CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningEnglish Language Learning and TeachingSecond Language Learning and Teaching

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 6 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

An evaluative checklist for self-access materials

Reinders, H.·2006·ELT Journal
DOI 10.1093/elt/ccl007
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Self-access centres (SACs) are playing an increasingly pivotal role in supporting the (self-) study of languages. Selecting suitable resources thus becomes more and more important. At the selection stage, identifying problems with available resources is not an easy task, and is made more difficult by a lack of published guidelines. Linked with this difficulty is the wide range of skills, topics, and levels that self-access resources cater for, making it difficult to have a precisely defined list of criteria. Starting with the premise that evaluation criteria for self-access resources are different from those developed for classroom materials this study worked through two stages. First, existing evaluative criteria for self-instructional materials in general education and language learning were reviewed. Based on this review, a new evaluation tool was developed to guide self-access in the selection of materials.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/elt/ccl007

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 6 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § Developing fresh criteria for selfaccess materials

    In a pre-study, SAC facilitators' answers about what students look for in materials were varied and sometimes contradictory.

    “In a pre-study to this project, when SAC facilitators were asked what they believed students looked for in materials, their answers were varied and even, in some cases, contradictory.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Premisecitation
    § Developing fresh criteria for selfaccess materials

    Previous research (Reinders and Cotterall 2001) showed that open questions about resources led to very general comments mainly about the quantity of materials and the types of materials students preferred, unless the questions were specific to one or more materials present in the Centre.

    “Previous research had shown (Reinders and Cotterall 2001) that open questions about resources led to very general comments mainly about the quantity of the materials and the types of materials students preferred, unless the questions were specific to one or more materials present in the Centre.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Reinders and Cotterall 2001 source
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 10
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 2

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § Developing a checklist

    A tension became evident between aiming for a one-size-fits-all list and not excluding interesting features found in books.

    “The other tension was between aiming for a one-size-fits-all list and yet not excluding interesting features as we found them in the books.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § Conclusion

    Our earlier attempts to use lengthier lists such as Jones (1993) suggested that shorter, while not better, was more practical.

    “Our earlier attempts to use lengthier lists such as those prepared by Jones (1993), reviewed above, suggested that shorter, while not better, was more practical.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jones (1993) source

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § Developing fresh criteria for selfaccess materials

    Students rated most of the suggested characteristics of good materials as important, except 'look nice', which they rated as less important.

    “As can be seen from the responses, students seem to agree that materials should have most of the characteristics suggested except 'look nice' (as suggested by Sheerin op.cit.) which apparently students found less important.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Students' questionnaire responses are a valid basis for determining what materials should be purchased and for developing an evaluative checklist.
    • Rests on an assumption: The twenty randomly selected students are representative of the SAC student population.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    The Language Resource Centre Project handbook includes twenty questions about the usefulness of language learning materials for a resource centre.

    “The Language Resource Centre Project (www.lrcnet.org/html/en/ handbook.html)has resulted in a handbook for setting up centres.This includes twenty questions about the usefulness of language learning materials for a resource centre.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites The Language Resource Centre Project

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Premisenone given
    § Abstract

    There is no further information in the literature on how to identify whether a particular resource possesses the qualities listed by Sheerin.

    “However, there is no further information on how to identify whether a particular resource possesses these qualities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sheerin (1989)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Conclusion

    The checklist combines features of earlier lists with items identified during a series of trials.

    “Our list (Figure 2), which we see as work in progress, combines features of earlier lists with items we identified during a series of trials.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Lockwood's (1998) list draws sixteen distinctions between textbooks and self-instructional material.

    “Finally, Lockwood's (1998) list from general education draws sixteen distinctions between textbooks and self-instructional material.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lockwood (1998)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Conclusion

    The checklist is an attempt to strike a balance between the ideal, lengthy survey and a shorter one which had more chance of being used.

    “One shortcoming of the list is that it is an attempt to strike a balance between the ideal, lengthy survey which would leave no question unasked and a shorter one which had more chance of being used.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Developing a checklist

    Inter-rater reliability was measured at each stage of the cycle by having the two colleagues examine each book independently and then compare their results.

    “The question of inter-rater reliability mentioned by Jones (op.cit.) was measured at each stage of the cycle by having the two colleagues examine each book independently and then compare their results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Developing fresh criteria for selfaccess materials

    A questionnaire was administered to twenty randomly selected students in the SAC.

    “a questionnaire (see Figure 1) was administered to twenty randomly selected students in the SAC.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Jones's list was initially found to have low inter-rater reliability when trialled.

    “When Jones' list was trialled it was initially found to have low inter-rater reliability, indicating that people have different ideas about what qualities such materials need to possess.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jones

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

11 of 11

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Students' questionnaire responses are a valid basis for determining what materials should be purchased and for developing an evaluative checklist.

    “Following the review of the literature and the student responses reported above, the two researchers, one the SAC director and the other a researcher in an academic department, worked to develop an evaluative framework.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The twenty randomly selected students are representative of the SAC student population.

    “a questionnaire (see Figure 1) was administered to twenty randomly selected students in the SAC.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The checklist items derived from literature and trials are relevant to self-access materials generally.

    “Our list (Figure 2), which we see as work in progress, combines features of earlier lists with items we identified during a series of trials.”
3 of 3

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 12 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [8]8. Nedkova, M. 2000. 'Evaluation' in M. Byram (ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. London and New York: Routledge.
  2. [10]10. Sheerin, S. 1989. Self-access. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Reinders, H.
Corresponding author
Reinders, H.
ORCID
Reinders, H.
Venue
ELT Journal
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2006-07-01
Volume
60
Issue
3
Pages
272-278
ISSN
  • 0951-0893 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-4526
DOI
10.1093/elt/ccl007
OpenAlex
W2154968411
Semantic Scholar
7baf82c55269820e6a06cc85f7eb73e7009887f2
Cited by
34
References
12
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
FWCI
11.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • ELT Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Unitec Research Bank (Unitec Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › English Language Learning and Teaching
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Second Language Learning and Teaching
Keywords
self-access centres, material evaluation, evaluation criteria, self-study materials, language learning materials, resource selection, self-access language learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review