--- title: "Developing instructional materials of English morphology for" description: "Its design draws on constructivist learning theory and Tomlinson's principles of materials development. 5 references." authors: ["Chothibul Umam"] year: 2015 venue: "Journal on English as a Foreign Language 5" source: "https://e-journal.iain-palangkaraya.ac.id/index.php/jefl/article/view/94" doi: "10.23971/jefl.v5i1.94" licence: "CC BY-SA (journal licence per DOAJ; Journal on English as a Foreign Language)" licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License" canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/umam-2015-developing-instructional-materials-english-morphology/" --- [Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/umam-2015-developing-instructional-materials-english-morphology/) [home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2015](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2015/page/3/) / Developing instructional materials of English morphology for English department college-learners # Developing instructional materials of English morphology for English department college-learners **Authors:** Chothibul Umam · **Year:** 2015 · **Venue:** Journal on English as a Foreign Language 5 · **Publisher:** [Institut Agama Islam Negeri (IAIN) Palangka Raya](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/publishers/institut-agama-islam-negeri-iain-palangka-raya/) · **Licence:** [CC BY-SA (journal licence per DOAJ; Journal on English as a Foreign Language)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) **Links:** [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.23971/jefl.v5i1.94) · [PDF](https://jurnal.uin-palangkaraya.ac.id/jefl/article/download/94/611) · [DOI 10.23971/jefl.v5i1.94](https://doi.org/10.23971/jefl.v5i1.94) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W2601028148) **Citations:** 2 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14) ## Summary The paper tackles a teaching problem at STAIN Kediri, an Islamic state college in Indonesia. English Language Education (ELE) students taking English Morphology kept struggling with the course. The author traces this partly to library textbooks written for native speakers or pure-linguistics readers. These books are too technically worded, include topics ELE learners do not need, and ignore disagreements among morphologists. To address this, the author built a dedicated handbook using a shortened version of the Borg & Gall (1983) research-and-development cycle. Its design draws on constructivist learning theory and Tomlinson's principles of materials development. The handbook is organised into units, each closed by exercises. A draft was reviewed by two experienced colleagues, revised, and then tried out with students, who rated it through Likert-scale questionnaires. Students were motivated during the try-out but still tripped over unfamiliar terminology. The final version therefore expanded explanations of these terms and added footnotes. The work offers a needs-driven, locally adapted resource. It also outlines how to test whether the handbook actually improves learning. ## Key points - The needs analysis drew on three academic years of the author's own teaching plus unstructured interviews. The course is worth two credits in semester four and runs at least twelve 100-minute meetings. - The ten-step Borg & Gall cycle was cut to six stages: observation, draft design, expert validation, revision, try-out, and final revision. - Validation used two senior colleagues with over five years of linguistics teaching. Their feedback covered layout, language level, exercise types, spelling, and topic coverage. - Two 5-point questionnaires were used. The student version has 10 items, ending with whether the book can be used without a teacher. The expert version covers nine aspects, from topics and organisation through examples, exercises, and physical design. - After the try-out, the terms lexeme, clitics, transparent, opaque, coinage, and suppletion received fuller explanations and footnotes. The paper reports no learning-outcome measurement yet; it proposes pretest/posttest and comparison-class studies as follow-ups. ## Interesting ideas - The terms learners stumbled on (suppletion, clitics, coinage, transparent vs. opaque formation) form a ready checklist of the hardest corners of English word structure. - The draft was judged by two different audiences with separate rubrics: experts assessed correctness and coverage, while learners assessed usability and clarity. - Hard terms flagged by actual users received extra elaboration plus a footnote, rather than the whole text being simplified. - Each unit opens with questions that bring up what the learner already knows, so new material attaches to an existing schema. - The proposed follow-up compares a class taught with the handbook against one taught without it, alongside pre/post testing. ## For Mova How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests: - **I1** (tokens): Turn these categories into a targeted test suite for the crate en lemmatizer and morphology, e.g. went→go, 's clitic splitting, coined words, and opaque derivations. - **I2** (learn): Evaluate outputs against two rubrics, one for linguistic correctness and one for whether a non-expert user can follow the explanation, and log them separately. - **I3** (back): When generating explanations of a parse or answer, attach short glosses only to technical terms (e.g. nsubj, theme), and choose those terms from where users actually got confused. - **I4** (answer): Before attempting a school-test question, a reader could first query its world/knowledge graph for related known facts and record them as explicit premises, keeping the reasoning traceable. - **I5** (learn): Assess each new component through with/without ablation on the same data as a negative control, instead of reporting only absolute scores. *Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.* 📚 Shelves (6): [🖥️ Computer Science](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/) · 9,085 works · [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 9,296 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 9,206 works · [🗄️ Information Systems](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/information-systems/) · 523 works · [💭 Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/) · 798 works · [💭 Developmental and Educational Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/developmental-and-educational-psychology/) · 260 works 🧭 Topics (2): [English](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/english/) · 1,373 works · [🧩 Morphology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/morphology/) · 277 works ## Cite Cite as: Chothibul Umam. 2015. Developing instructional materials of English morphology for English department college-learners. Journal on English as a Foreign Language 5. The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. ```bibtex @article{umam2015developing, title = {{Developing instructional materials of English morphology for English department college-learners}}, author = {Chothibul Umam}, journal = {Journal on English as a Foreign Language 5}, year = {2015}, doi = {10.23971/jefl.v5i1.94}, url = {https://doi.org/10.23971/jefl.v5i1.94} } ``` - [← previous Sentiment Analyzer with Rich Features for Ironic and Sarcastic Tweets](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/tungthamthiti-2015-sentiment-analyzer-rich-features-ironic/) - [next → The Information Status of Old English Constructions with Titles and Proper Names](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/sielanko-byford-2015-information-status-old-english-constructions/) - [↑ back to papers of 2015](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2015/page/3/) ## References 5 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet. 1. Bain, K. (2004). What the Best College Teachers Do. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bain%2C+K%2E+%282004%29%2E+What+the+Best+College+Teachers+Do%2E+Cambridge%3A+Harvard+University+Press%2E) 2. Borg, W.R. & Gall, M.D. (1983). Educational Research: An Introduction. New York and London: Longman Inc. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Borg%2C+W%2ER%2E+%26+Gall%2C+M%2ED%2E+%281983%29%2E+Educational+Research%3A+An+Introduction%2E+New+York+and+London%3A+Longman+Inc%2E) 3. Jonassen, D.H. (1999). Contextual Teaching and Learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, Inc. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jonassen%2C+D%2EH%2E+%281999%29%2E+Contextual+Teaching+and+Learning%2E+Thousand+Oaks%3A+Corwin+Press%2C+Inc%2E) 4. Lathief, M.A. (2002). Pengembangan Bahan Ajar Contextual Bahasa Inggris SLTP Cawu 2 Untuk 6 Provinsi di Kalimantan dan Sulawesi. Malang: Laporan Penelitian tidak dipublikasikan. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lathief%2C+M%2EA%2E+%282002%29%2E+Pengembangan+Bahan+Ajar+Contextual+Bahasa+Inggris+SLTP+Cawu+2+Untuk+6+Provinsi+di+Kalimantan+dan+Sulawesi%2E+Malang%3A+Laporan+Penelitian+tidak+dipublikasikan%2E) 5. Tomlinson, B. (1998). Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Tomlinson%2C+B%2E+%281998%29%2E+Materials+Development+in+Language+Teaching%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E) *Updated 24 October 2026*