47 (2018) • Heft 2 © 2018 Narr Francke Attempto Verlag J ÜRGEN K URTZ * Adopting Augmented Reality for Task-Oriented EFL Textbook Development, Instruction, and Learning Abstract. This paper examines the potentials and prospects of augmented reality (AR) for 21st century English as a foreign language (EFL) textbook development and use. Since the utilization of AR to transform and, ultimately, enhance instruction and learning in textbook-driven EFL environments is largely uncharted research territory, particular attention is given to three exploratory questions: How can AR (as an emerging technology) contribute to improving EFL textbooks and textbook use? In this context, what role can AR play in promoting task-oriented foreign language learning in and beyond the EFL classroom? More specifically, what potential does AR hold for fostering more individually tailored instruction and learning? In addressing these questions, the paper seeks to provide a preliminary theoretical foundation for future research into augmented language learning and teaching with hybrid (print, electronic) educational media and resources. 1. Introduction In countless EFL classrooms around the world, teachers use printed textbooks and ancillary print-based or electronic resources to promote student learning and achievement (cf. H ARWOOD 2010, 2014; K OENIG 2013; K URTZ 2010, 2011; M C G RATH 2013, 2 2016; N IEHAUS / S TOLETZKI / F UCHS / A HLRICHS 2011; R ICHARDS 2015; T OMLINSON 2008, 2 2011, 2 2013). Many of these resources and materials are produced and provided by an oligopoly of globally or regionally engaged educational publishers in accordance with their core business aims and objectives (cf., for instance, F UNK 2013; G RAY 2013; J OBRACK 2012; K URTZ 2002). EFL textbook publishing is a highly competitive and profitable industry. Research conducted in academic disciplines, such as applied linguistics, second language acquisition (SLA), and foreign language pedagogy, including German Fremdsprachendidaktik and Sprachlehrforschung (for brief overviews see, respectively, D OFF 2017; K ÖNIGS 2017), is undoubtedly of great importance to all publishers, but (as it seems) mainly in terms of business utilization and valorization. This becomes most evident in textbook promotion catalogues, in which publishers typically claim that their products are reflective of the latest research findings and tech- * Korrespondenzadresse: Prof. Dr. Jürgen K URTZ , Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen, Institut für Anglistik, Didaktik der englischen Sprache, Otto-Behaghel-Straße 10 B, 35394 G IEßEN . E-Mail: juergen.kurtz@anglistik.uni-giessen.de Arbeitsbereiche: Mündliche Interaktion im Englischunterricht (Forschungsschwerpunkt: Improvisation in strukturierten Lernumgebungen), Lehrwerkforschung. 46 Jürgen Kurtz 47 (2018) • Heft 2 nologies, and in which they address teachers in a way that suggests that (only) their bought-in, supposedly ‘cutting-edge’ expertise can ‘guarantee’ adequate student learning and achievement (cf. K URTZ 2002). However, as a considerable body of textbook evaluation research indicates, most EFL textbooks and accompanying print and electronic resources worldwide are based on a more or less convincing compromise between traditional, largely language structure-oriented, and, in parts, more innovative, communicative, task-oriented and culture-sensitive approaches to foreign language instruction and learning (cf., for instance, F ÄCKE / M EHLMAUER -L AR - CHER 2017; G ARTON / G RAVES 2014a; K URTZ 2011, 2014; M C C ONACHY / H ATA 2013; T HALER 2011). In her personal behind-the-scenes look into educational publishing in the United States, J OBRACK (2012) explains why this is the case and why commercially motivated eclecticism, which is not to be confused with instructional pragmatism or ‘balanced teaching’ in EFL classroom contexts (cf. T HALER 2010), constitutes a problem: Publishers ensure that a [textbook] program addresses all concerns, all trends and all approaches so every customer will find something they like […]. The inclusion of all instructional approaches and philosophies, however, is almost the same as having no philosophy or approach. [...] Because marketing departments argue that teachers will not purchase programs that are too different from what they are currently using, today's major publishers find well-established authors to contribute to a program, but often minimize their contributions in order to promote marketing concerns over research and effectiveness. The result is that their major programs have no vision or consistent philosophy that will motivate teachers and students (J OBRACK 2012: 37; for an extensive discussion of the value of principled frameworks for materials development, see T OMLINSON 2 2013). In order to dominate market share, reduce costs and risks, and maximize profit, today’s leading educational publishers have embarked on a business strategy that aims to provide teachers and students with bundled textbook packages which comprise a huge assortment of print-based and electronic materials and resources. Such packages typically include textbooks and workbooks for use in the classroom or at home, supplemental audio, visual, and audiovisual media, grammar and vocabulary practice resources, test or exam materials, student self-evaluation guides, grids, and portfolios, printed teacher manuals, complex electronic classroom management and lesson planning tools, e-textbooks and e-workbooks designed for use with interactive whiteboards, and, increasingly, a range of free or subscription-based online resources. In light of this, J OBRACK remarks that “[t]oday's programs have grown astronomically large with an overwhelming number of features and components” (2012: 40). Yet, leading educational publishers still conceive of and sell the printed textbook as the core learning and teaching resource (cf. H Aß 2016; L ITTLEJOHN 2 2011; N IEWELER 2017; for a critical look at the textbook as the core medium for foreign language instruction, cf. S CHMELTER 2011). J OBRACK also posits that if one educational publisher extends its product portfolio, other publishers will soon follow suit: “To command market share, [...] companies believe that they must duplicate features and components that other success- Adopting Augmented Reality for Task-Oriented EFL Textbook Development 47 47 (2018) • Heft 2 ful programs have” (2012: 39) . Nevertheless, many teachers seem to be hesitant to shift to textbook programs produced by other publishers. This appears to be particularly true regarding textbook programs “that offer teachers greater convenience and the most resources while at the same time not requiring that teachers change their practices” (ibid.: 34). Standards-driven education policies that focus on measurable outcome and on nationwide, standardized testing and comparability seem to affect textbook development and innovation in further (questionable) ways (cf., for instance, O ELKERS 2010). As J OBRACK (2012: 3) argues, “[i]f a curriculum must meet all the standards before it will be considered by a state for adoption [...], educational publishers have no incentive to create materials for which there are no standards. Resources and materials that do not address specific standards will not sell.” With regard to the current state of educational textbook publishing in today's digital world, J OBRACK (ibid.: 129) concludes that “publishers are ingrained in old media, are risk averse, and debate irrelevant issues, as the world is passing them by”. In sum, she speaks of “a monolithic industry that stifles innovation, squashes competition, drastically limits choice, and creates a risk-averse development process that at best perpetuates the status quo” (ibid.: 25). Viewing the educational textbook industry from this rather subjective and, as such, perhaps, all too negative perspective (cf. F UNK 2013), it comes as no surprise that publishers are facing increasing competition from global computer companies, software developers, and digital content providers, especially from those who offer customizable, interactive learning and teaching resources, aids, and tools designed for use with portable electronic devices. Still, it is unclear what impact these emerging competitors and the new technologies they bring to market will have on next-generation EFL textbook development, publishing, and consumption. From this point forward, the paper raises some fundamental issues concerning future EFL textbook development and use. Special attention is given to questions concerning the pedagogical conceptualization and design of language learning and teaching in the digital age, including notions of multimodality, interactivity, and hybridity as well as of task-driven and differentiated instruction. Considering the rapid advances in (mobile) information and communication technology (ICT), the paper focuses on the potential and limitations of one particular option in textbook development and production which has been referred to in recent studies as ‘augmented reality-enhanced materials design for language learning’ (cf. G ODWIN -J ONES 2016; G OLLA / K URTZ 2016; H AWKINSON 2014). 2. Framing problems In international EFL textbook research, relatively little attention has been given so far to questions concerning the future of bundled learning and teaching resources and materials. Studies investigating what strategies educational publishers pursue to 48 Jürgen Kurtz 47 (2018) • Heft 2 meet the manifold challenges and opportunities emerging from advances in ICT, applied linguistics, SLA research, and foreign language pedagogy are exceedingly rare. In general, much of what is known about the strategic goals, business models, and selling propositions of the EFL educational publishing industry is vague. Apart from this, there is little empirical classroom research available at present revealing how EFL teachers and learners actually use existing textbooks and ancillary print-based as well as electronic materials and media in order to promote learning and student achievement. As S ERCU (2004: 626) points out in the first edition of the Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning, [a]s yet, there is no universally recognized theory of the textbook. Empirically, too little is known about how and when teachers use textbooks; how textbooks influence the learning process in comparison with other instructional materials; what research instruments are most reliable in the field of textbook research; how visual materials influence the learning process; how effective textbooks are in transmitting knowledge or promoting the acquisition of independent learning skills, to give but a few examples. More than a decade later, textbook use by teachers and learners is still one of the least explored and understood areas of EFL classroom research (cf. G ARTON / G RAVES 2014b; M ARCOS M IGUEL 2015; Z HANG 2017). There is also a substantial knowledge gap concerning the actual impact of the ongoing digital transformation on teachers’ and learners’ attitudes toward adopting ICT in EFL classrooms, including aspects such as perceived usefulness and adaptability, perceived functional complexity and ease of use, expectancy of effort, potential barriers to instruction, and recognized surplus value. What is more, little is currently known about what approach to EFL teacher education is or may turn out to be most effective and efficient with regard to preparing pre-service and in-service teachers for the complex challenges and opportunities of instruction and learning in the digital age (cf. P EGRUM 2014: 188ff.). In sum, there is a strong need for further research in all of the areas mentioned above. 3. Outlining challenges In view of the unsatisfactory status quo of EFL textbook research and the vagueness and subjectivity of knowledge about textbook development, publishing and, above all, textbook consumption by EFL learners and teachers, it is quite difficult to craft a vision of the textbook (in terms of its future form and function). Nevertheless, adopting a progressive perspective regarding EFL textbook development and use, including theoretically useful or promising electronic technologies and media, is essential for framing innovative research questions and projects. Such exploratory and anticipatory research should not be dismissed as crystal gazing, simply because it is largely hypothetical in nature. If conducted in a careful manner, taking a multitude of perspectives, constraints and affordances into consideration, it can spark new ideas, open gateways to further research, inspire innovative theories and contribute Adopting Augmented Reality for Task-Oriented EFL Textbook Development 49 47 (2018) • Heft 2 thus to developing practices that are more adequate, enriching, and (perhaps) effective. As research on teacher cognition in language teaching implies (cf. B ORG 2003), proposals for radical, largely discontinuous change including, for instance, M ED - DINGS / T HORNBURY ’s (2009) conceptualization of a so-called pedagogy of bare essentials (also known as ‘Dogme’, or referred to as ‘unplugged’, ‘materials-light’ teaching and learning), are (arguably) difficult to integrate into teachers’ personal beliefs and their largely experience-based views about what instruction in EFL classrooms should be like. Radical textbook-averse proposals are likely to raise concerns among EFL teachers regarding their personal competence and capability to meet the demands and expectations of standards-based, measurable, and outcomeoriented instruction and learning. Moreover, for educational publishers, ‘unplugged’ teaching constitutes a serious threat to their business (for a discussion of teaching without a textbook from a German perspective, cf. F REUDENSTEIN 2001; V ENCES / F REUDENSTEIN 2002). However, in this respect, it is important to note that dichotomizing change in terms of it being ‘radical’ or ‘gradual’ is far too simplistic to address the complexity of challenges and demands associated with instruction and learning in today’s digital world. In view of the rapid pace of change in (mobile) ICT in recent years, and the comparably slow tempo of change in textbook development and in everyday instruction in schools (with regard to aspects of gender sensitivity in EFL textbooks, cf., for instance, B ENITT / K URTZ 2016), it appears to be much more suitable to frame challenges in terms of incongruities stemming from different paces of development and change in ICT, in textbook production, and in the praxis of teaching and learning. In recent years, a few studies have examined such incongruities in more detail, referring to them as critical mismatches. For instance, looking at adult English language learners and informal contexts of learning in particular, especially as regards English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and English for Academic Purposes (EAP), K UKULSKA -H ULME / N ORRIS / D ONOHUE (2015: 5) argue that “[t]here is a disconnect between this world of language education and the multimodal text processing and creation that learners engage in and beyond the classroom, where they may, for example, share video clips on social media which interweave words, sound and image (photography, graphics and film).” However, in their ELT research paper on mobile pedagogy for English language teaching, the authors do not raise any questions concerning the future of the print-based textbook and its use. Obviously, their approach to digitally-assisted language learning is also rather radical and, as such, quite difficult to bring in line with current, largely textbook-centered ways of teaching EFL in primary and secondary school contexts (see the summary graphic included in K UKULSKA -H ULME / N ORRIS / D ONOHUE (2015: 8) and, furthermore, K U - KULSKA -H ULME ’s critical appraisal of mobile assistance in language learning (2016), which - however - focuses entirely on informal learning contexts). 50 Jürgen Kurtz 47 (2018) • Heft 2 Looking at teachers’ perceptions of the potential and usefulness of electronic media in Dutch primary schools, W ESTDIJK (2016) reports on some further mismatches, especially between educational publishers’ products and individual teachers’ wishes and needs. In her qualitative-empirical case study, she points out that electronic offline and online resources developed by educational publishers today are perceived as having few advantages over printed textbooks and accompanying materials: A complaint that was often heard from the teachers is that there is too little digital material available that is good enough to replace the books: ‘Digital material is often just a scanned book, so why should I use that, instead of a book? I can always use a book, because it does not have any technical complications. Digital material does not really add something now.’ That the perceived quality of digital education materials is low, means the performance expectancy is also low (W ESTDIJK 2016: 55). Based on supplementary interviews with Dutch education publishers, W ESTDIJK (2016) also refers to mismatches between textbook publishers’ assumptions regarding Dutch primary school teachers’ IT-competence in general, and individual teachers’ perceived expertise and skills in using electronic resources and materials in the classroom. Furthermore, her study raises some important questions as to who is ultimately responsible for change: teachers, researchers, curriculum designers, textbook publishers, school boards, or policy makers? Focusing on the effects of technological change on the teaching profession in general, M OMINÓ (2015: 6), in his UNESCO background paper discussing the implications of technological change on the teaching profession, contends that “[t]eachers nearly always find it easier to incorporate technologies into their teaching methods (rather than altering the latter) than to ignore implicit convictions and risk implementing alternative teaching strategies.” Adopting a broad educational perspective, he concludes that “[s]everal decades of sustained investment in schools’ technological resources and the trend towards universal Internet access have not resulted in enough tangible evidence that the general change needed has happened”. If radical, discontinuous change is rather unrealistic or at least difficult to implement, how is gradual change in terms of a continuous, sustainable transformation of instructional resources and practices possible? What role can (mobile) ICT play in transforming and enhancing EFL classroom practices and learning? 4. Articulating choices The following thoughts and reflections are grounded in the assumption that marketleading educational publishers will not readily abandon their ‘play-it-safe’ business models that have been successful and profitable over many decades. Since printcentered, bundled textbook packages still constitute the main source of their income and profit, it would be highly speculative (or at least premature) to frame EFL textbook development and use in terms of a digital-only future. In view of the long his- Adopting Augmented Reality for Task-Oriented EFL Textbook Development 51 47 (2018) • Heft 2 tory of textbook-driven foreign language education in schools (cf., for instance, from a German perspective, B RILL 2005; K OENIG 2013; N IEWELER 2017; N OLD 1998; P IEPHO 1989; S AUER 1964), it would also be questionable to assume that EFL teachers are readily willing to abandon print media and resources in favor of digital ones. In sum, it appears to be more reasonable and realistic to conceptualize future EFL learning and teaching in terms of gradual (continuous) rather than radical (discontinuous) change. In this context, it seems to be advisable to think of a bridging technology that is capable of reconciling traditional, largely print-based and grammaroriented formats of instruction with more innovative language pedagogical approaches and designs (e.g. task-based language learning), utilizing digital media applications wherever pedagogically appropriate and technologically possible. Augmented reality (AR) can provide such a bridge. 5. Defining AR It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss AR in all its technical details, varieties, and manifestations. Looking at AR as a potentially useful media technology, the focus will be on hand-held, camera-based display applications, rather than on eye-worn or projector-based solutions (including ‘spatial AR’ and holographic imagery), acknowledging that the latter may, perhaps, be even more powerful for creating meaningful, attractive, and effective EFL learning environments in the future (for a discussion of the technological and pedagogical potential of ‘spatial AR’ cf., for instance, C HURCHILL 2017: 228ff.; for a brief overview of different types of AR, cf. H AWKINSON 2014). In essence, AR is conceived of here as a digital media technology designed to enrich and, ultimately, enhance the users’ perception and experience of, as well as their interaction with, the physical world. AR superimposes digital information (for instance, photorealistic 2D or 3D graphics, animations, audio or video content, and/ or written or spoken text) upon a certain physical surrounding, object or situation (for instance, a city square, a building, a room, or the page of a book). As such, it supplements the users’ view of the physical world, rather than replacing it completely. By overlaying digital information on the physical background, the physical (material) and the digital (immaterial) world appear to coexist at the same time, but the users can still tell them apart. This distinguishes AR from virtual reality (VR) which creates a computer-generated, synthetic environment in which the user is completely immersed. Contrary to VR, AR aims to make the perceived physical world more easily accessible and meaningful. The central idea is to offer a more profound, ‘hybrid’ perception and experience of the physical world through technological enrichment (cf. the seminal paper by A ZUMA 1997 and B ILLINGHURST / K ATO / P OUPYREV ’s (2001) pioneering work on the ‘Magic Book’; for an extensive overview of AR in theory and in practice, see M EHLER -B ICHER / S TEIGER 2 2014). From a foreign language educational perspective, AR can be viewed as a context- 52 Jürgen Kurtz 47 (2018) • Heft 2 sensitive multimedia technology, which is eminently suited for contextualized communicative language learning and teaching. 5.1 Outlining research on AR in educational settings Over the past years, there has been increasing research interest in incorporating AR in education. As the state-of-the-art reviews by C ABERO / B ARROSO (2016), C HEN et al. (2017), V AN K REVELEN / P OELMAN (2010), W U et al. (2013) and Y UEN / Y AOYUNEYONG / J OHNSON (2011) indicate, AR is a highly versatile and flexible media technology that holds great potential for enriching and, perhaps, enhancing learning and teaching in various educational contexts. This is largely due to its capacity to modify its users’ perception of the physical world by adding, hiding, highlighting or modifying certain pieces of perceptual information relevant to learning and instruction. If used in combination with portable devices such as large screen smartphones (phablets) or tablets, AR could provide a powerful technological platform for a broad range of pedagogical approaches and instructional formats, including task-driven, differentiated instruction and learning inside and outside the classroom. However, as C ABERO / B ARROSO (2016: 47) point out, most of the research on AR in education has been conducted in laboratory contexts rather than in real education contexts so far, and “a stronger emphasis has been laid on technological and instrumental approaches than on research initiatives focused on analyzing its educational possibilities.” In sum, C ABERO / B ARROSO identify a clear lack of scientific research works and studies about the potential which AR can supply to learners and teachers. Correspondingly, C HEN et al. (2017: 16) argue that more studies need to be undertaken considering the difference of cognitive process and psychological immersion between AR and reality settings; the individual interaction, sense of identity, and adaptive application in augmented reality; AR classroom design and evaluation research; the teacher’s role model in AR educational setting; designing and implicating learning resources of AR in k-12 [classes; JK]. 5.2 Examining AR for language learning and instruction in school contexts The most important questions emerging from the current state of research are the following: Where and when does it really make sense to use AR? Anywhere and anytime? What is desirable or necessary? What aims and objectives of teaching and learning languages can AR serve best? What uses of AR are most convincing to teach languages more effectively and efficiently? How does AR change the way teachers teach and learners learn languages? In sum, what is the potential surplus value of using AR in language education? The present paper cannot and does not attempt to pursue all of these questions. Future research will have to examine the language pedagogical potential and impact of AR in more detail. In his paper on the state of the art of AR-assisted foreign or second language Adopting Augmented Reality for Task-Oriented EFL Textbook Development 53 47 (2018) • Heft 2 learning and teaching in various contexts, G ODWIN -J ONES (2016) identifies four emerging research trends: • AR for digitally enhanced, place-based language learning, • AR for game-based language learning/ the gamification of learning, • AR for inter-/ transcultural education and learning, and • AR for designing hybrid (print, digital) learning environments. As G ODWIN -J ONES (2016) points out, there is a growing body of international research dedicated to promoting second (and foreign) language learning by employing AR in out-of-class scenarios. In this research context, AR is conceived of as a powerful vehicle or tool for creating augmented tours, or place-based, and often also game-based, interactive learning experiences (cf., for instance, H OLDEN / S YKES 2011; K UKULSKA -H ULME 2016, the ‘Maseltov’-project at http: / / www.maseltov.eu; T HORNE et al. 2015, the ‘Mentira’-project at http: / / www.mentira.org). According to H AWKINSON (cf. 2014: 15), these kinds of AR applications typically require users to move from location to location performing context-sensitive tasks. Most studies in this research category tend to adopt a radical-change perspective (in terms of minimizing the role of printed language learning and teaching resources), focusing primarily on informal AR-supported, out-of-class learning contexts. Very little (if any) research has been carried out to date to examine AR-enhanced textbook design for learning and teaching English as a foreign language (markerbased, ‘print AR’). In ‘print AR’, the printed textbook is used as a trigger to overlay digital content that can serve many functions, ranging from providing audio-visual annotations (e.g. translations, animations, sound clips, grammar and vocabulary explanations) and tasks of various kinds (especially ‘real-world’ communicative tasks) to more flexible ways of guidance and adaptive assistance as needed by individual learners (cf., for instance, G OLLA / K URTZ 2016, H AWKINSON 2014). This approach is less radical because it does not require teachers to abandon the textbook. 6. Implementing task-driven, AR assisted language learning and teaching Task-driven language learning and teaching reflects core tenets of constructivist approaches to education and learning (cf. E LLIS 2009). Starting from the assumption that learners learn languages best by using the target language to engage with and accomplish relevant, interesting, and meaningful communication tasks, language acquisition and learning is conceived of as a contextualized, active, collaborative, experiential, and, above all, student-centered, reflective process. The role of the teacher is to set the best conditions for learning, orchestrating and scaffolding the language learning process. As a large and growing body of research indicates, taskdriven teaching and learning represents a powerful option for instruction and learning in EFL classrooms (for an overview, cf., for instance, B YGATE 2015). 54 Jürgen Kurtz 47 (2018) • Heft 2 Many of today’s global and local EFL textbooks offer a variety of learning tasks, but tasks printed on a book page inherently lack the potential to “converge text, visuals, sound, motion media formats and various forms of interactivity” (C HURCHILL 2017: 227). This is, perhaps, too trivial to be of wider interest. At any rate, research on technology-mediated task-based language teaching (TBLT) (cf. G ONZÁLEZ - L LORET / O RTEGA 2014; T HOMAS / R EINDERS 2010) has preferred to examine the opportunities and challenges of incorporating a range of digital technologies (e.g. blogs, wikis, social networks, podcasts, VR platforms) into textbook-independent foreign language education up to now, largely ignoring the potential of AR for enhancing the textbook as the core medium of instruction in hybrid (print/ digital), multimodal, interactive, and adaptive EFL learning environments. Research interest in aligning traditional, printed textbooks and ancillary resources with ‘print AR’ to promote gradual, sustainable change in everyday EFL learning and teaching is limited. This is unfortunate, given the transformative power of AR. In conjunction with an EFL textbook, ‘print AR’ can serve a variety of purposes and functions. It can, for instance, do the following: • help learners to better understand tasks and instructions on the printed page by providing seamless digital assistance and intuitive support, e.g. by augmenting (rephrasing, annotating, simplifying, etc.) complex task descriptions immediately, without having to access any further print or digital textbook resource; • enrich learners’ experience of the English-speaking world by superimposing virtual imagery (photos, videos, photorealistic graphics, animations) on the printed textbook page (e.g. a picture of a famous building is turned into an authentic, 3D virtual multimedia tour through that building with communicative tasks of various kinds attached to each stop); • assist learners in the discovery of structural and socio-functional aspects of the target language and its use in real-world contexts by providing supplementary multimodal learning content and more intuitive, interactional guidance for learning (e.g. by presenting the target language in use in real world, digitally annotated contexts); • help learners notice key lexico-grammatical aspects of the target language by, for instance, offering virtual AR tutorial animations, interactive pop-ups with learning tips, or classroom blog communicative exchanges with peers or with the teacher; • induce learners to explore language and culture from different perspectives, by opening virtual entrance doors to suitable web content, webquests, conferencing platforms, social networks, or to the blogosphere. Examining AR in language education H AWKINSON (2014: 155) points out that “[t]hese technologies can converge existing media like nothing before, bringing textbooks to life with video, individualizing online content into any situation, and enriching leaning experiences. But how teachers use these new tools will determine Adopting Augmented Reality for Task-Oriented EFL Textbook Development 55 47 (2018) • Heft 2 how meaningful they will be to language acquisition.” Therefore, it is crucial to look at the potential of ‘print AR’ from the language teaching perspective as well. As outlined in K URTZ (2014), ‘print AR’ can also serve to assist teachers in the process of planning and delivering instruction with the textbook (by offering digital overlays visible for the teacher only). While research on how and how often EFL practitioners actually use teaching manuals is scarce (or non-existent), it is conceivable that ‘print AR’, as an assistive technology, could provide teachers with valuable support at all stages of textbook-driven teaching (pre-, while-, post-). Whether this is the case, and how and now often it is utilized, would still need to be examined. 7. Promoting AR-assisted differentiated instruction and individualized learning Most of the EFL textbooks and accompanying resources and materials used in German schools today are designed to facilitate and support differentiated instruction (internal differentiation) (cf., for instance, H Aß 2017). However, internal differentiation in textbooks is typically reduced to distinguishing a) between a fundamentum (the core curriculum) and an additum (extension activities), and b) between different levels of exercise or task difficulty. Characteristically, and contrary to current theory and “best-practice” research (cf. T RAUTMANN 2010), the overarching focus is on textbook-driven, top-down, internal differentiation rather than on learner-centered, self-regulated, bottom-up differentiation. One major exception to this is portfoliobased self-assessment, which has become standard in today’s EFL textbook packages. In view of current research on differentiated instruction and learning in EFL classrooms (cf., for instance, S TROHN 2015), it appears to be more appropriate and potentially effective to conceive of internal differentiation in a broader sense, one that includes a wider spectrum of both top-down and bottom-up strategies and techniques, placing more emphasis on learner preferences as well as individualized, learner-requested feedback and support. Due to space restrictions in print, this will be difficult (if not impossible) to realize. Here as well, ‘print AR’ can play a pivotal, innovative role. In conjunction with the textbook, ‘print AR’ can provide the following affordances: • create a print-based, but virtually diversified, hybrid (print, digital) learning sphere that is conducive to individuals with different language learning biographies, preferences, proficiencies and needs; • capture individual learners’ interests and keep them absorbed in their learning activities by providing a flexible, multimodal user interface that is capable of presenting language and culture in many different ways (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, etc.); • give learners more freedom to choose in terms of self-regulated 56 Jürgen Kurtz 47 (2018) • Heft 2 differentiation; providing a range of choices, which differ from otherregulated, textbook-based differentiation; • offer supplementary tasks and activities which are better matched to individual learners' needs and provide a suitable level of challenge (e.g. text comprehension questions in the book are augmented by highlighted digital text passages, or by digital bookmarking and note-taking options; closed questions are augmented by more open questions and various kinds of tasks; tasks-in-progress are expanded by audio or video-augmented chatting); • enable learners to take greater control of the speed and direction of their learning by offering various assistive tools, aids, and types of feedback, including, for instance, auditory and audio-visual vocabulary annotations to instantly check unknown words and phrases; • encourage individual learners to consolidate and expand on what they have learned by offering additional, increasingly real-world communicative tasks; • offer additional, more individually tailored opportunities for target language practice in all major areas of competency and skill (cf. also H ERRINGTON K IDD / C ROMPTON 2016). It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the potential of integrating ‘print AR’ in task-driven, differentiated instruction in the textbook-based EFL classroom in more detail. Undoubtedly, the ideas listed above represent just a fraction of what is both technologically feasible and pedagogically desirable. 8. Advantages of ‘print AR’ over disc-based educational media components In view of the foregoing, largely exploratory considerations regarding the potential of ‘print AR’ for enhancing task-based instruction and bottom-up internal differentiation it might be argued that much of what has been said about augmented learning and teaching in hybrid (print, electronic) learning environments is also true for learning with today’s EFL textbook packages. This critique is valid to some degree, but only if it is framed in terms of our current understanding of AR media technology and its potential role in foreign language education. Research into how exactly mobile, ‘print AR’ can enrich learning in hybrid (print, digital) educational environments is still in its infancy. However, from a purely technological perspective, there can be little doubt that ‘print AR’ holds much more potential for computerassisted and mediated foreign language learning than bundling print-based materials with disc-based media components that are becoming increasingly obsolete. At present, AR may not significantly expand the functionality of present-day EFL textbook packages. Yet, it can contribute considerably to reducing the sheer number of print and electronic media components made available by the EFL textbook industry. What is more, ‘print AR’ is capable of integrating hitherto separated media compo- Adopting Augmented Reality for Task-Oriented EFL Textbook Development 57 47 (2018) • Heft 2 nents, and this is of great value concerning the development of a more intuitive and supportive media environment. Traditional textbook packages bundle components, AR bundles functionality. Contrary to AR software applications, which work with smartphones, phablets and tablets, disc-based learning software requires notebook-, desktopor whiteboard-sized computers to operate. The hardware needed to run disc-based learning software is much more intrusive because it imposes considerable restrictions on the layout of the classroom. This aspect is not to be underestimated, especially with regard to EFL classroom interaction. Rather than constraining the ways learners and teachers can interact with one another, technology should open up new spaces for interaction. The following example briefly presents the language pedagogical and technical capabilities and limitations of one of the first ‘print AR’ applications for EFL learning and instruction. 9. Putting AR in practice: the ‘Zoom app’ The ‘Zoom-App’ is a pioneering ‘print AR’-application for use in conjunction with EFL textbook packages such as Camden Town, Camden Market, or Notting Hill Gate, all produced and distributed by Bildungshaus Schulbuchverlage (for further information, see https: / / verlage.westermanngruppe.de/ landing/ zoom-app/ download). The app is available for Android (Google) and iOS (Apple) and needs a smartphone, phablet or tablet camera to scan and augment the printed textbook page, as shown in the following pictures (  p. 58): 58 Jürgen Kurtz 47 (2018) • Heft 2 Pictures 1 & 2: The ‘Zoom-app’ in action Based on the printed textbook page, the app is capable of generating supplementary digital content immediately, i.e. in real time. As such, it provides EFL learners with assistive audio and audio-visual material, which brings the pages to life, making the learning content more attractive, meaningful and easily accessible. It also offers learners additional strategic support in central areas of competency and skill (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, etc.). For instance, a vocabulary trainer offers learners the opportunity to acquire and practice the core vocabulary of the corresponding textbook unit at their own pace, anywhere and anytime; a digital grammar tutor provides additional guidance and support (for an overview, cf. G OLLA / K URTZ 2016). The potential of the ‘Zoom-app’ is huge, but at present, the app is limited to a few basic features or functions (i.e. adding visual imagery, audio and video, supplementing texts and tasks, merging digital vocabulary support with the printed book). Other features or functions might also be beneficial enhancements to the EFL textbook (e.g. removing, hiding, and filtering language learning content). Apart from Adopting Augmented Reality for Task-Oriented EFL Textbook Development 59 47 (2018) • Heft 2 these technological considerations, it is important to note that the app does not yet incorporate a gameplay component, which might increase learners’ interest in using it in out-of-class environments. The app also lacks integrated support for recording, revising, exchanging, or submitting any kind of oral activity. If the app were extended to provide teachers with pre-, whileand post-instructional assistance, it could ultimately grow into a complex assistive system that goes far beyond the printed textbook manual (for further details, cf. K URTZ 2014). 10. Summary and Outlook ‘Print AR’ complements the EFL textbook, rather than replacing it. Since it is not bound by the physical limitations of the printed page, ‘print AR’ can potentially enrich and enhance learning in EFL classrooms in fascinating, meaningful, and perhaps, more effective ways. The major advantage of ‘print AR’ is its capacity to promote gradual, continuous change in the classroom by merging textbook-driven ‘pen and paper’ learning with digital learning in all its various forms. However, it is of great importance to realize that the hybrid, multimodal, interactive, and adaptive character of ‘print AR’ (together with its portability and ability to be continuously up-to-date) necessitates much further theoretical and empirical classroom research. As M OMINÓ (2015: 5) points out, “[t]echnical resources are rarely the main hindrance in […] effectively embracing ICTs in all its spheres of activity. […] The effectiveness of technology is always dependent on the nature of its organizational, social and cultural framework.” Literature A ZUMA , Ronald T. (1997): “A survey of augmented reality”. In: Presence 6.4, 355-385. B ENITT , Nora / K URTZ , Jürgen (2016): “Gender representation in selected EFL textbooks - a diachronic perspective”. In: E LSNER , Daniela / L OHE , Viviane (eds.): Gender and Language Learning. Research and Practice. Tübingen: Narr, 163-182. B ILLINGHURST , Mark / K ATO , Hirokazu / P OUPYREV , Ivan (2001): “The MagicBook: a transitional AR interface”. In: Computers & Graphics 25.5, 745-753. B ORG , Simon (2003): “Teacher cognition in language teaching: a review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do”. In: Language Teaching 36.2, 81-109. B RILL , Lilli M. (2005): Lehrwerke/ Lehrwerkgenerationen und die Methodendiskussion im Fach Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Aachen: Shaker. B YGATE , Martin (ed.) (2015): Domains and Directions in the Development of TBLT. Task-Based Language Teaching: Issues, Directions and Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. C ABERO , Julio / B ARROSO , Julio (2016): “The educational possibilities of augmented reality”. In: New Approaches in Education Research 5.1, 44-50. C HEN , Peng / X IAOLIN , Liu / W EI , Cheng / R ONGHUAI , Huang (2017): “A review of using augmented reality in education from 2011 to 2016”. In: P OPESCU , Elvira / K INSHUK / K HRIBI , 60 Jürgen Kurtz 47 (2018) • Heft 2 Mohamed Koutheair / H UANG , Ronghuai / J EMNI , Mohamed / C HEN , Nian-Shing / S AMPSON , Demetrios G. (eds.): Innovations in Smart Learning, Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Singapore: Springer, 13-18. C HURCHILL , Daniel (2017): Digital Resources for Learning. Singapore: Springer Nature. D OFF , Sabine (2017): “Fremdsprachendidaktik”. In: S URKAMP (ed.), 90-93. E LLIS , Rod (2009): “Task-based research and language pedagogy”. In: V AN DEN B RANDEN , Chris / B YGATE , Martin / N ORRIS , John M. (eds.): Task-Based Language Teaching. A Reader. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 109-130. F ÄCKE , Christiane / M EHLMAUER -L ARCHER , Barbara (eds.) (2017): Fremdsprachliche Lehrmaterialien - Forschung, Analyse, Rezeption. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang. F REUDENSTEIN , Reinhold (2001): “Fremdsprachen lernen ohne Lehrbuch. Zur Geschichte, Gegenwart und Zukunft fremdsprachlicher Unterrichtsmaterialien”. In: Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts 48.1, 8-19. F UNK , Hermann (2013): “Materialentwicklung”. In: H ALLET / K ÖNIGS (eds.), 307-312. G ARTON , Sue / G RAVES , Kathleen (eds.) (2014a): International Perspectives on Materials in ELT. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. G ARTON , Sue / G RAVES , Kathleen (2014b): “Identifying a research agenda for language teaching materials”. In: The Modern Language Journal 98.2, 654-657. G ODWIN -J ONES , Robert (2016): “Augmented reality and language learning: From annotated vocabulary to place-based mobile games”. In: Language Learning & Technology 20.3, 9-19. G OLLA , Christoph / K URTZ , Jürgen (2016): “Schülerorientiertes Englischlernen mit Apps für Smartphones und Tablets”. In: B ÖRNER , Otfried / L OHMANN , Christa (eds.): Schülerorientiert unterrichten. Braunschweig: Diesterweg (Perspektiven Englisch 14), 60-65. G ONZÁLEZ -L LORET , Marta / O RTEGA , Lourdes (eds.) (2014). Technology-mediated TBLT. Researching Technology and Tasks. Amsterdam: Benjamins. G RAY , John (ed.) (2013): Critical Perspectives on Language Teaching Materials. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. H ALLET , Wolfgang / K ÖNIGS , Frank G. (eds.) ( 2 2013): Handbuch Fremdsprachendidaktik. Seelze: Klett/ Kallmeyer. H ARWOOD , Nigel (ed.) (2010): English Language Teaching Materials. Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. H ARWOOD , Nigel (2014): “Content, consumption, and production: three levels of textbook research”. In: H ARWOOD , Nigel (ed.): English Language Teaching Textbooks. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 1-44. H Aß , Frank (2016): “Lehrwerk und Medienverbund”. In: H Aß , Frank (ed.) ( 2 2016): Fachdidaktik Englisch. Tradition - Innovation - Praxis. Stuttgart: Klett, 301-305. H Aß , Frank (2017): “Differenzierung”. In: S URKAMP (ed.), 45-47. H AWKINSON , Eric (2014): “Augmented reality enhanced materials design for language learning”. In: The Asian Conference on Technology in the Classroom. Official Conference Proceedings 0163. Osaka, 155-161. H ERRINGTON K IDD , Susan / C ROMPTON , Helen (2016): “Augmented learning with augmented reality”. In: C HURCHILL , Daniel / L U , Jie / C HIU , Thomas K.F. / F OX , Bob (eds.) (2016): Mobile Learning Design. Theories and Application. Heidelberg: Springer, 97-110. H OLDEN , Christopher L. / S YKES , Julie (2011): “Leveraging mobile games for place-based language learning”. In: International Journal of Game-Based Learning 1.2, 1-18. J OBRACK , Beverlee (2012): Tyranny of the Textbook: An Insider Exposes How Educational Materials Undermine Reforms. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield. Adopting Augmented Reality for Task-Oriented EFL Textbook Development 61 47 (2018) • Heft 2 K OENIG , Michael (2013): “Lehrwerkarbeit”. In: H ALLET / K ÖNIGS (eds.), 177-182. K ÖNIGS , Frank G. (2017): “Sprachlehrforschung”. In: S URKAMP (ed.), 322-324. K UKULSKA -H ULME , Agnes / N ORRIS , Lucy / D ONOHUE , Jim (2015): Mobile Pedagogy for English Language Teaching: A Guide for Teachers. London: British Council. K UKULSKA -H ULME , Agnes (2016): “Mobile assistance in language learning: a critical appraisal”. In: P ALALAS , Agnieszka / A LLY , Mohamed (eds.) (2016): The International Handbook of Mobile-Assisted Language Learning. Beijing: China Central Radio & TV University Press, 138-160. K URTZ , Jürgen (2002): “Fremdsprachendidaktik als Ware und Dienstleistung: Verlagskataloge für das Fach Englisch unter die Lupe genommen”. In: Englisch 1, 8-12. K URTZ , Jürgen (2010): “Zum Umgang mit dem Lehrwerk im Englischunterricht”. In: F UCHS , Eckhardt / K AHLERT , Joachim / S ANDFUCHS , Uwe (eds.) (2010): Schulbuch konkret. Kontexte. Produktion. Unterricht. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt,149-163. K URTZ , Jürgen (coord.) (2011): “Lehrwerkkritik, Lehrwerkverwendung, Lehrwerkentwicklung”. In: Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 40.2, 3-14. K URTZ , Jürgen (2014): “Qualitätsmaßstäbe für interkulturelle Lernangebote in fremdsprachenunterrichtlichen Bildungsmedien”. In: Praxis Fremdsprachenunterricht 1, 9-12. L ITTLEJOHN , Andrew (2011): “The analysis of language teaching materials: inside the Trojan Horse”. In: T OMLINSON , Brian (ed.) ( 2 2011): Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 179-211. M ARCOS M IGUEL , Nausica (2015): “Textbook consumption in the classroom: analyzing classroom corpora”. Current Work in Corpus Linguistics: Working with Traditionally Conceived Corpora and beyond. Selected Papers from the 7th International Conference on Corpus Linguistics (CILC 2015). In: Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 198, 309-319. M C C ONACHY , Troy / H ATA , Kaori (2013): “Addressing textbook representations of pragmatics and culture”. In: ELT Journal 67.3, 294-301. M C G RATH , Ian (2013): Teaching Materials and the Roles of EFL/ ESL Teachers. Practice and Theory. London, New York: Bloomsbury Academic. M C G RATH , Ian ( 2 2016). Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. M EDDINGS , Luke/ T HORNBURY , Scott (2009): Teaching Unplugged. Dogme in English Language Teaching. Peaslake: Delta. M EHLER -B ICHER , Anett / S TEIGER , Lothar ( 2 2014): Augmented Reality. Theorie und Praxis. München: Oldenbourg. M OMINÓ , Joseph M. (2015): The Implications of Technological Change on the Teaching Profession. Background paper for discussion at the 12th Session of the CEART (Paris, 20-24 April 2015). Paris: UNESCO. N IEHAUS , Inga / S TOLETZKI , Almut / F UCHS , Eckhart / A HLRICHS , Johanna (2011): Wissenschaftliche Recherche und Analyse zur Gestaltung, Verwendung und Wirkung von Lehrmitteln (Metaanalyse und Empfehlungen). Braunschweig, Germany: Georg-Eckert-Institut für internationale Schulbuchforschung. N IEWELER , Andreas (2017): “Lehrwerk”. In: S URKAMP (ed.), 206-208. N OLD , Günter (1998): “Die Arbeit mit dem Lehrwerk”. In: T IMM , Johannes-Peter (ed.) (1998): Englisch lernen und lehren. Didaktik des Englischunterrichts. Berlin: Cornelsen, 127-136. O ELKERS , Jürgen (2010). Bildungsstandards und deren Wirkung auf die Lehrmittel. In: Beiträge zur Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung 28.1, 33-41. 62 Jürgen Kurtz 47 (2018) • Heft 2 P EGRUM , Mark (2014): Mobile Learning. Languages, Literacies and Culture. Houndsmill, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. P IEPHO , Hans-Eberhard (1989): “Das Lehrwerk im Englischunterricht”. In: B RUSCH , Wilfried (ed.) (1989): Englischdidaktik: Rückblicke - Einblicke - Ausblicke. Festschrift für Peter W. Kahl. Berlin: Cornelsen, 57-78. R ICHARDS , Jack C. (2015): “Materials design in language teacher education: an example from Southeast Asia”. In: F ARRELL , Thomas S.C. (ed.) (2015): International Perspectives on English Language Teacher Education. Innovations from the Field. Houndsmill, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 90-106. S AUER , Helmut (1964): “Lehrbuch und Arbeitsmittel im Englischunterricht”. In: Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts 4, 213-218. S CHMELTER , Lars (2011): “Immer noch das Leitmedium? ! Lehrwerkforschung und Lehrwerkerstellung als Herausforderung für die Fremdsprachenforschung”. In: B AUSCH , Karl-Richard / B URWITZ -M ELZER , Eva / K ÖNIGS , Frank G. / K RUMM , Hans-Jürgen (eds.) (2011): Fremdsprachen lehren und lernen: Rück- und Ausblick. Arbeitspapiere der 30. Frühjahrskonferenz zur Erforschung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts. Tübingen: Narr, 148-155. S ERCU , Lies (2004): “Textbooks”. In: B YRAM , Michael (ed.) (2004): Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. London, New York: Routledge, 626-628. S TROHN , Maike (2015): Binnendifferenzierung im Englischunterricht - die Lehrerperspektive. Bochum: Projekt. S URKAMP , Carola (ed.) ( 2 2017): Metzler Lexikon Fremdsprachendidaktik. Stuttgart: Metzler. T HALER , Engelbert (2010): Lernerfolg durch Balanced Teaching. Berlin: Cornelsen. T HALER , Engelbert (2011). “Die Zukunft des Lehrwerks - Das Lehrwerk der Zukunft”. In: Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 2, 15-30. T HOMAS , Michael / R EINDERS , Hayo (eds.) (2010): Task-based Language Learning and Teaching with Technology. New York: Continuum. T HORNE , Steve L. / H ELLERMAN , John / J ONES , Adam / L ESTER , Daniel (2015): “Interactional practices and artifact orientation in mobile augmented reality game play”. In: PsychNology Journal 13.2-3, 259-286. T OMLINSON , Brian (ed.) (2008): English Language Learning Materials: A Critical Review. New York: Continuum. T OMLINSON , Brian (ed.) ( 2 2011): Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. T OMLINSON , Brian (ed.) ( 2 2013): Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London, UK: Bloomsbury. T RAUTMANN , Matthias (2010): “Heterogenität - (k)ein Thema in der Fremdsprachendidaktik? ” In: B ÖRNER , Otfried / E DELHOFF , Christoph / L OHMANN , Christa (eds.): Individualisierung und Differenzierung im kommunikativen Englischunterricht. Braunschweig: Diesterweg, 6-16. W ESTDIJK , Jessica (2016): A Mismatch that Slows down the Evolution of Education. Comparing the Perceptions of Primary Schools Teachers on Digital Education Materials with the Perceptions of Publishers. (MA thesis). Rotterdam: Erasmus University. https: / / thesis.eur.nl/ pub/ 34751/ Westdijk.pdf (06.01.2018). V AN K REVELEN , D.W.F. / P OELMAN , R. (2010): “A survey of augmented reality technologies, applications and limitations”. In: The International Journal of Virtual Reality 9.2, 1-20. V ENCES , Ursula / F REUDENSTEIN , Reinhold (2002): „Fremdsprachen lernen ohne Lehrwerk? Anmerkungen zu einer kontroversen These“. In: Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts 49.3, 295-299. Adopting Augmented Reality for Task-Oriented EFL Textbook Development 63 47 (2018) • Heft 2 W U , Hsin-Kay / W EN -Y U L EE , Silvia / C HAN , Hsin-Li / L IANG , Jyh-Chong (2013): “Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education”. In: Computers & Education 62, 41-49. Y UEN , Steve Chi-Yin / Y AOYUNEYONG , Gallayanee / J OHNSON , Eric (2011): “Augmented reality: An overview and five directions for AR in education”. In: Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange 4.1, 119-140. Z HANG , Xiaodong (2017): “A critical review of literature on English language teaching textbook evaluation: What systemic functional linguistics can offer”. In: Journal of Language and Cultural Education 5.1, 78-102.