See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/358397547

100 years of research on English language learning/teaching materials: A

systematic review

Article in Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language--TESL-EJ · February 2022

DOI: 10.55593/ej.25100a2

CITATIONS READS

9 1,594

2 authors, including:

Ayad Kamalvand
Ilam University
12 PUBLICATIONS 23 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ayad Kamalvand on 06 February 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language

100 Years of Research on English Language

Learning/Teaching Materials: A Systematic Literature
Review
February 2022 – Volume 25, Number 4

Reza Khany
Ilam University
<[email protected]>
Ayad Kamalvand
Ilam University
<[email protected]>

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

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 1

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

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 2

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:
1. What are the directions, focus and themes of research on ELLTM?
2. Have the RAs led to any research trends or tendencies in the field?
3. 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

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 3

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.

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 4

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.

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 5

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 12 5.04 Standards for selection 5 2.10
production
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 5 2.10 Students & materials 3 1.26
production
Corpus-based materials 19 7.98 Description of production 4 1.68 Project selection 2 .84
projects
Theories/methods & materials 18 7.56 Video/visual materials 3 1.26 Ideology in textbook 1 .40
selection
Discourse/pragmatics & materials 15 6.30 Problems in production 2 .84 Issues in self- 1 .40
instructional materials
Ideology & materials 14 5.88 Optimal use of textbooks 1 .40 Novels for EFL courses 1 .40
Authenticity 13 5.46 Review of materials 1 .40 New media beside 1 .40
development traditional textbooks
Teachers & learners' attitude toward 13 5.46 Materials for deprived 1 .40
materials students
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.

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 6

Table 4. Countries with the Highest Numbers of RAs on ELLTM.
Country Number of RAs
1. US 19
2. Japan 16
3. China 13
4. Taiwan 12
5. Hong Kong 9
6. UK 8
7. Canada 6
8. Spain 6
9. Singapore 4
10. Vietnam 4

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 4 14.3 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
skills
3. Tech-based materials & reading 3 10.7 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
skills
4. Tech-based materials & speaking 1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
skills
5. Tech-based materials & listening 1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
skills
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.

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 7

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

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 8

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

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 9

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.

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 10

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 6 33.3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2
theories
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 1 5.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
textbook
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

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 11

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).

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 12

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 21.4
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

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 13

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).

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 14

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.

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 15

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.

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 16

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 4 11.4 0 0 1 2 0 1 0
production
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.

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 17

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 1 5.3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
textbooks
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.

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 18

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

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 19

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

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 20

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
Mobile technology in language learning
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,

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 21

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:
1. The effect of e-books on enhancing learners’ listening skills,
2. Making arrangements for including materials evaluation in teacher education
programs,
3. Assessing teachers’ methodological competence (McGrath, 2002) and awareness in
preparing supplementary materials,
4. Analyzing the implications of social semiotics in ELLTM,
5. Evaluating teachers and learners’ attitude toward new generations of e-materials,
6. Probing the implications of Ecolinguistics for ELLTM,
7. Considering the implications of LL in ELLTM,
8. Assessing the pedagogical effects of supplementation and extension on learners’
language skills development,
9. Analyzing visual content and designs of the materials in order to achieve a clear-cut
framework to include visuals in materials,
10. Materials writing and boosting teachers’ creativity,
11. Effects of teachers’ materials writing on instruction quality,
12. The possibility of teachers and learners’ joint participation in materials development,
13. Difficulties teachers have in materials evaluation,

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 22

 14. Analyzing the cognitive operation learners need to understand meaning and forms in
the materials,
15. The extent to which teacher’s books live up with their claim that they provide in-
depth guidelines for teachers,
16. 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

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 23

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

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 24

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.

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 25

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).

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 26

 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.

TESL-EJ 25.4, February 2022 Khany & Kamalvand 27

View publication stats