It’s About Time1

DIANE LARSEN–FREEMANUniversity of Michigan, and Visiting ProfessorThe University of Pennsylvania

GUERRETTAZ AND JOHNSTON’S (2013;hereafter G & J) study is a refreshing look at therole of materials in the language classroom; theauthors should be congratulated. As their reviewof the literature makes clear, the role of materialsin classroom research has been overlooked, so it isabout time we knew more about the use of theseubiquitous resources. In particular, the authors’choice of an ecological approach (van Lier, 1996)is welcome in its respect for the “richness andcomplexity of classroom life” (p. 781). By theiradoption of “a vision of the classroom as acomplex, interlocking set of elements and rela-tionships in which any one element can only beunderstood in the light of its interactions withother elements” (Guerrettaz & Johnston, 2013, p.783), their research illustrates well the classroomas an ecological system.1

As the authors point out, central to anecological approach is the notion of emergence.Emergence is a process whereby something new,and possibly unexpected, arises from the interac-tion of the elements in a system. Emergence is adefining characteristic of a complex system(Larsen–Freeman & Cameron, 2008), of whichsurely the classroom is one. It is from theperspective of complex systems that I addressthe question posed by the editor of this Perspec-tives Column:

Do you think ‘materials’ provide opportunities forlanguage learning in classrooms, and if so how?

My answer, and one I believe to be consonantwith the findings reported in G & J’s article, is aqualified “yes.” The qualification stems from thefact that an opportunity for learning—or afford-

ance—is a relational concept. An affordance forlearning in a complex system is an emergentphenomenon, determined by the perception ofthe learner in relation to the context, not oneautonomous in the context or resident intrinsi-cally in the materials themselves. While my pointmight seem captious, I think it is important toacknowledge that is it is the learner in relation tothe materials who will determine whether thereare learning opportunities or not.

Indeed, this is a crucial point present in G &J’s article and it is especially crucial from acomplex systems perspective. Complex systemsare dynamic, the dynamism fueled by therelationship among their components, includingparticipants in the interaction and the environ-ment in which they are used. No materialsdeveloper, regardless of how skilled or experi-enced, can anticipate the uniqueness of thecontext in which the materials are situated. Ittakes the teacher as a mediator, along with all theother participants in the learning context, toforge an active and meaningful relationship withthe materials, which are otherwise inert. Clearly,teachers with different levels of experience andcomfort with the language will exploit materialsdifferently. Furthermore, students will profit fromtheir interaction differentially, and may well findthat materials authentic to native speakers areinauthentic to themselves. My response does notin any way denigrate the potential of materials,but it is meant to draw attention to the situationaldynamics as one factor that influences learnerperceptions and thus whether learning oppor-tunities materialize or not.

As for the ‘how’ in the question, G & J’sresearch demonstrates that using materials canprovide learners with opportunities for makingmeaning, an important prerequisite to learning,but not prospective evidence of learning in and ofitself. Although their study was not designed toinvestigate acquisition, to do so would requiremonitoring learners’ language resources, enacted

The Modern Language Journal, 98, 2, (2014)DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12097.x0026-7902/14/665–666 $1.50/0© 2014 The Modern Language Journal

during meaning-making prompted by certain ofthe exercises in the materials, to determinewhether the resources are accessible to learnersat another point in time. Therefore, the questionwith which G & J end their article “Whataffordances will the materials provide within theclassroom ecology?” would be extended to “Whatopportunities do the materials provide that will,with mediation, engage learners in meaning-making, from which they may perceive afford-ances for learning that lead to change?”

In the same vein, although data collection intheir study began on the first day of class andended on the last day, it would have been helpfulto know how the relationship with the materialschanged over time during the course of the term.This is because the contribution of any oneinfluential factor in a complex system waxes andwanes with time. Indeed, the researchers foundthat the precise role the book played in classroominteraction was variable even within a singleexercise. Thus, we get a spurious view of what ishappening if we do not account for thesemicrodynamics and if we collapse the passage oftime into a static portrait.

I reiterate that G & J have mostly done asplendid job of understanding and executing therequirements of research from a languageecological/complex systems perspective: throughtheir rejection of input–output causality, in theirinsight that discourse can be both a process and astructure: “structure–process” as David Bohmcalls it (Nichol, 2003, p. 2), in their understandingthat materials designers and other distal playerscan also be seen as participants in classroomecologies by proxy, and in their acknowledgmentof the importance of relationships. Indeed, as Ihope I have made clear in these remarks, acomplex systems perspective would make thedynamic relationship between the learner and thematerials central, and assuming that studies likethis might now focus explicitly on learning, thenstudying the evolution of this relationship over

time would be essential. As Byrne and Callaghan(2014, p. 187) note, “the very word ‘emergence’incorporates time within it.” A complex systems/ecological perspective is about time—and surelythat is true for language learning afforded bymaterials as well.

Finally, an additional implication of the timedimension for researchers is the need to appre-ciate that all interactants, both human andmaterial, have a past and have a future, and whilethese are nondeterministic, they are neverthelessinstrumental in shaping the landscape of possibleoutcomes in the use of materials. Thereforesituational, relational, and temporal dynamicsand an ecological approach are inseparable: It isabout time.

NOTE

1 I have borrowed this title from Elman (2003), whofirst used it to make a similar point to the one I makehere.

REFERENCES

Byrne, D., & Callaghan, G. (2014). Complexity theory andthe social sciences: The state of the art. London/NewYork: Routledge.

Elman, J. (2003). Development: It’s about time.Developmental Science, 6, 430–433.

Guerrettaz, A. M., & Johnston, B. (2013). Materials inthe classroom ecology. Modern Language Journal,97, 279–296.

Larsen–Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complexsystems and applied linguistics. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Nichol, L. (Ed.). (2003). The essential David Bohm.London/New York: Routledge.

van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum:Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London:Longman.

666 The Modern Language Journal 98 (2014)