Further, the sixth is to provide the students to reflect their English learning (How do/did they learn? Do/did they learn actively? Do/did they actively engage in constructing their knowledge and skills? Do/did they do their assigned tasks well? Do/did they have better learning experience? Do/did they make better scores/grades? Do/did they have better knowledge and skills after learning? etc. The seventh is encouraging the direct presentation/articulation. This session requires each student to orally express, explain, deliver, or communicate those ideas or information they have read or written beforehand in front of the class. The other students are then required to take notes the information delivered by the presenter. The eight is every English lecturer acts or serves as a language coach/trainer (train (not teach) the students to directly communicate in English) and a language scaffolder (the lecturers assist his/her students to read the passage, to summarise, to present, etc). Scaffolding is various forms of learning techniques (assistance) provided by a lecturer to help a student achieve his/her learning objectives. The aids are then gradually lessened and assign the student responsibility for establishing their own learning. The last is learning is authentically assessed. The English lecturers are required to prioritise to assess the students’ English performance rather than paper and pencil tests (Herrington ; Herrington, 2008, p.68-73).
The third rationale was to meet the demands of the ELT approaches. In addition to the basic principles of authentic learning, the three ELT approaches perfectly support the development of the AELTMs for the 2ndYME students. The first approach is content-based instruction (CBI). This approach sturdily exploits the academic subject matters (authentic texts) to enhance the EFL students’ language skills (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989, p.2; Brinton, 2003). The second is task-based instruction (TBI). This idea strongly proposes the utilisation of the authentic texts (materials) in completing the meaningful, contextual, or authentic tasks using English as a target language. The third is content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Similar to CBI, the CLIL strongly promotes the ideas of teaching or learning the academic subject matters and English at once. The integration makes easier for the students to learn English through their subject matters, i.e.: teaching mechanical engineering concepts in English for mechanical engineering students/engineers. Essentially, these three ELT approaches integrate the academic subject matters and English to help the EFL students to effectively communicate their subject matters in English. The primary EFL lecturer’s role in these three approaches is to purely facilitate the students to how to use the language (how language is used) in their own real-world life.
The fourth rationale was to respond to developing the materials for language teaching proposed by the ELT experts –Nunan (1988); Tomlinson (2013 ; 2003); Howard ; Major (2004). The experts encourage the ELT lecturers to develop their ELT materials as an attempt to meet the needs of the particular groups of students or specific educational contexts. The principles of ELT materials’ development that become the English lecturer’ main concerns are the developed ELT materials should be relevant to the curriculum demands, students and stakeholders’ needs; authentic in terms of texts and tasks; to prioritise to develop the students’ language skills, grammar and vocabulary knowledge; the language knowledge and skills can be communicated beyond the classroom; contextualisation (specific groups of learners or educational context); personalisation (students appreciate what they are learning, increase their learning motivation and engagement); and timeless (the developed ELT materials respond to global world’s needs with the up-to-date, relevant and high awareness themes and tasks).
The last raison d’être of developing the AELTMs for the 2ndYME students was the ELT materials taught were repetitive/iterative and certainly detracted the students’ motivation from learning them. As a result, the repetitive ELT materials were less appreciated by the students. Evidently, after being reviewed, these materials were exactly the same as those already learnt in junior, high, vocational schools, and or informal English educational institutions. The repetitive ELT materials taught to the 2ndYME students were “greetings, leave-takings; introducing oneself and other; expressing thanking, commands, requests, feelings, offers, possibility, wants/needs, capability, regrets/apologies, sympathy, capability, preference; saying numbers; describing and comparing people, objects, events; asking for and giving permissions, direction or location; explaining symbols/signs; how to open the talk and close them, how to strive a short talk/conversation, how to express ideas, and grammatical reviews such as tenses, to be, causative, conditional, gerund, as if/as thought, etc.” Even though these materials were not wrong to be taught/learnt, but they were still insufficient to meet the curriculum demands; the needs of particular groups of the students or specific educational contexts; and unresponsive to the demands of the vibrant and changing world of work.