent of students felt that the course improved students, writing skills  88 percent of students felt that they have made progress in outlining and brainstorming, Writing skills

  Teachers had a positive attitude toward discovery learning(inductive grammar)  55 percent of students felt that their grammar has improved  45 percent of students were either neutral or in disagreement with the way grammar was presented they felt that there was the lack of grammar activities Almost half of the students liked grammar to be presented in a deductive way grammar

  Graves: if subjective needs are not met, objective needs may also go unfulfilled

  In order to assess the extend to which the students’ writing ability has improved evaluating time written exams as the basis, is not proper. why? What is the solution?? Text analysis

  To assess the progress of students some tasks were given to all the students of the 3 groups while and after the program, the students were divided into 3 groups(high-average-low) Sample writing tasks

  The majority of teacher and students have positive attitudes toward most aspect of the course  The approach to language teaching is appreciated by teachers but not bay all student  Students writing ability improved  Remedial classes can be helpful in the case of low students summary

  There appears to be general satisfaction with the course book however it will be revised again  The development of the criteria the needs analysis, the training the involvement of students and teachers and the involvement of the editorial boards all helped insure that these materials work. conclusion