Abstract

During the past several decades, scholarly consideration has focused on the concept of teacher knowledge and a variety of reform efforts to rethink both the structure and practices of teacher education to enhance teacher preparation process. As a consequence, the tripartite knowledge base of EFL teacher training is built on the partnership between universities and schools to support student teachers’ language competence, pedagogical knowledge, and teaching competency. Within this framework, one strand of enquiry has focused on the role of teaching materials in EFL teacher education; however, literature reveals few insights into how to evaluate and select teaching materials and sources of knowledge for each component of the knowledge base. In order to address this problem, this paper reviews the knowledge/competency base of EFL teacher training program and the types of input content that support such knowledge/ competency, and suggests some criteria for evaluating teaching materials according to theoretical/practical underpinnings of teacher education (Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006).  

Key words: EFL teacher training; teaching materials; materials evaluation

Abstract
During the past several decades, scholarly consideration has focused on the concept of teacher knowledge and a variety of reform efforts to rethink both the structure and practices of teacher education to enhance teacher preparation process. As a consequence, the tripartite knowledge base of EFL teacher training is built on the partnership between universities and schools to support student teachers’ language competence, pedagogical knowledge, and teaching competency. Within this framework, one strand of enquiry has focused on the role of teaching materials in EFL teacher education; however, literature reveals few insights into how to evaluate and select teaching materials and sources of knowledge for each component of the knowledge base. In order to address this problem, this paper reviews the knowledge/competency base of EFL teacher training program and the types of input content that support such knowledge/ competency, and suggests some criteria for evaluating teaching materials according to theoretical/practical underpinnings of teacher education (Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006).  

Key words: EFL teacher training; teaching materials; materials evaluation

1. Introduction
Input, knowledge, skill, and competency are terms that educators have used over time to specify the essence of ‘what’ teacher education programs provide student teachers with. Two general trends are extensively documented and researched in literature to describe this content: what teachers should know to be qualified to teach a subject and how they actually learn to teach it. The division between theoretical and practical knowledge is well framed in the distinction between declarative and procedural knowledge (Woods, 1996):

Declarative knowledge is knowledge about teaching- knowledge of subject areas and the ‘theory’ of education; procedural knowledge is knowledge of how to teach- knowledge of instructional routines to be used in the classroom (MacDonald, Badger, & White, 2001, p. 950).

A number of language educators (Day, 1993; Fradd & Lee, 1998; Ur, 1997; Freeman, 1989, 2002; Morain, 1990) have broadly discussed the definition of professional knowledge and its significant role in EFL teacher education. Central to these discussions is the idea that there is a close connection between the dichotomy of declarative/procedural knowledge and specification of objectives, content, and outcome of EFL teacher education programs (Lightbown, 1985; Richards & Nunan, 1990; MacDonald, Badger, & White, 2001). Within this framework, one strand of enquiry has focused on the role of teaching materials in developing teachers’ declarative and procedural knowledge (e.g., Borg, 2007; Goker, 2006; Day, 1993; Freeman, 1989, 2002). However, there is a dearth of research into the issue of materials evaluation and selection for teacher education programs. The focus of this paper is to find out more about teaching materials which best suit the knowledge base of EFL teacher education so as to:

• discover the role of teaching materials as sources of knowledge and skills in EFL teacher training programs, and
• suggest some criteria to evaluate such materials for their suitability and beneficiality.
2. The knowledge/competency base of EFL teacher education
During the past several decades, scholarly consideration has focused on the concept of teachers’ professional knowledge and a variety of reform efforts to rethink both the structure and practices of teacher education (Sandlin, Young, & Karge, 1992) to enhance teacher preparation process (Shulman, 1987; Woods, 1996; Fenstermacher, 1994; Valli & Tom, 1988; Verloop, Van Driel, & Meijer, 2001). 
   Traditionally, teacher education is “characterized by a strong emphasis on theory that is ‘transferred’ to teachers in the form of lectures” (Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006, p. 1021). Professional knowledge is defined as ‘learning about teaching’ and is presented to student teachers through a collection of courses on content knowledge and pedagogy. Almost all parts of teacher education programs take place in the university or teacher education center and the only bridge to practice comes “in observing teachers and in practicing classroom teaching” (Freeman, 2002, p. 73). The knowledge-transmission view towards teacher education has been under consistent scrutiny for its many problems and limitations. This is primarily due to the fact that the knowledge base of university-based teacher education is incapable of filling the gap between ‘theory’ as it is treated in teacher education programs and the knowledge and skills of experienced teachers, ‘competency’, at schools. Drawing on research-presented evidence, educators have redefined professional knowledge and the relationship between theory and practice within the context of teacher education (ten Dam & Blom, 2006; Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006).  
   The educational reform to reformulate the knowledge base of teacher education thus has focused on a shift from learning about teaching to learning how to teach and from ‘knowledge for teachers’ to “knowledge of teachers” (Verloop, Van Driel, & Meijer, 2001, p. 443). The term knowledge base refers to “the entire repertoires of skills, information, attitudes, etc. that teachers need to carry out their classroom responsibility” (Valli & Tom, 1988, p. 5). The main learning goal for such teacher-training programs is becoming a good teacher. Schelfhout et al. (2006) believe that to produce good teachers, teacher education programs should prepare student teachers to be able to:

• master the content knowledge of the discipline they are specialized to teach
• have skills and knowledge about teaching/learning in order to teach properly
• work in school contexts
• notice any shortcomings in their teaching and constantly try to improve it
• take on a broader pedagogical and moral responsibility
This constructivist view to the process of teacher education demands a new look at the relationship between teaching and learning (Manouchehri, 2002). The value of a knowledge base, thus, lies both in the conversion of information to understanding and the appropriate application of knowledge in a variety of contexts (Fradd & Lee, 1998). The assumption that teachers construct their own knowledge on the basis of experience highlights the role of schools in teacher education programs and “opens the door to organizing teacher education according to the principle of learning through participation in real, meaningful practices” (ten Dam & Blom, 2006, p. 649). Thus the focal point of teacher education becomes the collaboration between schools and universities and a balance between theoretical knowledge and practicing skills. The university provides student teachers with scientific concepts and the school supports and directs learners’ participation in professional practice, while both organizations work collectively.
   On the basis of the partnership between universities and schools, language teacher educators have specified the knowledge/competency base of EFL teacher education programs (Fradd & Lee, 1998; Morain, 1990; Day & Conklin, 1992) and have proposed a tripartite including:

• knowledge of language: content knowledge, knowledge of the subject matter, English language
• knowledge of science of teaching and pedagogy: pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of generic teaching strategies, beliefs, and practices; along with support knowledge, the knowledge of the various disciplines that would enrich teachers’ approach to the teaching and learning of English
• knowledge/competency of teaching in reality: pedagogical content knowledge, the specialized knowledge of how to represent content knowledge in the classroom and how students come to understand the subject matter in the context of real teaching; the students’ problems and ways to overcome those problems by considering all variables related to their learning (teaching materials, assessment procedures, parents, etc.)

To establish the knowledge/competency base, different types of teaching materials are used in teacher training programs. Teaching materials in general mean “any systematic description of the techniques and activities to be used in classroom teaching” (Brown, 1995, p. 139) and include various “experiences and activities by which, or as a result of which, the [teacher] learner develops knowledge of the profession” (Day, 1993, p. 2).

3. Teaching materials in EFL teacher training program
In his proposition of professional knowledge source continuum (Figure 1), Day (1993) clarifies the role of different types of sources of knowledge in EFL teacher training program. He discusses the types of activities by which or as a result of which, the student teachers can develop either the declarative knowledge (at one end of the continuum) or the procedural knowledge (at the other end of the continuum) of teaching profession. “In between these two ends are a variety of activities that may, depending on their orientation, allow the learner to develop knowledge closer to one end or the other” (Day, 1993, p. 2).



Other language educators (Freeman, 1989, 2002; Bolitho, 1986; Ur, 1997; Richards & Nunan, 1990) have also discussed the importance of the input to distinguish between teacher education and teacher training. Teacher development is more involved with in-service teacher education, it relies more on teachers’ personal experiences and background knowledge as the basis of the input content, and its typical teacher development activities include “teacher study groups, practitioner research, or self-development activities” (Freeman, 2002, p. 76). The outcome is generally evaluated through self-assessment techniques like reflective thinking and journal writing. On the other hand, the teacher training process is mostly viewed as a pre-service strategy, its content is generally defined externally, and the input content is presented through conventional processes such as lectures, readings, and observations; or participant-oriented processes such as project work and case studies. The outcome of the instruction would be evaluated through academic display techniques like exams, term papers, or sample teachings.
   In accordance with the defined knowledge/competency base of EFL teacher training program within partnership framework, the whole teaching preparation program is designed in three components: language component, science component, and practicum component.

3.1. Language component
Language proficiency is one of the most essential characteristics of a good language teacher (Brown, 2001; Cullen, 2001) and “has indeed constituted the bedrock of the professional confidence of non-native English teachers” (Candido de Lima, 2001, p. 145). The language component thus aims at improving the content knowledge, i.e., student teachers’ general knowledge of English, or their communicative competence. The courses offered here may focus on developing teacher learners’ English language proficiency (courses on listening-comprehension, conversation, writing, reading, vocabulary and idioms, grammar, and pronunciation) or providing insights into Western culture (literature courses). To attain such goals, two types of teaching materials can be used: teacher-made teaching materials such as photocopied pamphlets, drama, and games; or commercially prepared materials like textbooks, audio/video tapes, educational software, etc. These teaching materials serve the following purposes (Cunningsworth, 1995, p. 7):

• A source for presentation material (written or spoken)
• A source of activities for learner practice and communicative interaction
• A reference source for learners on grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and so on
• A source of stimulation and ideas for classroom activities
• A syllabus (where they reflect learning objectives that have already been determined)

3.2. Science component
From a theoretical perspective, EFL teachers require specialized knowledge about language, teaching theories and beliefs, and pedagogy. The courses offered in this component aim at providing student teachers with methodological and pedagogical knowledge (courses on teaching methodology, testing, research methods), supplying knowledge about language(s) (courses on linguistics), and supporting knowledge from other disciplines in applied linguistics (courses on sociolinguistics, neurolinguistics, etc.).
   The content of scientific information is conventionally given to student-teachers through lectures, readings (teacher-made or commercially prepared), or discussions (Freeman, 2002). Generally, the readings are provided and recommended by teacher trainers. Teacher-made sources of knowledge are mostly in the form of pamphlets or handouts and contain summaries of important points. The content of the scientific information can also be found in scientifically pre-prepared reading materials such as journals, reference books, and textbooks.

3.3. Practicum component
From a practical perspective, EFL teachers have to acquire proper skills and knowledge to learn how to teach in a real context, the school setting. “Learning to participate in the social and cultural practices with regard to education is assumed to be crucial for developing a professional identity as a teacher” (ten Dam & Blom, 2006, p. 647). The courses offered in this component thus focus on the development and expansion of practical knowledge of schools (e.g., the learners and their characteristics, teaching materials, assessment, parents) through observation, socialization, and interaction.
   Recently, under the influence of social constructivism, teacher educators and researchers have addressed the issue of teaching materials and techniques more seriously to empower student teachers pedagogically and provide them with greater understanding of professional practice (Edge, 1991; Fosnot, 1996; Goker, 2006; Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006; Schelfhout, et al., 2006). From among the processes that help practice teaching are the constructivist techniques including reflective thinking (e.g., Lee, 2005), portfolios (e.g., Mansvelder-Longayroux, Beijaard, & Verloop, 2007), and peer coaching (e.g., Goker, 2006).

4. Materials evaluation in EFL teacher training programs
4.1. Language component
One of the central issues that has been a matter of contention among educators for a long time is whether to use teacher-made teaching materials, the anti-textbook view (Crawford, 1990; Walz, 1989; Kramsch, 1987), or commercially prepared teaching materials, the pro-textbook view (Brown, 2001; Allwright, 1981; Daloglu, 2004) in language classes. Within this framework, Harwood (2005) studied various anti-textbook arguments in the literature and made a distinction between strong and weak anti-textbook views. According to this proposition, the strong view advocates the abandonment of any type of commercially prepared materials in language classes while the weak view “finds materials in their current state to be unsatisfactory in some way, but has no problem with the textbook in principle” (Harwood, 2005, p. 150). In other words, the weak anti-textbook view holds that teaching materials should be selected carefully through evaluative reviews “founded on understanding of the rationale of language teaching and learning and backed up by practical experience” (Cunningsworth, 1984, p.74). As a consequence, several criteria such as program goals and objectives, theory of language, theory of learning, learners’ needs, and cultural issues have to be taken into account in the process of materials evaluation/selection (Cunningsworth, 1995; Garinger, 2001, 2002; Robinett, 1978) for a language course.

4.2. Science and practicum components 
Although the issue of teaching materials for teacher education has been well documented in teacher education research (e.g., Bolitho, 1986; Edge, 1991; Fenstermacher, 1994; ten Dam & Blom; 2006; Schelfhout et al., 2006; Lee, 2005; Manouchehri, 2002) and even recently has been recognized by language teacher educators as having enormous influence on the future development of language teachers (e.g., Borg, 2007; Freeman, 2002; Goker, 2006; Nunan & Lamb, 1996), not many detailed studies (e.g., Bax, 1995) outlining the criteria to evaluate teaching materials for developing teachers’ knowledge of science and pedagogy (the second component) and competency of teaching in reality (the third component) have been documented in EFL teacher education literature. The definition and application of systematic criteria for evaluative reviews would let teacher educators and researchers judge the potential benefits and limitations of teaching materials for the specified knowledge base of EFL teacher training programs.
   Due to the fact that language component and science/practicum components are different with respect to goals, knowledge base, and input content, the criteria proposed by language educators to evaluate teaching materials for language courses (e.g., Cunningsworth, 1995; Garinger, 2002; Robinett, 1978) are not suitable to be used for evaluative purposes in the second and third components of EFL teacher training programs. Evidence (Rahimi & Mosallanejad, 2007) supports the fact that more than half of these criteria are inappropriate or irrelevant for evaluating teaching materials developed for science and practicum components of EFL teacher-training programs and should be replaced by other criteria.

5. The basis of the criteria
As mentioned earlier, teaching materials suggested for developing teachers’ professional knowledge (e.g., Borg, 2007; Schon, 1987; Lee, 2005; Mansvelder-Longayroux, Beijaard, & Verloop, 2007; Goker, 2006; Day, 1993; Schelfhout, et al. 2006; Freeman, 1989, 2002) have to undergo evaluative reviews to ensure “that careful selection is made and that the materials selected closely reflect the aims, methods, and values of the teaching program” (Cunningsworth, 1995, p.7). This consideration raises the issue of setting systematic criteria to judge appropriateness of materials for their “true purpose, that is, to help learners to learn effectively” (Jordan, 1997, p. 138).
   To this end, I scrutinized seven principles recently proposed by Korthagen, Loughran, and Russell (2006). Their proposed principles are driven from analyzing realistic examples of teacher education programs to find a shared professional language among teacher educators and suggest guidelines and possibilities to reconstruct teacher education from within. Their principles are:

• Principle 1: leaning about teaching involves continuously conflicting and competing demands (both theory and practice)
• Principle 2: learning about teaching requires a view of knowledge as a subject to be created rather than as a created subject
• Principle 3: learning about teaching requires a shift in focus from the curriculum to the learner
• Principle 4: learning about teaching is enhanced through (student) teacher research
• Principle 5: learning about teaching requires an emphasis on those learning to teach working closely with their peers
• Principle 6: learning about teaching requires meaningful relationships between schools, universities and student teachers
• Principle 7: learning about teaching is enhanced when the teaching and learning approaches advocated in the program are modeled by the teacher educators in their own practice

   According to Korthagen, Loughran, and Russell (2006), these fundamental principles “shape teacher education programs and practices in ways that are responsive to the expectations, needs and practices of teacher educators and student teachers” (p. 1022). Thus it is arguable that they can form the foundation of evaluation criteria to judge the suitability of teaching materials for a responsive teacher education. To support this argument, I have suggested some criteria, by adapting the above-mentioned principles, for materials evaluation/selection in the second and third components of EFL teacher education programs.
    Below the suggested principles and their significant role in materials evaluation/selection are discussed under four main topics: (1) aims and objectives of EFL teacher training program with regard to the knowledge/competency base, (2) student teacher’s role, (3) cultural issues, and (4) teacher trainer’s role. 

5.1. Aims and objectives of EFL teacher training program (the knowledge/competency base)
Principle 1. Teaching materials should focus on both theory and practice.
Learning about teaching involves focusing on “how to learn from experience and on how to build professional knowledge” (Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006, p. 1025). To construct such knowledge and competency both theory and practice are important in teacher training program and have their own respective roles. An important goal of teacher education, then, should be to establish links between these two key elements. Teacher educators believe that approaches that value both teachers’ practical knowledge and formal theories as relevant components of the knowledge base of teaching might enhance the quality of both in the process of teacher preparation (Verloop, Van Driel, & Meijer, 2001).
   Although SLA theory has “either a direct or indirect effect on the instructional routines and procedures of language teaching” (MacDonald, Badger, & White, 2001, p. 252), inclusion of theory in the program should be done with care. Student teachers expect from a course “instant panaceas, rigid rules of thumb, clear statements of practice, and absolute generalizations” (Brumfit, 1983, p. 60); and “definitions, rules, and absolutes” (Brown, 1983, p. 54). Thus teacher education process has to integrate theoretical principles with teaching competencies in order to deepen student teachers’ professional knowledge and develop “skills and knowledge with which student teachers can contribute to a culture of professional cooperation in schools” (Schelfhout et al., 2006, p. 875).

Principle 2: Teaching materials should let learners construct the knowledge by theory-creating processes
The knowledge of learning about teaching has to be viewed as a subject to be created rather than as a created subject. “The teacher educators should actively create situations that elicit wish for self-directed theory building in their students” (Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006, p. 1027). Teacher education programs should foster group processes in which student teachers together work creatively on theories of teaching and generalize teaching knowledge through inductive approaches (Schelfhout et al., 2006). Examples of research already exist in which using teaching practice as a basis for discussing educational approaches and the theoretical rationales for them could lead to a change in prior conceptions (Fosnot, 1996) and to greater satisfaction with the relevance of teacher training and educational theory to later practice (Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006; Schelfhout et al., 2006).

5.2. Student teacher’s role
Principle 3: Teaching materials should consider an active role for student teachers
Student teachers should experience various aspects of teaching by effectively influencing the learning process. “The learning of student teachers is only meaningful and powerful when it is embedded in the experience of learning to teach” (Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006, p. 1029). Teacher education process has to create opportunities for teacher learners to construct knowledge by genuinely participating in teaching experiences and actively leading the learning process rather than remaining passive recipients.
   “To fully illuminate the dynamics of a teaching situation, student teachers need opportunities to understand what is involved in planning the teaching, doing the teaching, and reflecting on the teaching” (Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006, p. 1029). This can be achieved when student teachers are actively engaged in performing tasks, participating in activities, and directing and influencing the whole process of learning and teaching.

Principle 4: Teaching materials should provide learners with opportunities for self-researching and researching on teaching issues
Teacher training program should provide opportunities for student teachers to direct their own professional development by researching their own teaching. Student teachers can research their teaching through reflective practices, case methodology, narrative enquiry, and peer discourse. The aim of all these techniques for pre-service teachers is to learn new ideas better and sustain professional growth after leaving the program. 
   Moreover, student teachers should be involved in research projects on teaching issues. Research-engaged teachers “generate a greater understanding of specific issues in teaching and learning” (Borg, 2007, p.2), gain knowledge and skills “to theorize systematically and rigorously about practice in different learning contexts” (Reid & O’Donoghue, 2004, p. 569), and take appropriate action on the basis of the outcomes of their enquiry to improve the quality of their own teachings.

Principle 5: Teaching materials should support collaborative peer-coaching learning/teaching
Learning to teach and developing classroom practice can be enhanced by peer-supported learning both in pre-service and in-service teacher education (McIntyre & Hagger, 1992). Research findings suggest that the use of peer collaboration and collaborative reflection has the potential to facilitate teacher development (Manouchehri, 2002) and “will help to bridge the gap between what is done in teacher education and what those learning to teach actually need in their future practice” (Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006, p. 1034).   
   In peer coaching, teams of pre-service teachers regularly observe each other, exchange ideas, provide assistance and support, and try to understand their peers’ perspectives. The whole process help student teachers use skills learned during training in their future classes, to exchange feedback with peers and colleagues more actively, become more reflective teachers (Brown, 2001) and “develop the capacity to take on new perspectives and build new understanding about the profession” (Manouchehri, 2002, p. 717).

5.3. Cultural issues
Principle 6: Teaching materials should place a strong emphasis on contextual factors of the local culture
Student teachers have to receive regular input with respect to contextual factors of the local culture in which they are going to apply their professional knowledge. The input source can be the national syllabus which specifies the aims, content, methodology, and evaluation of the language program (Breen, 2002) for a particular group of learners in a social context; or the milieu, “the educational context, including the array of cultural, social, racial, and other groups to which students and teachers belong and in which they are embedded and which affects how they receive and negotiate the subject matter taught” (Kanu, 2005, p. 495). 
   It is important to note here that although the TESOL profession deals with an international language, the teacher education curriculum deals with national priorities (Fradd & Lee, 1998) and should undertake serious cultural analysis at the receiving end of cross-cultural knowledge transfer. The reason is that though the incoming theories and models may be eminently suitable for the country of origin, they are questionable, sometimes even outright failures, in the developing countries (McLaughlin, 1996; O’Donoghue, 1994). The key point here is that within the process of curriculum design and materials development and evaluation certain factors such as the political climate, traditional beliefs, and cultural values of the local context should be taken into account (McLaughlin, 1996; O’Donoghue, 1994; Kanu, 2005; Zajda, 2004).

5.4. Teacher trainer’s role
Principle 7: Teaching materials should provide opportunities for teacher trainers to model educational approaches in their teachings
Teacher educators have to model educational approaches and guidelines (they give to their learners) of how to teach (theory and practice) by making use of them in their own classes. Teacher trainers have to bear in mind that they have to “teach as they preach” (Schelfhout, et al. 2006, p. 879). Modeling educational approaches by teacher educators gives teacher learners a better insight into the importance of those teaching approaches, guides teacher learners how to exactly execute them in practice, and encourages student teachers to use them in their future teachings.

6. Conclusions
The basic goal of the traditional approach to teacher education is the transfer of theoretical knowledge (Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006) from teacher trainers to student teachers through “processes of organized professional education” (Freeman, 2002, p. 73). This view to teacher knowledge is increasingly critiqued for its meager impact on practical skills teachers acquire in the classroom. For this reason, educational reforms have focused on rethinking the knowledge base of teacher education and the relationship between theory and practice.
    Under the influence of constructivism and socio-cultural perspectives of learning, more attention now is given to the importance of the process and context of learning, interaction and socialization among learners, and self-construction of knowledge by teacher learners in the development of professional knowledge (Manouchehri, 2002; Verloop, Van Driel, & Meijer, 2001; Schelfhout, et al. 2006) in teacher education. As a result of this, knowledge/competency base of EFL teacher education has been developing remarkably and rapidly on the basis of collaborative teacher education and the partnership between universities and schools for the last three decades (Freeman, 1989, 2002; Fradd & Lee, 1998; Brown, 1995; Richards & Nunan, 1990; Nunan & Lamb, 1996). In this framework a number of enquiries have discussed the issue of teaching materials and activities for developing student teachers’ professional knowledge (e.g., Day, 1993; Goker, 2006; Borg, 2007). However, the issue of systematic evaluation of teaching materials and sources of information seems to remain intractable: which instructional materials best suit EFL teacher education programs and what criteria would be more beneficial to judge their appropriateness.
   To address this matter, the present paper reviewed the content of EFL teacher education program, its knowledge/competency base, procedures utilized to present that knowledge/ competency to student teachers, and the types of teaching materials that best suit this provision. Based on insights provided by Korthagen, Loughran, and Russell (2006), seven principles were suggested for evaluation/selection of teaching materials and sources of information in EFL teacher training programs.
   The proposed principles support the fact that materials evaluation/selection is not a one-dimensional issue and is highly related to other components of teacher education program. The principles are beneficial for teacher trainers and materials developers in the process of materials evaluation and selection for EFL teacher training programs. They would also open up opportunities for EFL researchers to revisit the role of teaching materials in educating good EFL teachers. 

Notes
This article has borrowed its title from Allwright’s (1981) and Harwood’s (2005) articles.

References
Allwright, R.L. (1981). What do we want teaching materials for? ELT Journal, 36(1), 5-18.

Bax, S. (1995). Principles for evaluating teacher development activities. ELT Journal, 49(3), 262-271.

Bolitho, R. (1986). Teacher development: A personal perspective. Teacher Development, Newsletter of the IATEFL Teacher Development Special Group, 1, 2.

Borg, S. (2007). Research engagement in English language teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 731-747.

Breen, M. P. (2002). Syllabus design. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 151-159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, H.D. (1983). From ivory tower to real world: A search for relevance. In J.E. Alatis, H.H. Stern & P. Strevens (Eds.), Georgetown University round table in languages and linguistics (pp. 53-59). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Brown, H.D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.

Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approach to curriculum development. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Brumfit, C. (1983). The integration of theory and practice. In J.E. Alatis, H.H. Stern & P. Strevens (Eds.), Georgetown University round table in languages and linguistics (pp. 59-74). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Candido de Lima, D. (2001). English-as-a-foreign-language teacher-training programs: An overview. Linguagem & Ensino, 4(2), 143-153.

Crawford, J. (1990). How authentic is the language in our classrooms? Prospect, 6(1), 47-54.

Cullen, R. (2001). The use of lesson transcripts for developing teachers’ classroom language. System, 29(1), 27-43.

Cunningsworth, A. (1984). Evaluating and selecting EFL teaching materials. London:  Heinemann Educational Books.

Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.

Daloglu, A. (2004). A professional development program for primary school English language teachers in Turkey: Designing a materials bank. International Journal of Educational      Development, 24(6), 677-690.

Day, R. (1993). Models and the knowledge base of second language teacher education. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 11(2), 1-13.

Day, R. & Conklin, G. (1992, March). The knowledge base in ESL/EFL teacher education. Paper presented at the 1992 TESOL Conference, Vancouver, Canada.

Edge, J. (1991). Cooperative development: Professional self-development through cooperation with colleagues. London: Longman.

Fenstermacher, G.D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education, Vol. 20 (pp.3-56). Washington: AERA.

Fosnot, C.T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspective, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Fradd, S. H., & Lee, O. (1998). Development of a knowledge base for ESOL teacher Education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(7), 761-773.

Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, development and decision making: A model of teaching and related strategies for language teaching education. TESOL Quarterly, 23(1), 27-46.

Freeman, D. (2002). Second language teacher education. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 72-79). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Garinger, D. (2001). Textbook Evaluation. TEFL Web Journal, 1. Retrieved June 15, 2005, from http://www.teflweb-j.org/v1n1/garinger.html.

Garinger, D. (2002). Textbook selection for the ESL classroom. Retrieved June 23, 2005, from, http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/0210garinger.html.

Goker, S.D. (2006). Impact of peer coaching on self-efficacy and instructional skills in TEFL teacher education. System, 34(2), 239-254.

Harwood, N. (2005). What do we want EAP teaching materials for? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(2), 149-161.

Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kanu, Y. (2005). Tensions and dilemmas of cross-cultural transfer of knowledge: post- structural/postcolonial reflections on an innovative teacher education in Pakistan. International Journal of Educational Development, 25(5), 493-513.

Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1020-1041.

Kramsch, C.J. (1987). Foreign language textbooks’ construction of foreign reality. Canadian Modern Languages Review, 44(1), 95-119.

Lee, H. (2005). Understanding and assessing preservice teachers’ reflective thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(6), 699-715.

Lightbown, P. (1985). Great expectations: Second language acquisition research and classroom teaching. Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 173-189.

MacDonald, M., Badger, R., & White, G. (2001). Changing values: what use are theories of language learning and teaching? Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(8), 949-963.  

Manouchehri, A. (2002). Developing teaching knowledge through peer discourse. Teacher and Teacher Education, 18(6), 715-737.

Mansvelder-Longayroux, D.D., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2007). The portfolio as a tool for stimulating reflection by student teachers. Teaching and Teacher education, 23(1), 47-62.

McIntyre, D. & Hagger, H. (1992). Professional development through the Oxford Internship Model. British Journal of Educational Studies, 40(3), 264-283.

McLaughlin, D. (1996). Who is to retrain the teacher trainers? A Papua New Guinea case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(3), 285-301.

Morain, G. (1990). Preparing foreign language teachers: problems and possibilities. ADEFL Bulletin, 21(2), 20-24.

Nunan, D., & Lamb, C. (1996). The self-directed teacher: managing the learning process. New York: Cambridge University Press.

O’Donoghue, T. A. (1994). Transnational knowledge transfer and the need to take cognizance of contextual realities: a Papua New Guinea case study. Educational Review, 46(1), 73-88.

Rahimi, M., & Mosallanejad, N. (2007, February). Teaching-materials evaluation and selection in EFL teacher training programs: Why and how? Paper presented at the Fourth TELLSI Conference, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.

Reid, A., & O’Donoghue, M. (2004). Revisiting enquiry-based teacher education in neo-liberal times. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(6), 559-570.

Richards, J. C., & Nunan, D. (Eds.). (1990). Second language teacher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Robinett, B.W. (1978). Teaching English to speakers of other languages: Substance and technique. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Sandlin, R. A., Young, B. L., & Karge, B. D. (1992). Regularly and alternatively credentialed beginning teachers: Comparison and contrast of their development. Action in Teacher
Education, 14(4), 16–23.

Schelfhout, W., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., Struyven, K., Gielen, S., & Sierens, E. (2006). Educating for learning-focused teaching in teacher training: The need to link learning content with practice experiences within an inductive approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(7), 874-897.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

ten Dam, G., & Blom, S. (2006). Learning through participation. The potential of school-based teacher education for developing a professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(6), 647-660.

Ur, P. (1997). Teacher training and teacher development: A useful dichotomy? Retrieved December 14, 2006, from http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/97/oct/ur.html.

Valli, L., & Tom, A. (1988). How adequate are the knowledge base frameworks in teacher education? Journal of Teacher Education, 39(5), 5-12.

Verloop, N., Van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 441–461.

Walz, J. (1989). Context and contextualized language practice in foreign language teaching. Modern Language Journal, 73(2), 160-168.

Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zajda, J. (2004). Cultural transferability and cross-cultural textbook development. Education and Society, 22(1), 83-95.