Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 509

4th International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education (ICOLLITE 2020)

Moving towards 21st Century English Language

Teaching
Developing ESP multiliteracies-based materials
Siti Kustini1*, Didi Suherdi2, Bachrudin Musthafa2
1
Informatics Engineering Department, Politeknik Negeri Banjarmasin, Banjarmasin, Indonesia
2
English Education Department, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia
*
Corresponding author. Email: kustini@poliban.ac.id

ABSTRACT
Learning materials are considered as one of the primary agents of conveying knowledge to learners that their roles are
undoubtedly pivotal in the teaching and learning process. This paper attempts to delineate course materials
development in the context of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) in Informatics Engineering area in a state
polytechnic of Banjarmasin. The proposed learning materials was designed for the purpose of providing learners with
up-to-date instructional materials relevant to their needs and current conditions. Two prominent theoretical constructs
of multiliteracies and the knowledge processes of Learning by Design (LbD) were set as guideline in determining the
activity and the task types. For the purpose of developing ESP learning materials in this paper, Research and
Development (R&D) design was utilized in which Jolly and Bolitho’s (1998) model of materials development was
selected in the process of materials writing. This model involved six major stages including identification of needs,
exploration of needs, contextual realization, pedagogical realization, physical production, and evaluation. The
discussion of this paper specified merely on the first four stages within the model consisting of identification of needs,
exploration of needs, contextual realization, and pedagogical realization. To identify and explore learners’ needs,
questionnaire and document analysis were conducted. The results of this study hopefully could contribute to the
development of ESP learning materials and course materials writing theory and serve as the guideline for teachers and
other materials developers to produce and create appropriate and meaningful materials for ESP learners.

Keywords: ESP, learning material, learning by design, multiliteracies, skills, 21st century

1. INTRODUCTION should be encouraged to design and/or adapt materials

which are excellent enough to stimulate and support
Learning materials are regarded as one of the language learning.
primary agents of conveying knowledge to learners that
their role is undoubtedly crucial in teaching and learning In the context of English for Specific Purposes
practice (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Dudley-Evans & (henceforward ESP), the process of designing and
St John, 1998; Tomlinson, 2008). Materials serve as the developing learning materials are considered as
basis for much of language input learners receive and complex, underpinned by comprehensive needs analysis
the language practice that occurs in the classroom and in terms of both target and learning process needs. The
are one of significant elements in language curriculum language learning syllabi and materials developed as a
(Brown, 1995; Richards, 2001; Tomlinson, 2008). result tend to be ‘multi-layered’ (McDonough & Shaw,
Learning materials also function as knowledge 1993) including topics, skills, structures, functions,
organizer that they are selected in such a way to meet roles, etc. In addition, learning materials should make
learners’ needs. As Hutchinson and Torres (1994) the most of learners’ existing knowledge and experience
contend that materials provide the necessary input into and offer the chance of taking in new information
classroom lessons through different activities, readings through interesting, challenging and achievable tasks.
and explanations. Taking into account the substantial Only in this way can learners be equipped with effective
roles that materials play, it is indispensable that teachers use of language for future communication purposes. The
quality of the materials, to a great extent, can in turn

Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Atlantis Press SARL.

This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license -http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. 670
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 509

influences the teaching methodology, which influences of correct language use in various situations using
learners’ motivation and learning results. Therefore, various possible examples of language features,
writing ESP materials is a very time demanding and structures, and genres. The aim is to increase learners’
effort-consuming task, which requires insightful awareness of the organization of texts and the
thinking, profound vision, and a considerable attainment of communicative intentions. To this end, the
experience as well to reach the right decision. constructed learning materials be relevant to learners’
target contexts and authentic. The third function
This paper attempts to provide ESP teachers a
involves stimulating learners’ creativity, critical
guideline to develop ESP learning materials which is
thinking, organizing, planning, engagement, and
relevant, appropriate and reliable for learners so that it
motivation. Explicit materials, e.g. a lecture recording,
can serve learners with an innovative and up-to-date
can stimulate language use in a relatively structured
English learning materials and to provide them with
way. However, materials that are less explicit and likely
knowledge and experience and offer them chances of
to generate various interpretations, e.g. Lego bricks used
taking in new information through interesting,
to symbolize real objects, allow learners to give vent to
challenging and achievable tasks. On the ground of
their creativity and produce divergent responses
developing ESP learning materials, two theoretical
(Hyland, 2006). The last function includes reference
constructs will be used as a guideline for developing
materials which focuses on knowledge rather than
learning materials including multiliteracies and the
practice (Hyland, 2006). This category includes a wide
knowledge processes of Learning by Design
range of materials – typically texts or Web-based
(henceforward LbD).
information, dictionaries, encyclopaedias, explanations,
examples of relevant grammatical, stylistic and
2. LITERATURE REVIEW rhetorical forms. They are particularly relevant to
learners engaged in self-study who have little or no class
2.1. The Conceptual Frameworks of Materials contact.
Development
Tomlinson (2011, 2012) defines language learning
2.2. Multiliteracies
materials as anything which can be used to facilitate the Multiliteracies is a term introduced in 1996 by a
learning of a language (linguistic, visual, auditory or group of literacy researchers and educators, known as
kinaesthetic). These materials can be presented in print, the New London Group (NLG). This group proffered
live performance, on cassettes, CD-ROM, DVD, or in that literacy in the twenty-first century should extend
the internet. These materials can be instructional, beyond reading and writing. Literacy should involve all
experiential, or exploratory. The concept that Tomlinson various ways of communication to make meanings (i.e.
proposed is similar to the one articulated by Richards through combinations of linguistic, gestural, audio,
(2001), Brown (1995), and McGrath (2002). visual, tactile and spatial semiotic modes) as well as an
In developing materials, several principles should be appreciation of diversity of textual, contextual, social
kept in mind so that good learning materials are and cultural conventions that influence the use of these
achieved. Hutchinson and Waters (1987) suggests that modes for different people in different situation (New
good materials should attract learners’ interest, contain London Group, 1996; Cope & Kalantzis, 2015)
enjoyable activities which engage the learners’ thinking To translate this construct into instructional process,
capabilities, provide opportunities for learners to use the New London Group (1996) develop a pedagogy
their existing knowledge and skills, and include content called multiliteracies pedagogy. This pedagogy was
which the learner and the teacher can cope with. It is developed and organized into two sections: the “what”
advocated that good materials should provide a clear of literacy pedagogy and the “how” of literacy
and coherent unit structure, which will guide the teacher pedagogy. The “what” of multiliteracies pedagogy
and the leaner through various activities in such a way draws from multiple modes of meaning making to
as to maximize the chance of learning. support a design process of literacy learning. The “how”
In terms of the role of ESP materials, Hyland (2006) of multiliteracies pedagogy draws from a range of
highlights four principal functions. The first function is relationships between four components: situated
to do with scaffolding learners’ understanding of practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and
language use. This function suggests ESP materials transformed practice.
developers to provide learners with well-selected and
designed materials with a wide range of different text 2.3. Learning by Design
types to engage learners in thinking about and using
language. The second role of ESP materials deals with The ESP instructional materials in this paper were
the provision of good language models. A good ESP developed under the tenets of multiliteracies approach to
learning materials should contain representative samples learning, in particular the knowledge processes of

671
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 509

Learning by Design (Cope & Kalantzis 2009a, 2009b, was first developed by Florida States University’s
2015; Kalantzis and Cope 2010, 2012; Kalantzis et al. Center for Educational technology for the U.S. Army
2005). The LbD describes the practical approach of the during 1970s. ADDIE is an acronym for the five-phase
four dimensions in multiliteracies pedagogy. This LbD courseware development program of analysis, design,
framework introduces four knowledge processes of development, implementation, and flexibility. This
experiencing, conceptualizing, analysing and applying. model is considered as the most common model used to
Experiencing is regarded as immersion in the everyday create instructional materials. The other models include
lifeworld of the learner. Conceptualizing refers to the Dick & Carey Model, Instructional Development
ability to differentiate between concepts, theory, Learning System Model, Jolly & Bolitho’s Model, and
generalizations and particularisations, and to the ability Masuhara’s Linear X-Model. For the purpose of
of being able to identify and understand them. developing ESP learning materials in this paper, the
Conceptualising allows the learners to “become active Jolly and Bolitho’s model will be used for it provides
conceptualizers, making the tacit explicit and comprehensive account of the process of materials
generalizing from the particular” and thus it includes writing.
“the development of metalanguage” when discussing
Jolly and Bolitho (1998) set six major stages in the
the “design elements” (Cope & Kalantzis 2015, p. 4).
process of materials development involving
The knowledge process of analysing can be viewed as
identification of needs for materials (questionnaires and
involving critical thinking as it “…requires that learners
feedback from students), exploration of needs
be able to examine a context, event or piece of
(language, functions and skills to be presented),
information and be able to articulate in a systematic and
contextual realization of materials (text type, text topic
critical way the underlying assumptions and
and degree of complexity), pedagogical realization of
implications of its application or function” (Yelland et
materials (appropriate learning and teaching tasks and
al. 2008, p. 202). In applying, the learner can use his or
instructions), physical production (layout, type size,
her skills and learning when creating new information in
illustrations) and evaluation of materials against agreed
a way that “it has a purpose and can add value to our
objectives (feedback from students and teachers and
lives and the lives of others” (Yelland et al. 2008, 202).
follow-up actions such as throwing away or revising the
In other words, learners are encouraged to create
materials). They criticize the materials, either published
different types of information and text according to
or teacher-generated, which have not been trialled and
“their understandings of meaning-making conventions
evaluated for being ‘simple’ and for lacking ‘the final
and their expressions of subjectivity” (Rowland et al.
touch of excellence’ (Jolly & Bolitho,1998, p.96), due
2014, p. 142).
to their ignorance of the learners’ needs in authentic
settings.
3. METHOD
To conduct needs analysis, questionnaire was
Since the purpose of this study was to produce distributed and teaching documents were analysed. The
learning materials, Research and Development (R & D) questionnaire could be accessed online via google form
design was utilized. Looking at the definition of R & D and distributed to students of Informatics Engineering
design, Gay, Mills, and Airasian (2012) pinpoint that it study program at a state polytechnic of Banjarmasin.
is the process of researching the learners’ needs and There were 119 students filled the online questionnaire.
then developing the product to fulfil those needs. This The questionnaire consisted of two main sections in
type of research is not supposed to formulate or test the which the first part elicited the perceived level of the
theory like those of other designs. Another definition of students’ English proficiency, while the second part
R & D is offered by Borg and Gall (2003). They define contained questions related to the application
R & D as the process used to develop and validate multiliteracies in the ESP learning. The teaching
educational product development and validation studies. document data were gained from the current syllabus
To this end, Borg and Gall (2003) created six cycles in and learning materials.
R & D consisting of studying research findings pertinent
to the product to be developed, developing the product 4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
based on the finding, field testing it in the setting where
it will be used eventually, and revising it to correct the This paper aims to elaborate how to develop ESP
deficiencies found in the field testing stage. In short, this course materials which are based on the multiliteracies
cycle basically can be categorized into two main approach of Learning by Design. To accomplish the
process, namely; (1) developing the product, and (2) goal, the model of materials development from Jolly and
testing the effectiveness of the product. Bolitho is adopted in which the process of materials
writing undergoes six stages as mentioned in the
Literature review informs the existence of several
previous section. However, due to space constraint, this
models of R & D in instructional materials
paper will only expose the results of data analysis in
development. For example, ADDIE, a model which
first four stages of the materials writing.

672
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 509

4.1. Stage 1: Identification of needs

In the context of designing ESP learning materials Table 1. Students’ Perspectives towards English
grounded from the theory of multiliteracies, the needs Multiliteracies Learning
analysis was conducted by looking at context analysis, No Statement Disagree Agree
current syllabus, current learning materials, and
Learning English should focus
questionnaire. 1. on improving students’ 15.3% 84.7%
The current ESP course syllabus in Informatics English communication skill
Learning English should focus
Engineering at State Polytechnic of Banjarmasin study 2. on improving students’ 45% 55%
program consisted of a number of parts including reading and writing skills
general information of the course, the goals and Learning English should
objectives which were articulated in each meeting in the 3. involve the use of various 13.6% 86.4%
course unit, and the basic information of the assessment. media and resources
Learning English should
The topical based or content-based syllabus which is
involve the of use technology
organized the content around themes, topics, or other 4.
to improve students’
13.4% 86.6%
unit of contents seemed to be adopted in the syllabus. motivation and engagement
However, the current syllabus was not designed based Learning English should
on the learners’ needs and did not consider the 5.
improve not only English
43.2% 56.8%
Indonesian National Qualification Framework as stated language skills but also digital
literacy skills
in the government regulation. Learning English should
The course contents in the present ESP syllabus in assign collaborative tasks
6. 28.8% 71.2%
involving the use of
Informatics Engineering study program were not technology
arranged based on the consideration of simple to Learning English should
complex sequence as the learning materials were assign tasks which foster
7. 27.1% 72.9%
compiled and modified from different commercial students’ creativity and
textbooks. As a result, these selected materials unlikely critical thinking
Learning English should
match with the prescribed syllabus and the learners’
8. improve students’ ability to do 16.1% 83.9%
English proficiency. In the case of materials selection public speaking
and adaption, teachers seemed to have difficulty in Learning English should be
making decision on which materials which best suit to 9. delivered in an online mode 23.7% 76.3%
the learners’ English proficiency level and needs. and face to face
Learning English should
To find out current learners’ needs, a questionnaire 10. involve the use of authentic 20.3% 79.7%
was distributed. There were eleven set statements texts
containing the students’ perceived level of their English
proficiency and their perspectives of learning English in 4.2. Stage 2: Exploration of needs
multiliteracies era. Regarding the students’ current
English level, the result indicated that 47.5% of the In this stage, the elicitation of language, functions
students perceived that their English was in good and skills used in the learning materials are determined.
proficiency level, while 50% of them acknowledged As the materials adopted multiliteracies approach, the
themselves in the low level of proficiency, and 2.5% of choice of the language, functions and skills were
them was poor in their English. This result implies that carefully designed to enhance learners’ competence and
the learning materials should be constructed using the skills in communication, collaboration, creativity, and
language used in the beginner level of English critical thinking. In terms of the function of the
proficiency. language, the learning materials was constructed to
fulfill communicative function involving the skills of
The result of students’ perceptions towards English viewing and representing in multimodal ways. The
language learning in multiliteracies era can be seen the learning materials was designed not only using printed
Table 1. Table 1 shows that the students’ goal of materials but also non-printed materials.
learning English was for communicative purposes and
that various multimodal resources should be integrated 4.3. Stage 3: Contextual realization
in their learning. In order to motivate and engage
students in learning technology should be used in the Contextual realization has to do with the text type,
instructional practices. In terms of the tasks, text topic, and degree of complexity. As the materials is
collaborative assignments should be provided in the intended to be used for ESP students, the text topics
types of tasks given should promote students’ creative selected have highly correlation with the specific
and critical thinking. language usage. In terms of the text types, the
explanatory texts were chosen since these types of texts

673
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 509

were likely present information on certain topics in conceptualizing, analysing, and applying. In terms of
particular field of science. Table 2 provides information experiencing, the tasks were constructed to elicit
on the analysis of contextual realization. students’ personal or prior knowledge of the subject,
engage in and consider new situations, experiences,
Table 2. Contextual Realization
information and texts, and trigger them to find new
Most of the tasks in this learning sources of information. Concerning with
Intended teaching
materials require pair and group conceptualizing dimension, the tasks lead students to
situation(s)
working situations
find concepts, define concepts, collect concepts or
Purpose(s) of the course ESP mainly students of ICT important terms, classify concepts or individual textual
designed for Engineering
properties, find similarity and difference of the concept,
Process-oriented syllabus, more discover the relationships between concepts and
Syllabus type
specifically task-based syllabus, more possibly forming a schematic overview of the topic,
focus on communicative aspects of assemble concepts into interpretive frameworks, and
language.
make generalizations of concepts. Regarding analysing
General objective of the course of the stage, the tasks were structured to engage students in
learning materials is to develop
Aims of the learning
students’ multiliteracies skill and
examining texts and their functioning (e.g. how different
materials techniques are used for different effects and how ideas
communicative skill in the context of
ICT engineering. and information are used), discussing and/or explaining
a topic, reasoning, drawing conclusion, summarizing,
The topics in the learning materials are
Organization of the
sequentially organized from the
analysing logical and/or textual connections, and
topics and sequence understanding of cause and effects. In addition, the tasks
general topics to the specific ones.
were designed to make the students aware of the
The language used in the learning is interests, different points of view and motives behind
Types of language simple except the use of the terms the texts, ideas and/or information, consider the topic
related to information technology. from different point of view, evaluate the reliability of
information, and debate a topic. In terms of applying,
The learners are not only provided the tasks were designed to stimulate students to produce
with the knowledge of English for
Gained knowledge,
communicative purposes but also the
something conventional or predictable that is in keeping
issues awareness and
knowledge of multiliteracies including with the class’ topic, to choose a topic and explaining
experience
viewing and representing using about it, producing text or an equivalent in another form
multimodal resources. in a specific genre, to create something unconventional,
hybrid or transgressive based on what has been studied
in class, to transform text into another form or genre,
4.4. Stage 4: Pedagogical realization of and to be active in a creative form.
materials
5. CONCLUSION
It is in this stage that the tasks, activities, and
appropriate instructions are decided. From the One of the salient factors to the successful teaching
perspective of multiliteracies theory, authentic tasks are and learning practice is learning materials. The ability
suggested to be used in the instructional process. The to design and/or adapt materials is highly encouraged
aims of utilizing these tasks are to develop students’ that the materials produced are relevant to students’
abilities to analyse critically and reflexively with needs, current situations and able to stimulate and
multimodal texts in they have the awareness how support instructions. This paper delineates learning
cultural content and language (as well as other semiotic materials development based on the theoretical
modes) are necessarily bound and how a learner’s own construct of multiliteracies and Learning by Design. In
stance and identity informs his or her interpretation and the process of materials writing, Jolly and Bolitho’s
production of texts. The tasks assigned incorporated model was utilized.
media and modes that the students valued outside of
schools in an attempt to make connection to the REFERENCES
students’ lived experiences and to provide a better, more
Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language
relevant, more interesting schooling experiences for the
curriculum: A systematic approach to program
students. The tasks were designed around projects that
‘required students to integrate and orchestrate images, development. New York: Heinle & Heinle
written text, sound, music, animation, and video into Publishers.
their designs (Walsh, 2007). Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009a). A grammar of
The tasks and activities were ordered based on the multimodality. International Journal of Learning,
LbD framework consisting of experiencing, 16(2), 361–425.

674
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 509

https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800903076044 Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2005). Learning by design.

Melbourne: Common Ground.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009b). “Multiliteracies”:
New literacies, new learning, Pedagogies: An McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (2012). Materials and
International Journal, 4(3), 164–195. Methods in ELT. John Wiley & Sons.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800903076044
McGrath, I. (2002). Materials evaluation and design for
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2015). The things you do to language teaching. Edinburg: Edinburg University
know: An introduction to the pedagogy of Press.
multiliteracies. In A pedagogy of multiliteracies
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of
(pp. 1-36). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard
Dudley-Evans, T. (1998). An Overview of ESP in the Educational Review, 66(1).
1990s. The Japan Conference on English for https://fall2017.rswsandbox.net/engl1103/wp-
Specific Purposes Proceedings. Aizuwakamatsu: content/uploads/2017/10/newlondongroup.pdf
Aizu University (Center for Language Research).
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED424775.pdf
language teaching. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003).
Rowland, L., Canning, N., Faulhaber, D., Lingle, W., &
Educational research: an introduction. 7th edn
Redgrave, A. (2014). A multiliteracies approach to
Boston. MA: A & B Publications.
materials analysis. Language, Culture and
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2012). Curriculum, 27(2), 136-150.
Educational research: competencies for analysis
Tomlinson, B. (Ed.). (2008). English language learning
and applications (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
materials: A critical review. Bloomsbury
N.J.: Merrill/Pearson.
Publishing.
Hutchinson, T and &Torres, E (1994). The Textbook as
Tomlinson, B. (Ed.). (2011). Materials development in
an Agent of Change. ELT Journal, 48(4).
language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Hutchinson,T. and Waters, A. (1987). English for
Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for
specific purposes: A learning-centered approach.
language learning and teaching. Language
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Teaching, 45(2), 143-179.
Hyland, K. (2006). English for Academic Purposes: An
Walsh, C. S. (2007). Creativity as capital in the literacy
Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge.
classroom: Youth as multimodal designers.
Jolly, D., & Bolitho, R. (1998). A framework for Literacy, 41(2), 79-85.
materials writing. In Brian Tomlinson (Ed.) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9345.2007.00461.x.
Materials development in language teaching.
Yelland, N., Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2008). Learning
Cambridge University Press: New York.
by design: Creating pedagogical frameworks for
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2010). The teacher as knowledge building in the twenty‐first century.
designer: Pedagogy in the new media age. E- Asia‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3),
learning and Digital Media, 7(3), 200-222. 197-213.
https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2010.7.3.200
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012). Literacies.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

675