100 Years of Research on English Language Learning/Teaching Materials: A Systematic Literature Review

February 2022 – Volume 25, Number 4

Reza Khany
Ilam University
<r.khanyIlam.ac.ir>

Ayad Kamalvand
Ilam University
<a.kamalvandIlam.ac.ir>

Abstract

The importance of materials in learning and teaching has prompted a substantial number of studies on English language learning/teaching materials (ELLTM). To date, the field seems largely unstudied when it comes to identifying the focus, themes, and challenges. Hence the present study endeavored to systematically review, analyze, and synthesize the scope and the coverage of the research articles (RAs) on the ELLTM. To this end, a comprehensive literature search was conducted in the top100 journals with the highest metrics in Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) categorized under “Language and Linguistic”. The review identifies 661 studies based on the strings ‘material(s)’, ‘textbook’, ‘coursebook’, and ‘courseware’, of which 238 met the inclusion criteria. Analyses of content and statistical data indicated that the research direction has focused on three main themes: evaluation, production, and selection/adoption. The study concludes with recommendations and suggestions for future research into ELLTM.

Keywords: ELLTM, ESL/EFL textbooks, courseware, language learning and teaching

In general education but also in the second language (L2) learning and teaching, materials have been the staple in curricula. Language learning materials refer to texts in all forms including paper, audio, and video as well as predefined language learning tasks (Harwood, 2010) which mediate between the intended and implemented curriculum (Dockx et al., 2020). The processes of arriving at the final materials for language learning programs including design and evaluation along with syllabus design, assessment, and evaluation of instruction establish the core activities in applied linguistics (McGrath, 2002).

Language learning materials sit at the intersection of second language acquisition (SLA) theories, ideological preferences, cultural issues, etc. Meanwhile, materials carry the methodological insights that shape language teaching and learning; they are the vehicles by which language learning methodologies are realized. Materials facilitate not only linguistics interaction but they let learners and teachers engage in cultural interactions. They foster language learning (Waters, 2009), and lay the ‘instructional’, ‘experiential’, ‘elicitative’, and ‘exploratory’ contexts for language learners (Tomlinson, 2011).

Digital books, mobile applications, podcasts, printed textbooks, e-learning platforms and other forms of instructional materials are substantial props for teachers. The efficacy of such resources relies on a broad spectrum of factors. Therefore, materials developers ipso facto have to meticulously consider the established theories and principles and be on the que vive for the emerging issues in materials development (Tomlinson, 2010). Materials are tasked to perform various functions chief among them to supply the resources for instruction (Gray, 2002), yield target language linguistic, textual, and generic structures (Pérez-Llantada, 2009), provide authentic content (Gilmore, 2004, 2007), endow learners aptitude for communication (Ogura, 2008), develop cultural awareness (Weninger & Kiss, 2013), contribute to assessment considerations (Leung & Andrews, 2012), prepare sufficient degree of practices, task, or drills for internalization of received instruction (Richards, 2001), etc.

No wonder these multi-pronged pedagogical functions have provoked a surge of interest in research studies on ELLTM. The scope of these studies taps on different issues some of which cover broader areas such as principles for designing materials for language teaching (Nunan, 1988), and evaluation of materials (McGrath, 2002), and some others narrower in scope dealing with a portion of inclusive process of development and evaluation. These studies consider cultural representation in coursebooks (Hurst, 2014), corpus-based approach to materials development (Chang & Kuo, 2011), cyberspace as a resource for language learning (Donaldson & Kötter, 1999), probability of learning pragmatics and speech acts from English language teaching (ELT) textbooks (Boxer & Pickering, 1995), effects of text modality on vocabulary retention in courseware (Sabet & Shalmani, 2010), writing skill development through genre-based materials (Henry, 2007), the effect of adaptation of authentic materials in listening classrooms (Liu, 2016), and so forth.

There is a general consensus that the majority of language lessons in classrooms around the world are still based on materials (Tomlinson, 2016). This study aims to synthesize and integrate the exciting knowledge of ELLTM in order to create awareness about the field and enhance the knowledge of English language teachers, materials developers, and researchers. Further, the findings of this study will enable curriculum planners to update English courses to align with the current developments in ELLTM.

It seems that the domain of research on ELLTM, albeit with the recent overabundance of studies, lacks a precise picture. A cursory look at the studies conducted manifests scattered views on the principled frameworks for developing ELLTM. Likewise, evaluative criteria to appraise the quality and effectiveness of materials echo subjective standpoints (Harwood, 2005). In addition, missing from the literature are studies that provide a clear perspective in research trends or possible futuristic advancement in developing, selecting, and evaluating typical print English language materials and their technology-based counterparts. In light of this, the current state of the affair was acknowledged to call for an in-depth systematic review (SR) that takes a stab at synthesizing the existing findings of research to build a more concrete picture of ELLTM.

The rationale for the formulation of research questions in the present SR was to assess the research status of the domain, navigate the trends in the literature, identify the types and themes of the studies, and recommend suggestions for further research. The rationale, hence, led to the following questions:

What are the directions, focus and themes of research on ELLTM?
Have the RAs led to any research trends or tendencies in the field?
Does the analysis of the findings open windows for new directions in the field?

Method

This study was undertaken as a SR on research in the field of ELLTM. To ensure a transparent and high-quality process, the study created a review protocol compatible with recommendations incorporated in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols (PRISMA) available at http://www.prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/. Figure 1 illustrates the steps taken in the study.

Figure 1. Outline of Steps Taken as Protocols for this SR.

Literature search

Although this SR makes no claim to exhaustion or completeness, the themes that the study presents emerged from strategies for SR of primary research domains. The RAs on ELLTM published by the top 100 journals grouped by the subject area ‘Language and Linguistics’ listed in SJR (till June 2020) made the corpus of this SR. The SJR portal includes scientometric indicators for scholarly and professional journals based on data licensed from the Elsevier’s Scopus database. The indicators display the visibility of journals based on citation data contained in the Elsevier’s Scopus database from 1996 (SCImago, n.d.). Additionally, the metrics include traditional and novel indicators that portrait publication productivity and prestige at the journal level.

Search strategy

Before embarking on the main review, some preliminary searches were run over the RAs by the help of Google Scholar. The aim was to avoid bias in selection of keywords and specify possible keywords and key terms to cover the research questions as comprehensively as possible and find the most relevant evidence. Then, the primary search strings “material(s)”, “courseware”, “coursebook”, and “textbook” were searched in top 100 language and linguistics journals listed in SJR. The keywords were searched for in the RA titles.

Tomlinson (2011) subsumes textbooks under language learning materials. However, since language textbooks (and their synonym coursebooks) make the main educational sources for language curricula and have gained momentum in the research terrain, the terms “textbook” and “coursebook” were included among the search strings. Moreover, the term “courseware” has recently emerged into instructional practice and research thanks to the increasing integration of computer sciences with education. The term means computer-based materials used by teachers as tutorials for learners (Bongalos et al., 2006). Courseware has created a niche in research trends and has been addressed by a large number of studies in SLA (Kukulska-Hulme & Shield, 2008; Susser, 2001; Tsai, 2010; Wyatt, 2013). Currently, some journals whose scope cover computer assisted language learning (CALL) host studies on diverse educational aspects of courseware. For instance, materials for self-directed computer-based training, materials dealing with distance learning, such as online language classes, and web sites that offer interactive materials are theoretically and empirically discussed and evaluated.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

One of the inclusion criteria was to include RAs published by journals ranked 1-100 in the SJR. The methodological coverage criteria for deciding on the selection of RAs were based on the sensitivity and specificity principles (Booth & Carroll, 2015). Initially, related RAs with titles holding the predefined strings were retrieved. Three reviewers screened the titles independently so as to properly retrieve all the related RAs. The first screening yielded in 661 RAs or 100% of the data.

Next, the exclusion filter narrowed the retrieved hits to those RAs in which the reflection was on the ELLTM. At this stage, the second run of screening ended up in weeding out of those RAs on languages other than English or on materials in other study subjects. Based on the basis of the predefined exclusion criteria, 238 RAs met the eligibility of the study. The study excluded RAs published by Research in the Teaching of English, and Journal of Writing Research, because the journals provided no search possibility to retrieve RAs.

Coding, data extraction and analysis

The qualified RAs were subjected to full-text screening and analysis in this cycle of the study. A template of data-extraction form was designed for the qualified Ras. The data-extraction form contained the title of the study, the author(s), the year of publication, the journal, and the thematic construct of the study. Next, the forms were reviewed so that the study could link the mined themes into higher-order themes for further analysis.

Interrater agreement

While there are several methods to calculate inter-rater reliability research recommends Cohen’s Kappa arguing that despite its drawbacks, Kappa should still be the measure of choice and this index appears to be commonly used in research that involves coding (Bakeman, 2000). The RAs were coded by their overall main content. The extracted codes for each RA were crosschecked by two reviewers independently to achieve high levels of agreement on the process. The overall ratio of agreement level was .80 which is substantial level for interrater reliability.

Findings

A total number of 661 RAs was retrieved from the pool of the top 100 journals in ‘Language and Linguistics’ category listed in SJR of which 238 RAs from 38 journals possessed the inclusion criteria for this SR (Table 1).

Table 1. Number and Percentage of ARs in the Journals with Publications on ELLTM

	n	%
1. ELT Journal	42	17.6
2. English for Specific Purposes	23	9.7
3. System	22	9.2
4. Modern Language Journal	18	7.6
5. Journal of English for Academic Purposes	14	5.9
6. Language, Culture and Curriculum	12	5.0
7. Asian Englishes	10	4.2
8. Computer Assisted Language Learning	10	4.2
9. Language Teaching Research	9	3.8
10. TESOL Quarterly	9	3.8
11. Language Learning Journal	7	2.9
12. Linguistics and Education	7	2.9
13. ReCALL	7	2.9
14. Language Teaching	6	2.5
15. ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics	5	2.1
16. Language Learning	5	2.1
17. Applied Linguistics	3	1.3
18. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies	2	.8
19. Journal of Communication	2	.8
20. Journal of Pragmatics	2	.8
21. Journal of Second Language Writing	2	.8
22. Language Awareness	2	.8
23. Poetics	2	.8
24. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer	2	.8
25. World Englishes	2	.8
26. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics	1	.4
27. Current Issues in Language Planning	1	.4
28. Discourse and Society	1	.4
29. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism	1	.4
30. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics	1	.4
31. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education	1	.4
32. Journal of Literacy Research	1	.4
33. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research	1	.4
34. Language Learning and Technology	1	.4
35. Language Policy	1	.4
36. Language Testing	1	.4
37. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching	1	.4
38. XLinguae	1	.4
Total	238	100.0

Table 2 gives an overview of the distribution of the RAs in a 10-year interval from the 1920s in which the first RA on ELLTM was retrieved to June 2020 which was the endpoint for the writing of the present study.

Table 2. Number and Percentage of Studies on ELLTM by Decade

	Number	Percent
2010s	92	38.7
2000s	43	18.1
1990s	40	16.8
1980s	22	9.2
1970s	11	4.6
2020s	11	4.6
1950s	8	3.4
1960s	4	1.6
1930s	3	1.3
1940s	3	1.3
1920s	1	.4
Total	238	100.0

Main research themes

From individual coding and through the authors’ collective consensus, the study identified three primary thematic categories within the 100 journals including ‘evaluation’, ‘production’, and ‘selection/adoption’. The main themes subsumed some related categories the statistical description of which is summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Overview of the Categories under Main Themes and Their Distribution over the 100 Years.

evaluation	n	%	production	n	%	selection	n	%
Technology-based materials	28	11.76	Theories/principles for production	12	5.04	Standards for selection	5	2.10
2Culture & materials	23	9.66	Activities for textbooks	7	2.94	Teachers & materials	4	1.68
Print-materials & language learning	20	8.40	Teachers and learners’ role in production	5	2.10	Students & materials	3	1.26
Corpus-based materials	19	7.98	Description of production projects	4	1.68	Project selection	2	.84
Theories/methods & materials	18	7.56	Video/visual materials	3	1.26	Ideology in textbook selection	1	.40
Discourse/pragmatics & materials	15	6.30	Problems in production	2	.84	Issues in self-instructional materials	1	.40
Ideology & materials	14	5.88	Optimal use of textbooks	1	.40	Novels for EFL courses	1	.40
Authenticity	13	5.46	Review of materials development	1	.40	New media beside traditional textbooks	1	.40
Teachers & learners’ attitude toward materials	13	5.46				Materials for deprived students	1	.40
Criteria for evaluation	7	2.94
Materials & lexis	7	2.94
Professionalism	4	1.68
For & against materials	3	1.26
Materials format	1	.40
Total	184	77.31		35	14.70		19	7.98

The analysis also focused on the studies in which the place of materials evaluation, production, and selection/adoption were given. These types of studies explicitly referred to the origin of the materials where the author(s) conducted the studies. Table 4 presents a list of 10 countries with the highest number of RAs on ELLTM. It should be noticed that although the first rank goes to the United States, Asia with six countries reserves the best position for itself among other areas on the table.

Table 4. Countries with the Highest Numbers of RAs on ELLTM

Country

Number
of RAs

1. US

2. Japan

3. China

4. Taiwan

5. Hong Kong

6. UK

7. Canada

8. Spain

9. Singapore

10. Vietnam

What follows displays the analyses of the retrieved RAs. The headings mirror the main themes of the studies followed by tabulation of the related categories falling under each primary theme. A description for the groups of the studies under each theme accompanies the tables.

Evaluation

Materials evaluation encompasses macro dimension which includes a chain of stages and micro dimension which involves a set of techniques in each stage (McGrath, 2002, p. 14). Majority of the RAs on ELLTM fell within the domain of evaluative studies (about 77%). The analytic synthesis of the evaluative studies identified 14 sub-themes listed in the following headings.

Technology-based materials. The orientation of these studies showed two streams in the scopes of the literature. First, some investigated the effects of technology-based materials on teaching and learning language skills (N = 9). Second, some probed extralinguistic factors like motivation or culture (N = 19). Table 5 summarizes the categories obtained from ‘technology-based materials’ and the distribution of the retrieved studies.

Table 5. Statistics of RAs under “technology-based materials”

	n	%	1940s	1960s	1980s	1990s	2000s	2010s	2020s
1. Extralinguistics	19	67.8	1	1	3	4	5	4	1
2. Tech-based materials & writing skills	4	14.3	0	0	0	0	3	1	0
3. Tech-based materials & reading skills	3	10.7	0	0	0	0	0	3	0
4. Tech-based materials & speaking skills	1	3.5	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
5. Tech-based materials & listening skills	1	3.5	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
Total	28	100.0	1	1	3	4	8	10	1

Apparently, about a third of the studies on the effects of technology-based materials on language skills and extralinguistic issues were conducted in the 2010s. In addition, the literature on the effect of technology-based materials on language skills shows inclination towards studies on writing and reading. The studies on writing tested the effects of online instructional materials on students’ argumentative writing development; determined the effectiveness of an HTML website on learners’ job application letter writing; assessed the impacts of five online units on increasing students’ awareness of underused specific adjectives for EFL college writing; and investigated the perceptions of elementary-level English language learners towards WEBGRAM, a system as a supplementary web-based grammar revision materials.

The studies on reading consisted of how ESP courseware implementation leads to better reading comprehension; how a courseware-implemented instruction affects learners use of reading strategies; and how a customized interactive digital textbook housed on a mobile device influences learners’ reading behavior.

The two studies on listening and speaking reported on the two qualitative exploratory studies that investigated design features of help options in computer-based L2 listening material; and integration of ESP multimedia courseware and its positive effects on improving students’ speech texts.

The earliest study on technology-based materials and issues beyond language skills found in this SR dated back to the late 40s. There the study reviewed the effect of phonographs on textbook design. Another first endeavor in technology-based materials was a study in the 1960s. It explained the advantages of using filmstrips on magnetic tapes in non-English contexts. In the 1980s, a study suggested recommendations aimed at enriching courseware with language learning trends. By the same token, a study discussed the ways that enable producing quality courseware. Later, an article highlighted adaptability and flexibility in structure as two essential features for CALL materials. The 1990s characterized by the attention to link CALL materials designs to findings of research in linguistics, conceptualization of CALL materials and developing theoretical frameworks to support CALL materials, ESP approach in courseware design, and process‐oriented needs analysis to CALL materials design. The early and late part of the 2000s saw the inclusion of culture in electronic materials. The RAs reflected on developing cross-cultural awareness through multimedia courseware, and understanding target language culture by using online interactive tasks. The other studies in this decade probed the effects of electronic texts on language learning, assessed content and concept in CALL materials design, and tested the extent to which language learners use cognitive, social, and metacognitive strategies while working with computer-based materials. In the 2010s, researchers developed courseware that supports an XML-based markup language and an authoring tool for teachers to script animated pedagogical agents in materials. A study evaluated a multimedia courseware design based on the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The retrieved RAs in 2018 analyzed ESP students’ performance in a blended learning environment using smart books, and the effects of technology-enhanced board games in flipped classrooms on learners’ motivation and anxiety. The latest article in the pool of the study explored the new form of lecture in academic contexts known as OpenCourseWare (OCW). The study found that OCW lectures support educational contexts with digital affordances including lecture transcripts with metadata, content structuring, and navigational features that give EAP learners more control over lecture experience. Table 6 lists the journals in order of frequency that published ARs on technology-based materials.

Table 6. Journal’s Numerical Status in “Technology-Based Materials”

	n	%
1. Computer Assisted Language Learning	11	39.3
2. ReCALL	5	17.8
3. System	4	14.2
4. ELT Journal	2	7.1
5. English for Specific Purposes	2	7.1
6. Journal of English for Academic Purposes	1	3.5
7. Journal of Second Language Writing	1	3.5
8. Language Learning & Technology	1	3.5
9. Modern Language Journal	1	3.5
10. XLinguae	1	3.5
Total	28	100.0

Culture and English materials. Table 7 presents the categories under ‘culture and English materials’. A dozen studies dealt with the representation of cultural elements in textbooks. ELT materials and their role in learners’ cultural awareness and the ways they make learners culturally competent were the focal themes in 21.7% of studies. The interconnections between culture and discourse/pragmatic issues in textbooks together with L1 and L2 cultural issues in materials were spotted in four studies. Two studies reflected on the cultural bias in ELT materials, and perceptions of culturally-bound illustrations in textbooks by EFL learners.

Table 7. Statistics of Categories under “Culture & English Materials”

	n	%	1980s	1990s	2000s	2010s	2020s
1. Cultural representation in materials	12	52.2	2	0	1	8	1
2. Cultural awareness/competence	5	21.7	0	1	0	3	1
3. Cultural & discourse/pragmatics	2	8.7	0	0	0	2	0
4. L1 & L2 cultural issues	2	8.7	0	2	0	0	0
5. Visuality & cultural understanding	1	4.3	0	1	0	0	0
6. Cultural bias in textbooks	1	4.3	0	0	1	0	0
Total	23	100.0	2	4	2	13	2

Table 8 summarizes the standing of the journals in the area of ‘culture and English materials’.

Table 8. Journals’ Rank in “Culture & English Language Materials”

	n	%
1. Language, Culture and Curriculum	4	17.4
2. Asian Englishes	3	13.0
3. ELT Journal	3	13.0
4. Language, Culture and Curriculum	3	13.0
5. TESOL Quarterly	2	8.7
6. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies	1	4.3
7. Discourse & Society	1	4.3
8. English for Specific Purposes	1	4.3
9. International Journal of Applied Linguistics	1	4.3
10. Language Learning Journal	1	4.3
11. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching	1	4.3
12. The Language Learning Journal	1	4.3
13. World Englishes	1	4.3
Total	23	100.0

Print-materials and language skills. A portion of the retrieved RAs embodied the query into treatment of language skills in print-materials. This category of studies stood at the 8.4% in total retrieved RAs and encircled five categories (Table 9). Whereas some studies investigated materials for one skill, some studies pursued two skills in their investigations. Table 9 demonstrates that research orientation has slanted toward probing reading skills.

Table 9. Statistics of RAs under “Print-Materials & Language Skills”

	n	%	1920s	1930s	1970s	1980s	1990s	2000s	2010s
1. Print-materials & writing skills	7	35.0	0	0	0	1	2	2	2
2. Print-materials & reading skills	6	30.0	1	2	1	0	0	0	2
3. Print-materials & mixed studies	4	20.0	0	0	0	0	2	1	1
4. Print-materials & speaking skills	2	10.0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
5. Print-materials & listening skills	1	5.0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
Total	20	100.0	1	2	1	2	5	3	6

The attempts to explore writing in materials have begun in the1980s. These investigations linked ELT materials to different aspects of language learners’ writing development. Reflections on print-materials and reading skills were embodied in approximately one third of RAs. The literature on materials, though infrequently, has also scrutinized speaking and listening. The studies on speaking made a sketch of hints for teaching stress and intonation and pronunciation. The RA on listening claimed that the development of selective listening skills is conditioned upon the presence of real interactional and peripheral exemplars.

On the mixed side of the RAs, two skills converge in RAs to give a bigger picture of mutual effects on language learning development. A paper probed the strategies adopted in reading and writing textbooks for adult literacy. Utilizing field-specific written materials for teaching oral skills to promote automaticity in oral production and enhancing the intelligibility of language learners through the improvement of fluency and pronunciation directed the path of another study. Exposing learners to narrative and expository reading materials as a part of an extensive reading program to enlarge students’ vocabulary reservoir was evaluated in one study. And finally, a study evaluated the output of learning L2 technical words through academic reading materials. Table 10 represents the rank of journals which published the RAs on ‘print-materials and language skills’.

Table 10. Rank of Journals in “Print-Materials & Language Skills”

	n	%
1. Modern Language Journal	8	36.4
2. English for Specific Purposes	6	27.3
3. Applied linguistics	2	9.1
4. ELT Journal	2	9.1
5. Journal of English for Academic Purposes	2	9.1
6. Poetics	1	4.5
7. TESOL Quarterly	1	4.5
Total	22	100.0

Corpus-based materials. ‘Corpus-based materials’ made one of the sub-themes under evaluation theme with 7.98% of total studies. Table 11 renders the constituting categories of this sub-theme. Themes related to corpus studies and materials development are more recent, appeared more frequently after 2010.

Table 11. Statistic of Categories Under “Corpus-Based Materials”

	n	%	2000s	2010s	2020s
1. Corpus & materials evaluation	12	63.1	3	9	0
2. Corpus & word list	4	21.1	0	3	1
3. Corpus & writing	3	15.8	2	1	0
Total	19	100.0	5	13	1

By using written and spoken corpus, 63.2% of studies analyzed materials in terms of hypothetical meaning, spoken grammar, real-world interactional strategies, metaphors, discipline-specific content, single and multiword construction, lexical bundles, text, and linguistic difficulty. Electronic corpora guided studies to develop world lists for an Engineering English textbook, a Medicine English textbook, a reading textbook, and transparent formulaic sequences for an EFL textbook. Language corpora have been shown to create systematic pedagogical opportunities for language learning and teaching. Hence, the potential has motivated researchers to analyze the effects of corpus-based instruction on improving writing skills. Table 12 presents the nine journals published RAs in this theme. As the figures show, the three journals that stand at the top of the table have published over 60 percent of all RAs.

Table 12. Journals’ Standing in “Corpus-Based Materials”

	n	%
1. English for Specific Purposes	6	31.6.3
2. Journal of English for Academic Purposes	4	21.1
3. System	3	15.8
4. Applied Linguistics	1	5.3
5. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics	1	5.3
6. Journal of Second Language Writing	1	5.3
7. Language Awareness	1	5.3
8. Language Teaching Research	1	5.3
9. TESOL Quarterly	1	5.3
Total	19	100.0

Theories/methods and materials. The inventory of RAs in the pool of the current study embraced studies that evaluated the concretization of theories in materials. Table 13 shows the related categories under this theme.

Table 13. Statistics of RAs under “Theories/Methods & Materials”

	n	%	1940s	1950s	1960s	1970s	1980s	1990s	2000s	2010s
1. Textbook evaluation against theories	6	33.3	0	2	2	0	0	0	0	2
2. Theories realization in textbooks	6	33.3	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	4
3. Theories & language components	4	22.3	0	0	0	1	0	3	0	0
4. Teachers & theory understanding	1	5.6	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
5. Classroom ecology & grammar textbook	1	5.5	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
Total	18	100.0	1	2	2	1	1	3	1	7

The advent of theories and methods of language learning and teaching in SLA derived a part of literature to evaluate the realization of the theories and methods in language materials. On the other hand, an equal number of studies (N = 6) analyzed materials to judge the degree of their compatibility with principles of theories/methods. A category of RAs narrowed down their research caliber, in that they selected a specific part of the materials and appraised it with the target theories/methods. Two studies on a theory-representative benchmark evaluated the pronunciation section of the materials. Two RAs Evaluated a reading section along with grammar tasks in two language learning materials. In two studies, the researchers gauged the ecology of classroom interaction with a grammar textbook and the correlation between teachers’ understanding of EFL/ESL research perspectives and the practice of teaching pronunciation textbooks. Table 14 displays the numerical performance of the journals that published RAs on ‘theories/method and materials’.

Table 14. Journals’ Standing in “Theory/Methods & Materials”

	n	%
1. Modern Language Journal	3	16.7
2. System	3	16.7
3. ELT Journal	2	11.1
4. Language Learning	2	11.1
5. Linguistics and Education	2	11.1
6. Asian Englishes	1	5.6
7. ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics	1	5.6
8. Journal of Communication	1	5.6
9. Journal of English for Academic Purposes	1	5.6
10. Language Teaching	1	5.6
11. Language Teaching Research	1	5.6
Total	18	100.0

Discourse/pragmatic and materials. About 6% of all studies moved in ‘discourse/pragmatic and materials’ direction. Taken together, these studies centered on five underlying categories (Table 15).

Table 15. Statistics of RAs under “Discourse\Pragmatics & Materials”

	n	%	1980s	1990s	2000s	2010s	2020s
1. Speech act & textbooks	4	26.7	1	2	0	1	0
2. Discourse & textbooks	4	26.7	0	0	0	4	0
3. Textbooks & varieties of discourse	3	20.0	1	0	1	1	0
4. Textbooks & rhetoric/stylistic	2	13.3	0	0	0	1	1
5. Textbooks & interactional strategies	2	13.3	0	0	0	2	0
Total	15	100.0	2	2	1	9	1

The studies on pragmatics and ELLTM opted for speech acts, the most common of which were speech acts of apology, agreement/disagreement, and complaint/commiseration. One study developed a checklist of interactive functions based on speech act theory, examined the communicative goals that textbooks follow. The studies on discourse and materials shed light on the representation of immegrants’ discourse in textbooks, and neo-liberal discourse in textbooks. Moreover, two RAs emphasized the role the discourse studies would play in materials development, and assessed the use of English in local textbooks. About 13% of the studies concerned with anlaysis of varieties of discourse in textbooks, including political speeches, gossips, and conversations, academic lectures and academic written materials, and analogy and technical language. Besides, academic textbooks were analyzed for their ability to enhance learners’ rhetorical skills and stylistic awareness. Finally, two studies appraised the adequacy of textbooks to develop learners’ interactional strategies in workplace communication. Discourse/pragmatics and English materials’ was covered by 10 journals in Language and Linguistics (Table 16).

Table 16. Journals’ Standing in “Discourse\Pragmatics & English Materials”

	n	%
1. Asian Englishes	2	13.3
2. Journal of English for Academic Purposes	2	13.3
3. TESOL Quarterly	2	13.3
4. Language Teaching Research	2	6.7
5. English for Specific Purposes	1	6.7
6. Journal of Communication	1	6.7
7. Journal of Language, Identity & Education	1	6.7
8. Journal of Pragmatics	1	6.7
9. Language Teaching	1	6.7
10. Linguistics and Education	1	6.7
Total	15	100.0

Ideology and gender/identity in materials. Ideological issues alongside gender/identity-related concepts captured the essence of 14 RAs on ELLTM. From a closer angle view of the qualified studies, nine related categories were codified (Table 17).

Table 17. Statistics of Categories under “Ideology and Gender/Identity in Materials”

	n	%	1980s	1990s	2000s	2010s	2020s
1. Sexism in textbooks	5	35.7	1	0	1	2	1
2. Ideological tensions in textbooks	2	14.3	0	1	0	1	0
3. Ideology & content of textbooks	2	14.3	1	0	1	0	0
4. Teachers & identity issues in textbooks	1	7.1	0	0	0	1	0
5. Oppressive ideology in textbooks	1	7.1	0	0	0	0	1
6. Ideology in practice	1	7.1	0	0	0	1	0
7. Native-speakerism in textbooks	1	7.1	0	0	0	0	1
8. Global market & ideology change in textbooks	1	7.1	0	0	0	1	0
Total	14	100.0	2	1	2	6	3

Of the 14 RAs, five evaluated the presence of prejudice toward one gender over the other and gender manifestations in textbooks. Ideological tensions in textbooks were examined in terms of internationalization and nationalization, and from a post-structuralist perspective. Adoption and design of content for textbooks that bear ideological viewpoints added another dimension within the literature in this cluster of studies. Almost the other half of the studies reported on the ways teachers apply when they try to balance discoursive patterns of textbooks to suit students’ identity, symbolic manifestations of heteronormativity as a form of oppressive ideology in textbooks, ideological effects on the language students use in lectures, materials designs which favore native speakers’ norms, and the changes in ideological positioning of ELT coursebooks due to the global market mechanism. Table 18 reports the ranking of the journals’ by the number of RAs published in this category of the literature.

Table 18. Journals’ Standing in “Ideology and Gender/Identity in Materials”

	n	%
1. Linguistics and Education	3	21.1
2. Asian Englishes	2	14.2
3. Language, Culture and Curriculum	2	14.2
4. TESOL Quarterly	2	14.2
5. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies	1	7.1
6. Current Issues in Language Planning	1	7.1
7. ELT Journal	1	7.1
8. Journal of Pragmatics	1	7.1
9. Language Policy	1	7.1
Total	14	100.0

Authenticity and English materials. These studies assessed the effects of materials authenticity on some language-related issues and analyzed areas within the realm of authenticity. Table 19 presents the categories found under the banner of ‘authenticity and English materials’.

Table 19. Statistics of Categories under “Authenticity & English Materials”

	n	%	1990s	2000s	2010s
1. Authenticity & L2 learning	5	38.5	1	1	3
2. Authenticity & discourse/pragmatics	4	30.8	0	3	1
3. Authenticity & pedagogical issues	3	23.0	0	2	1
4. Authenticity & motivation	1	7.7	1	0	0
Total	13	100.0	2	6	5

The most frequent research tendency in this category of studies was evaluating the relationship between the authenticity of materials and L2 learning, which was conducted by five articles. The RAs with the discourse/pragmatic orientation explored the authenticity of conversational texts in textbooks, the authenticity of the speech act of requests and disagreement, as well as the authenticity of discourse features of materials. Additionally, the pedagogical values of using authentic materials in a broader view were inspected, by three papers. From a psychological perspective, an article probed the relationship between authentic materials and learners’ motivation.

ELT Journal attained the leading position by contributing the largest share of articles (N=6, 46.25%) among the journals which published studies on authenticity and materials. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Language Awareness, Language Learning, Language Teaching, ReCALL, and System had one RA in this domain.

Teachers and learners’ attitude toward materials. Understanding teachers and learners’ attitudes toward ELLTM made the point of departure for 13 RAs. This primary theme subsumed four related categories for teachers and the same number for learners (Tables 20 & 21). Within the teachers’ domain, one study reported on teachers’ negative perception of the use of EFL textbooks in their praxis, and another study reflected on the stakeholders’ perspectives on materials and resources employed in a bilingual program in a monolingual context. Teachers’ attitudes toward reading materials and an action pack designed for a textbook constituted another part of the literature. Further, the RAs narrated teachers’ perceptions of cultural content as well as using audio-visual materials in their practice.

Table 20. Statistics of RAs under the Theme “Teachers’ Attitude toward Materials”

	n	%	1940s	2000s	2010s	2020s
1. Teachers’ attitude to textbooks	2	33.3	0	0	1	1
2. Teachers’ attitude to a section of textbooks	2	33.3	0	2	0	0
3. Teachers’ attitude to cultural content of textbooks	1	16.7	0	1	0	0
4. Teachers’ attitude to multimodal materials	1	16.7	1	0	0	0
Total	6	100.0	1	3	1	1

Table 21. Statistics of Categories under “Learners’ Attitude toward Materials”

	n	%	1980s	2000s	2010s
1. Learners’ attitude to textbooks	4	57.1	0	1	3
2. Learners’ attitude to tech-based materials	1	14.3	0	0	1
3. Learners’ attitude to cultural content of textbooks	1	14.3	0	0	1
4. Learners’ attitude to communicative materials	1	14.3	1	0	0
Total	7	100.0	1	1	5

RAs on teachers’ attitudes toward materials were published by ELT Journal, ITL- International Journal of Applied Linguistics, Journal of Literacy Research, The Language Learning Journal, Language, Culture and Curriculum, The Modern Language Journal with the identical number of papers (N = 6).

The studies on learners’ attitude toward martials included learners’ attitude toward textbooks, their attitude toward tech-based materials, cultral content of a textbook, and CLT-based materials.

Asian Englishes, ELT Journal, English for Specific Purposes, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Language, Culture and Curriculum, System, and TESOL Quarterly treated leaners’ attitude toward materials with the same number of RAs (N = 7).

Criteria for English materials evaluation. Table 22 summarizes the categories drawn from sifting through the 238 qualified RAs which set evaluative criteria for ELLTM. These types of studies attempted to offer criteria and frameworks enabling materials evaluators to approach materials evaluation. Checklists and general guidelines shaped two types of studies that received the most attention in materials evaluation.

Table 22. Statistics of Categories under “Criteria for English Materials Evaluation”

	n	%	1980s	1990s	2000s	2010s
1. Checklist for evaluation	3	42.9	1	1	1	0
2. General criteria	3	42.9	0	2	0	1
3. EAP evaluation	1	14.3	0	0	1	0
Total	7	100.0	1	3	2	1

A trio of RAs resorted to checklists for materials evolution. These RAs applied the method to assess teach-yourself package materials, and business materials. The remainder of RA suggested a checklist of items for general materials evaluation. The other cluster in this terrain rested on a broader view in evaluation. In this domain, one study referred to pre- and post-publication phases in materials evaluation, another one pointed to predictive and retrospective evaluation, and the last one described a knowledge process framework for materials evaluation. Finally, an RA suggested feedback instruments to run evaluative reviews on EAP materials. Table 23 shows the journals that hosted the RAs on ‘criteria for materials evolution’.

Table 23. Journals’ Rank in “Criteria for English Materials Evaluation”

	n	%
1. ELT Journal	2	28.6
2. System	2	28.6
3. English for Specific Purposes	1	14.3
4. Journal of English for Academic Purposes	1	14.3
5. Language, Culture and Curriculum	1	14.3
Total	7	100.0

Materials and lexis. While screening the retrieved RAs, seven studies were detected to be engrossed in dealing with the treatment of vocabulary in language materials. Table 24 summarizes the main categories which were mined under this theme.

Table 24. Statistics of Categories under “Materials & Lexis”

	n	%	1950s	1990s	2010s
1. Repetition	2	28.6	1	0	1
2. Collocations	1	14.3	0	0	1
3. Word aspects	1	14.3	0	0	1
4. Word coverage in textbooks	1	14.3	0	0	1
5. Verb classes in textbooks	1	14.3	0	1	0
6. Words & strategy use	1	14.3	0	0	1
Total	7	100.0	1	1	5

Studies covered various aspects. A sector of studies focused on the importance of repetition for internalization of the words, and making arrangements for recycling words by tasks in the textbooks. A study evaluated how well textbooks supply students with collocations. Another study evaluated materials against aspects of word knowledge that learners need to develop their word knowledge. The amount of vocabulary that textbooks provide as input for learners made the research direction for an RA. Two studies examined the class of verbs that a textbook covers, and the relationship between vocabulary materials and learners’ strategy use. The seven journals that published the seven RAs on ‘materials and lexis’ are listed in Table 25.

Table 25. Journals’ Standing in “Materials & Lexis”

	n	%
1. Language Teaching Research	3	42.9
2. Language Learning Journal	2	28.6
3. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics	1	14.3
4. Modern Language Journal	1	14.3
Total	7	100.0

Materials and professionalism. Three RAs in the pool of the current study attended to teachers’ professional growth through materials development. In one RA the validity of the claim that engaging teachers with materials contributes to professionalism in non-native teachers was tested. In the next study, three ELT teachers evaluated the student and teacher editions of a newly-released ELT textbook using the technique of concurrent verbalization. The results showed that the technique was able to grow a body of knowledge on expertise, provide insight into the differences between the teachers with respect to their various evaluation strategies. Finally, an article examined the changes occurred in language testing textbooks since Lado. These three studies which formed the theme ‘materials development and professionalism’ were published by ELT Journal (N = 2), and Language Testing.

For and against materials. Three RAs concentrated on whether to use or refrain from using materials in the language learning and teaching process. Within this framework, a study in the 1950s posed the question of whether textbooks are needed and created several scenarios to answer the question. Four decades later, emphasizing the role of textbooks in the processes of educational change, an RA challenged the anti-textbooks assumptions and reasoned against their hostility. In the 21st century, a study discerned the weak and strong anti-textbook streams and concluded that even though the weak line most accurately depicts the status of EAP textbooks, it could not be tagged as an anti-textbook line.

ELT journal (N = 2), and Journal of English for Academic Purposes were the two journals that published these three articles on ‘for and against materials’.

Materials format. Submerged by the floods of information dispensed by the many forms of language learning materials, language learners are witnessing an unprecedented flow of content that makes it effortful to orient to the stream. The abundance of information in written materials necessitates a design for textbooks which aids students to absorb the information and recall it in optimal ways. Therefore, a paper addressed the importance of the format of the textbooks and suggested a range of ideas. This article was published by Poetics.

Materials production

Materials production, how materials come into being, is an umbrella term for pulling together principles for materials writing, principle-based procedures for writing materials, planning items to include in materials including tasks, drills, reading texts, etc., in which the final product comes to forth. In publications from within the ‘materials production’ the studies had research orientations of many stripes. The sub-themes under ‘materials production’ are given in Table 26.

Table 26. Statistics of Sub-Themes under “Materials Production”

	n	%	1950s	1970s	1980s	1990s	2000s	2010s	2020s
1. Theories/principles for materials production	12	34.3	1	2	0	3	1	4	1
2. Activities for textbooks	8	22.8	2	1	1	1	1	1	1
3. Description of materials production projects	4	11.4	0	0	2	1	0	1	0
4. Teachers & students’ role in materials production	4	11.4	0	0	1	2	0	1	0
5. Video/visual materials	3	8.6	0	1	1	1	0	0	0
6. Problems in materials production	2	5.7	1	0	0	1	0	0	0
7. Optimal use of textbooks	1	2.9	0	1	0	0	0	0	0
8. Review of materials development	1	2.9	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
Total	35	100.0	4	5	5	9	2	8	2

Approximately 34% of the RAs in this theme explained the procedures to apply theories and principles of SLA in producing materials. Studies of a pragmatic nature identified the characteristics of activities to be incorporated into materials. The projects in producing materials around the world were described by four RAs. What teachers and students can perform in materials production was the subject of 11.4% of studies. The same percentage of RAs outlined the processes for designing electronic, video, and visual materials. A pack of three studies reported on the existence of problems in the production of materials, and how to optimally use the materials in curricula. And finally, a paper in three reviewed the literature on materials development. The journals and their numerical performance in ‘materials production’ are presented in Table 27.

Table 27. Journals’ Standing in “Materials Production”

	n	%
1. ELT Journal	10	28.6
2. System	6	17.1
3. English for Specific Purposes	3	8.6
4. Language Teaching	3	8.6
5. Modern Language Journal	3	8.6
6. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer	2	5.7
7. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics	1	2.9
8. Journal of English for Academic Purposes	1	2.9
9. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research	1	2.9
10. Language learning	1	2.9
11. Language Learning	1	2.9
12. Language Teaching Research	1	2.9
13. The Language Learning Journal	1	2.9
14. World Englishes	1	2.9
Total	35	100.0

Materials adoption/selection

Parallel to materials evaluation and production, materials selection/adoption calls for defining eligibility criteria that rationalize the inclusion of language learning and teaching materials in language learning programs. Literature on ELLTM has highlighted the need to have a solid benchmark of criteria to be a point of reference for materials selection and adoption (Tomlinson, 2012). The analysis of the pool of the current study identified 20 RAs in which their main theme spun around materials adoption and selection. Table 28 summarizes the sub-themes and the distribution of the retrieved RAs by decades giving the numbers of studies per decade.

Table 28. Statistics of Sub-Themes under “Materials Selection/Adoption”

	n	%	1930s	1960s	1970s	1980s	1990s	2000s	2010s
1. Standards for materials selection	5	26.3	1	0	1	1	1	1	0
2. Teachers & materials selection	4	21.1	0	1	0	0	1	1	1
3. Students & materials selection	3	15.8	0	0	0	1	0	1	1
4. Projects in materials selection	2	10.5	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
5. Ideology in textbook selection	1	5.3	0	0	0	0	1	0	0
6. Issues in selection self-instructional materials	1	5.3	0	0	0	0	1	0	0
7. Selecting novels for EFL courses	1	5.3	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
8. New media selection beside traditional textbooks	1	5.3	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
9. Materials selection for deprived students	1	5.3	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Total	19	100.0	1	1	4	2	5	3	3

A slightly over a quarter of the RAs made a reference to standards for choosing materials for language learning and teaching programs. The inclusion of teachers and learners in the cycle of materials selection/adoption was investigated by eight articles. In two RAs, a description of projects in materials selection in Oman, and Argentina was provided. The presence of pre-established ideology in textbook selection in China, the benefits and problems of selecting self-instructional materials in Japan, choosing novels as textbooks at the university level, equipping teachers with new media besides their traditional textbooks, and eventually making provision for deprived learners in materials selection made the main themes of the ¼ of the RAs in this category of studies. Table 29 lists the 11 journls in order of their contribution to ‘materials selection/adoption’.

Table 29. Journals’ Ranks in “Materials Selection/Adoption”

	n	%
1. ELT Journal	6	31.6
2. English Language Teaching Journal	2	10.5
3. Modern Language Journal	2	10.5
4. System	2	10.5
5. Asian Englishes	1	5.3
6. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism	1	5.3
7. Language Learning Journal	1	5.3
8. Language Teaching Research	1	5.3
9. Linguistics and Education	1	5.3
10. ReCALL	1	5.3
Total	19	100.0

In order to map the research trends or tendencies in each decade, the study calculated the number of RAs on the identified themes and sub-themes. According to Figure 2, evaluative studies have become more common at the turn of the 21st century rather than during the 20th century, when literature was oriented toward production themes. Whereas technology-based studies were the reoccurring topic and prominent theme in total published RAs, ‘theories/principles for materials production’ was the area that occurred more times than other themes by decade. Statistically, tech-based materials occurred most frequently in 2000, however, the number of the studies exceeded no more than nine. The number of studies on cultural issues and corpus-based materials was 13 for each theme. It should be noticed that for gaining a better overview of the research trends the decades with more than five published articles were included for analysis.

Figure 2. Research Tendencies Mapped in some Decades in which the Number of RAs Exceeded 5.

Discussion

This SR sought to answer three questions about research on ELLTM. The discussion of results is framed around each individual question.

What are the directions, focus and themes of research on ELLTM?

The study yielded a sample of 238 RAs. Three main themes were spotted to occur more frequently in RAs on English materials. Approximately 77.5% of the RAs (N = 184) had evaluative orientation. This category of the studies encompassed a diversity of 14 sub-themes. Of the 14 sub-themes ‘technology-based materials’ topped the table within this theme and within all the papers by 28 RAs (15.21% of studies in the ‘evaluation’ theme, and 11.76% of all qualified studies). Statistically, according to the figures, one might expect that about 12 out of 100 studies on ELLTM concentrate on the relationship between materials and CALL studies. The second position goes to the studies with culture-oriented themes. These types of studies (N = 23, 12.5% of RAs in ‘evaluation’, and 9.66% in all qualified ones) dominated jointly with corpus-based studies the stream of the literature on ELLTM in the 2010s. The effects of materials on listening, speaking, reading, and writing were embodied by 20 papers which secured the third rank for this class of RAs. Studies on discourse/pragmatics, teachers and students’ attitude, authenticity of materials, ideology and gender/identity in materials, criteria for materials evaluation, materials and professionalism, for and against materials, and materials format were other constructs within evaluation studies

The second primary theme treated the ways and approaches that guide the materials writers to produce and design English materials. This theme encompassed 12 sub-themes in which the authors chiefly reflected on proposing principles/theories for materials production within this category. Another statistical indicator signifies that around every three years in 100 years one article dedicated itself to the theme ‘materials production’.

The third theme was the notion of ‘materials selection/adoption’. The theme was represented by 19 RAs which gave insights into nine concepts. About half of the RAs in this theme discussed issues related to standards for materials selection as well as the teachers’ role in the process of adoption/selection.

Have the RAs led to any research trends or tendencies in the field?

The thematic clustering of the RAs of this SR exhibited two typologies of research tendencies rather than trends within the journals’ publication. The two tendencies belong to production and evaluation categories of the qualified RAs with no representative in the selection one. In the 20th century, the whole research focus inclined toward studies on producing English materials. In the 1950s, 1970, 1980s, and 1990s the RAs specified theories/methods in the materials and fabricated theory-driven activities for materials. The journals published studies marking how to apply insights of theories and methods, for instance, the linguistic movement, and oral-aural methods in producing language learning materials. The 1950s coincides with the language teaching experts’ writing including Robert Lado (1953) and Ernest Wolf (1953) who focused on learning theories as preliminaries to their praxis (Mitchell et al., 2019). The RAs in the 1950s also prioritized the inclusion of standard grammar and reconstructed dialogues in the textbooks which rooted in a version of structuralism developed by Palmer in the 1920s, and subsequently by Fries and his Michigan colleagues in the 1940s (Mitchell et al., 2019). The studies in the 1990s were more diverse in terms of topics. In addition to specifying the insights of theories and suggesting activities for materials, they suggested that visuals and video-based technologies be used in materials. They, further, described some projects in materials production around the world.

The other tendency, evaluative studies, started in the 2000s whereby the effects of technology-based materials on language learning were evaluated. The movement of materialization of technology in education in general and in language learning materials in particular, indeed, dates back to the 1980s. Although the applications of computer in education was not a recent phenomenon and computer-assisted language instruction (CALI) was in use, applying the technology in the language learning sphere was in its infancy. The emergence of microcomputers further facilitated the development of CALL programs and the eruption of publications on the subject in the early 1980s (Marty, 1981). The development of CALL programs has gone through three phases called behavioristic CALL, communicative CALL, and integrative CALL (Warschauer, 1996). The qualified RAs from the 1980s were based mainly on recommendations for producing theory-driven, flexible, and quality courseware. However, the RAs in the 2000s were more culturally oriented in design. This tendency reflects the emergence of researchers who challenged the cognitive view of SLA in terms of foci in the late 1990s and 2000s (Larsen‐Freeman, 2018). The RAs in the 2000s centered on developing intercultural understanding, understanding L2 culture, developing cross-cultural awareness, and teaching literature from intercultural perspectives.

The other major research tendencies were in the 2010s onward in which evaluation of cultural issues in materials, evaluation of corpus-based materials, and evaluation of ideology and gender/identity in materials were loci of the literature. The RAs on culture and materials resonate with the heightened emphasis that L2 learning and cultural issues are inseparably intertwined. The sociocultural theories of learning reflect the Vygotskian perspectives that language learning is a socially situated activity (Ohta, 2000). The qualified RAs in the 2010s and 2020s (N = 13) mainly discussed the representation of cultural elements in the ELT textbooks and developing cultural awareness in L2. The idea of using corpora for linguistic purposes started in the 1960s, yet the growth of the method occurred phenomenally in the 2000s (Lindquist, 2009). The majority of RAs on corpus-based materials, however, was not seen in the 2000s but in the 2010s (N = 14). Ideology plays a canonical role in education; therefore, research has inspected it from different angles to identify its influence on education (Corella, 2020; King, 2000; Liddicoat, 2009). In addition to ideology, the RAs concentrated on gender and identity in ELLTM. Research, generally, has investigated materials to shed light on the realization and representation of gender in ELLTM. Gender has been identified as a social product with a mutual relationship with language. Many studies are finding that men are overwhelmingly favored in materials worldwide (Amini & Birjandi, 2012; Ariyanto, 2018; Lee & Mahmoudi-Gahrouei, 2020; Otlowski, 2003; Vu & Pham, 2021). When a gender group is discriminated against in materials, it can have significant adverse effects on learners’ academic and professional development (Dahmardeh & Kim, 2020). Within this SR, studies on materials involved eight papers which primarily focused on sexism and ideological issues in ELT materials across the world.

Does the analysis of the findings reveal any prospective need for the research in the field?

Statistically, about 2.4 articles per year were published over the 100-year period. Quantitatively, the figure strongly implies that the field is under-researched and needs a greater number of RAs owing to the crucial function it has in language learning pedagogy. The number of publications per year turns it safe to reiterate what Chapelle (2010) has claimed that the field is in short of empirical studies in materials evaluation. The same assertion can be made for materials production and adoption/selection. As the top journals are usually the point of references for researchers, 54 RAs (in 100 years of the life of the field in these journals) cannot be considered a logical number to supply the researchers in case when they refer to issues in materials production and adoption/selection.

The research tendencies in the past two decades show that sociolinguistics has become the priority of the researchers. Nonetheless, as teachers and learners are the main consumers of language materials, it might be more sensible to spell out the factors in language skills that influence language learning more directly in research studies. Despite the fact that language skills should be presented in an integrative fashion in instruction (Burns & Siegel, 2018), speaking and listening skills were marginalized in the literature.

is not the future, but the present of education. Although the first smartphone was born in 1992, the RAs within this SR have not paid attention to the technology. Literature has confirmed the usefulness of mobile applications to develop learners’ language skills and motivation (Kukulska‐Hulme & Viberg, 2018), yet in spite of the device being much more than calls, the study spotted no RA analyzing the educational merits of the device. Meanwhile, the literature also has space to look at the new generations of tech-based textbooks which are at the edge of a breakthrough into traditional prototypes. Most of the latest generation of e-readers, such as Amazon’s Kindle 2, Sony’s PRS-700 (Butler, 2009), and iBooks 2 (Kwok, 2012) offer new avenues for conducting research from various perspectives.

The content analysis of the RAs revealed the lack of sensitivity to environmental issues which have severely impacted human lives. None of the qualified RAs took into account the possibilities of linking materials to ecological issues. Ecolinguistics has established itself as a discipline (Steffensen & Fill, 2014) and it has opened up new horizons for research initiatives (Stibbe, 2001). The field can guide researchers to a fertile land where they can encounter the interplay of human activities and the environment in which it is saturated with language, interactivity, and co-existence (Steffensen & Fill, 2014).

The RAs failed to present semiotic signs in public spaces as pedagogic resources in materials. The field of Linguistic Landscape (LL) as a method grounded in a variety of theories, from politics and sociology to linguistics, and education, geography, economics, and law explores how language is used regarding ethical issues, ethnographical and anthropological considerations, multiliteracies, etc. (Gorter, 2006), can have manifestations in materials development especially in multilingual societies. The theoretical, critical, and methodological perspectives in LL have been illustrated in Shohamy and Gorter’s (2008) book that can guide research into materials development.

The study found that the RAs made no distinction between materials evaluation and materials analysis. There were some studies that used the two terms interchangeably. Analyses, according to definitions, are objective processes that result in verifiable outcomes. In contrast, evaluation implies making a judgment. An analysis of a textbook, for instance, occurs at three levels with the emphasis on ‘what is there’, ‘what is required of users’, and ‘what is implied’ (Littlejohn, 2011). Among the three levels are consideration of description statements, physical characteristics of materials, steps in the selection of instructional materials, determining the role of the teacher and learner, and selecting and sequencing tasks (Littlejohn, 2011, p. 185). The upcoming studies need be sensitive to the distinctions between materials analysis and materials evaluation.

Additionally, the field can reap the benefits of using visuals in materials. A lack of attention was given to mechanisms for transforming visuals into pedagogical aids that would improve the experience of teaching and learning (Portewig, 2004). Prospective research on materials development can appreciate the pedagogical values of visuals and make trial of assessing teachers and learners’ visual literacy as well as investigating the offshoot of using pedagogically-tailored visuals in learning and teaching materials.

Literature has referred to teacher’s books as resources that improve teachers’ professional development (Nunan, 1991). In addition, teacher’s books can benefit the inexperienced teachers more as they can supply them with on-the-job training (Richards, 1998). Despite the importance of teacher’s books, the literature was not cognizant of their functions and there was no RA on the topic in the pool. Moreover, the pool comprehended no study on workbooks. Studies on materials development can scrutinize these two absent entities in the future.

Conclusion

The earliest steps in research on ELLTM found its center of gravity in SLA and applied linguistics in the early 1920s. Although the interest in materials development has waxed and waned over time, it remains around and will inflame initiatives. This SR presented several themes found by a rigorous analysis of the content of the qualified RAs on English materials development.

Suggestions for future research

There are a number of gaps in the knowledge around ELLTM in research that follow from the findings, and would benefit from further research. The study suggests the following ideas that can inform future research:

The effect of e-books on enhancing learners’ listening skills,
Making arrangements for including materials evaluation in teacher education programs,
Assessing teachers’ methodological competence (McGrath, 2002) and awareness in preparing supplementary materials,
Analyzing the implications of social semiotics in ELLTM,
Evaluating teachers and learners’ attitude toward new generations of e-materials,
Probing the implications of Ecolinguistics for ELLTM,
Considering the implications of LL in ELLTM,
Assessing the pedagogical effects of supplementation and extension on learners’ language skills development,
Analyzing visual content and designs of the materials in order to achieve a clear-cut framework to include visuals in materials,
Materials writing and boosting teachers’ creativity,
Effects of teachers’ materials writing on instruction quality,
The possibility of teachers and learners’ joint participation in materials development,
Difficulties teachers have in materials evaluation,
Analyzing the cognitive operation learners need to understand meaning and forms in the materials,
The extent to which teacher’s books live up with their claim that they provide in-depth guidelines for teachers,
Assessing the place of workbooks in learners’ language learning plan.

Limitations of the study

Some limitations of this SR may affect the findings. First, some RAs in journals were not accessible due to the subscription procedure. Second, some studies which qualified for the inclusion criteria had overlapped themes that could not be assigned to specific category as accurately as possible. The researchers, however, tried to place such studies in right categories based on the relative importance of the themes covered by the RAs. Thus, some upcoming studies may report different themes for some RAs. Third, due to the researchers’ judgments over certain themes, the thematic categories of the RAs may display subjective orientation. However, from technical considerations regarding methodology of SRs, a degree of subjectivity might affect replicability of studies (Belur et al., 2021). This study tried to resolve the interrater reliability problem to achieve precision by applying Cohen’s Kappa which is an advanced statistical method.

About the authors

Reza Khany is associate professor in Applied Linguistics at Ilam University, Iran. His research interests are second language acquisition, Pragmatics, and English for Academic purposes. He has presented and published many research papers in various areas of research appeared in International Journal of Leadership in Education, RELC Journal, Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, and Journal of Career Assessment.

Ayad Kamalvand is PhD candidate at Ilam University, Iran. He is also an EFL teacher in Ministry of Education. His major research interests are Sociolinguistics, Social Semiotics, and Educational Technology. He has published papers in some journals including TechTrends, and Asian Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities.

To cite this article

Kamalvand, A. & Khany, R. (2022). 100 years of research on English language learning/teaching materials: A systematic review. Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ), 25(4). https://tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej100/a2.pdf

References

Amini, M., & Birjandi, P. (2012). Gender bias in the Iranian high school EFL textbooks. English Language Teaching, 5(2), 134-147.

Antia, B. E., & Dyers, C. (2016). Epistemological access through lecture materials in multiple modes and language varieties: the role of ideologies and multilingual literacy practices in student evaluations of such materials at a South African University. Language Policy, 15(4), 525-545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-015-9389-4

Ariyanto, S. (2018). A portrait of gender bias in the prescribed Indonesian ELT textbook for junior high school students. Sexuality & Culture, 22(4), 1054-1076. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-018-9512-8

Awayed-Bishara, M. (2015). Analyzing the cultural content of materials used for teaching English to high school speakers of Arabic in Israel. Discourse & Society, 26(5), 517-542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926515581154

Bancheri, S. (2006). A language teacher’s perspective on effective courseware. In R. P. Donaldson & M. A. Haggstrom (Eds.), Changing language education through CALL (pp. 31-47). Routledge.

Belur, J., Tompson, L., Thornton, A., & Simon, M. (2021). Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: Exploring variation in coder decision-making. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 837-865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799372

Bongalos, Y. Q., Bulaon, D. D. R., Celedonio, L. P., De Guzman, A. B., & Ogarte, C. J. F. (2006). University teachers’ experiences in courseware development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 695-704.

Booth, A., & Carroll, C. (2015). Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? Is it desirable? Health Information & Libraries Journal, 32(3), 220-235.

Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: the case of complaints. ELTJournal, 49(1), 44-58. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/49.1.44

Burns, A., & Siegel, J. (2018). Teaching the four language skills: Themes and issues. In A. Burns & J. Siegel (Eds.), International perspectives on teaching the four skills in ELT. (pp. 1-17). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Butler, D. (2009). Technology: The textbook of the future. Nature, 458(7238), 568-570. https://doi.org/10.1038/458568a

Calandruccio, L., & Smiljanic, R. (2012). New mentence mecognition materials developed using a basic non-native English lexicon. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55(5), 1342-1355. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388

Chang, C.-F., & Kuo, C. H. (2011). A corpus-based approach to online materials development for writing research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 30(3), 222-234.

Chapelle, C. A. (2010). The spread of computer-assisted language learning. Language teaching, 43(1), 66-74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444809005850

Copley, K. (2018). Neoliberalism and ELT coursebook content. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 15(1), 43-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2017.1318664

Corella, M. (2020). Talking “smart”: Academic language and indexical competence in peer interactions in an elementary classroom. Linguistics and Education, 55, 100755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2019.100755

Dahmardeh, M., & Kim, S.-D. (2020). Gender representation in Iranian English language coursebooks: Is sexism still alive? English Today, 36(1), 12-22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078419000117

Dockx, J., Bellens, K., & De Fraine, B. (2020). Do Textbooks Matter for Reading Comprehension? A Study in Flemish Primary Education. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2959.

Donaldson, R. P., & Kötter, M. (1999). Language learning in cyberspace: Teleporting the classroom into the target culture. Calico Journal, 531-557.

Gilmore, A. (2004). A comparison of textbook and authentic interactions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 363-374.

Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 40(2), 97-118.

Gorter, D. (2006). Introduction: The Study of the Linguistic Landscape as a New Approach to Multilingualism. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710608668382

Gray, J. (2002). The global coursebook in English language teaching. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 161-177). Routledge.

Harwood, N. (2005). What do we want EAP teaching materials for? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(2), 149-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.008

Harwood, N. (2010). Issues in materials development and design. Cabridge University Press.

Henry, A. (2007). Evaluating language learners’ response to web-based, data-driven, genre teaching materials. English for Specific Purposes, 26(4), 462-484.

Hurst, N. R. (2014). Core concerns: Cultural representation in English language teaching (ELT) coursebooks. In Language Learning, Discourse and Communication (pp. 47-61). Springer.

King, K. A. (2000). Language ideologies and heritage language education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 3(3), 167-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050008667705

Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL, 20(3), 271-289.

Kukulska‐Hulme, A., & Viberg, O. (2018). Mobile collaborative language learning: State of the art. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(2), 207-218. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12580

Kwok, R. (2012). Going digital. Nature, 485(7398), 405-407. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7398-405a

Larsen‐Freeman, D. (2018). Looking ahead: Future directions in, and future research into, second language acquisition. Foreign language annals, 51(1), 55-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12314

Lee, J. F. K., & Mahmoudi-Gahrouei, V. (2020). Gender representation in Instructional Materials: A study of Iranian English language textbooks and teachers’ voices. Sexuality & Culture, 24(4), 1107-1127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09747-z

Leung, C. Y., & Andrews, S. (2012). The mediating role of textbooks in high-stakes assessment reform. ELT Journal, 66(3), 356-365.

Liddicoat, A. J. (2009). Evolving ideologies of the intercultural in Australian multicultural and language education policy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 30(3), 189-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434630802369429

Lindquist, H. (2009). Corpus linguistics and the description ofEnglish. Edinburgh University Press.

Littlejohn, A. (2011). The analysis of language teaching materials inside the Trojan Horse. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (pp. 179-211). Cambridge University Press.

Liu, J. (2016). Adaptation of authentic materials in English listening comprehension classes. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(9), 1774-1779.

Marty, F. (1981). Reflections on the use of computers in second-language acqusition—I. System, 9(2), 85-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(81)90023-3

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

Meinardi, M. (2009). Speed bumps for authentic listening material. ReCALL, 21(3), 302-318. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344009990048

Nunan, D. (1988). Principles for designing language teaching materials. Guidelines: A periodical for Classroom Language Teachers, 10(2), 1-24.

Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 279-295. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587464

Ogura, F. (2008). Communicative competence and senior high school oral communication textbooks in Japan. The Language Teacher, 32(12), 3-8.

Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assisstance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 50-78). Oxford University Press.

Otlowski, M. (2003). Ethnic diversity and gender bias in EFL textbooks. Asian EFL Journal, 5(2), 1-15.

Pérez-Llantada, C. (2009). Textual, genre and social features of spoken grammar: A corpus-based approach. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 40-58.

Portewig, T. C. (2004). Making sense of the visual in technical communication: A visual literacy approach to pedagogy. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 34(1), 31-42. https://doi.org/10.2190/fgj6-uetb-9ca6-5pc3

R. Bakeman. (2000). Behavioral observation and coding. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judge (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 138-159). Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training: Perspectives on language teacher education. Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. (2001). The role of textbooks in a language program. RELC Guidelines, 23(2), 12-16.

Rossner, R. (1987). Materials for Communicative Language Teaching and Learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 8, 140-163. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500001082

Sabet, M. K., & Shalmani, H. B. (2010). Visual and Spoken Texts in MCALL Courseware: The Effects of Text Modalities on the Vocabulary Retention of EFL Learners. English Language Teaching, 3(2), 30-36.

SCImago. (n.d.). SCImago Journal & Country Rank [Portal]. https://www.scimagojr.com/aboutus.php

Shohamy, E., & Gorter, D. (2008). Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery. Routledge.

Steffensen, S. V., & Fill, A. (2014). Ecolinguistics: the state of the art and future horizons. Language Sciences, 41, 6-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.08.003

Stibbe, A. (2001). Language, power and the social construction of animals. Society & Animals, 9(2), 145-161. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853001753639251

Susser, B. (2001). A defense of checklists for courseware evaluation. ReCALL, 13(2), 261-276.

Tomlinson, B. (2003). Developing materials to develop yourself. Humanising language teaching, 5(4).

Tomlinson. B. (2010). Principles and procedures of materials development for language learning (Part 2). Folio, 14(2), 9-11.

Tomlinson, B. (2011). Introduction: principles and procedures of materials development. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (2 ed., pp. 1-31). Cambridge University Press.

Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45(2), 143-179.

Tomlinson, B. (2016). The importance of materials development for language learning. In M. Cacciattolo, T. McKenna, S. Steinberg, & M. Vicars (Eds.), Issues in materials development (pp. 1-9). Brill.

Tsai, S. C. (2010). Developing and integrating courseware for oral presentations into ESP learning contexts. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1245-1258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.021

Vu, M. T., & Pham, T. T. T. (2021). Still in the shadow of Confucianism? Gender bias in contemporary English textbooks in Vietnam. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2021.1924239

Walková, M. (2020). Transition markers in EAP textbooks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 46, 100874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100874

Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction. In S. Fotos (Ed.), Multimedia language teaching (pp. 3-20). Logos International.

Waters, A. (2009). Advances in Materials Design. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 311-326). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Weninger, C., & Kiss, T. (2013). Culture in English as a foreign language (EFL) textbooks: A semiotic approach. TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 694-716.

Wyatt, D. H. (2013). Three major approaches to developing computer-assisted language learning materials for microcomputers. Calico Journal, 1(2), 34-38.

Yang, C. C. R. (2011). Gender representation in a Hong Kong primary English textbook series: the relationship between language planning and social policy. Current Issues in language planning, 12(1), 77-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2011.541390

Copyright of articles rests with the authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately.
Editor’s Note: The HTML version contains no page numbers. Please use the PDF version of this article for citations.