With the launch of the Senior High School English Curriculum Standards (2017) and the nationwide implementation of newly compiled English textbooks, Chinese teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) face heightened expectations for adapting instructional materials in ways that support student-centered and competency-based learning. Against this backdrop, this study investigated three Chinese high school EFL teachers’ agentic engagement with a newly published set of English textbooks and identified factors that facilitated or constrained their materials-use practices. Drawing upon ecological agency theory, this multiple-case study employed qualitative methods, including semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, and teaching-related documents. The findings reveal that although teachers relied on the textbooks as core instructional resources, they engaged in selective and extensive adaptations through the dynamic interaction of teacher-related, student-related, and contextual conditions. Rather than identifying new categories of influencing factors, the study shows how these interrelated influences are negotiated in practice, shaping teachers’ situated enactment of agency in the use of curriculum materials. This study concludes with practical implications for teacher education, school leadership, and curriculum development, highlighting the importance of fostering supportive institutional conditions that enable agentic and effective textbook use.
BosompemE.G. (2014). Materials adaptation in Ghana: Teachers’ attitudes and practices. In GartonS.GravesK. (Eds.), International perspectives on materials in ELT (pp. 104–120). Palgrave Macmillan.
3.
BouchardJ. (2017). Ideology, agency, and intercultural communicative competence. Springer.
CarabantesL. (2025a). Context matters: A sociocultural framework for materials development. ELT Journal, 79, 156–171. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccae047
6.
CarabantesL. (2025b). ‘It’s like English is given more emphasis than the topic’: Designing materials in English language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 59, 1225–1261. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3353
7.
CarabantesL.ParanA. (2022a). ‘It may also be our own fault to think so, to limit them before even trying’: Assuming learner limitations during materials design in English language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 56, 1266–1289. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3102
8.
CarabantesL.ParanA. (2022b). ‘I preferred to take another activity from the textbook’: An activity–theoretical study of learning to design language teaching materials. The Modern Language Journal, 106, 659–674. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12803
9.
CunningsworthA. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Heinemann.
10.
DuffP. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. Routledge.
11.
EmirbayerM.MischeA. (1998). What is agency?The American Journal of Sociology, 103, 962–1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294
GartonS.GravesK. (2014b). International perspectives on materials in ELT. Palgrave Macmillan.
14.
GrandonM. (2018). Exploring the use of video-based materials in the Japanese university English language classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
15.
GuerrettazA.M.EngmanM.M.MatsumotoY. (2021). Empirically defining language learning and teaching materials in use through sociomaterial perspectives. Modern Language Journal, 105, 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12691
16.
GuerrettazA.M.GrandonM.LeeS., et al (2018). Materials use and development: Synergetic processes and research prospects. Filio, 18, 37–44.
GuerrettazA.M.MathieuC.LeeS.BerwickA. (2022). Materials use in language classrooms: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 55, 547–564. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000021
19.
GuoH.WangQ. (2013). 高中英语教师对新课程教科书的认识与使用研究 [High-school English teachers’ conception and practice of the new curriculum textbook]. Curriculum, Teaching Material and Method, 33, 59–65. https://doi.org/10.19877/j.cnki.kcjcjf.2013.08.010
20.
HanifaR.YusufF.YusraS.SuherdiD. (2024). Adapting EFL materials and its influences on Indonesia secondary school students’ language learning. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 9, Article 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-024-00297-7
21.
HarmerJ. (2007). How to teach English (2nd ed.). Pearson Longman.
22.
HarwoodN. (Ed.). (2010). English language teaching materials: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
23.
HarwoodN. (2014). Content, consumption, and production: Three levels of textbook research. In HarwoodN. (Ed.), English language teaching textbooks: Content, consumption, production (pp. 1–41). Palgrave Macmillan.
24.
HumphriesS. (2014). Factors influencing Japanese teachers’ adoption of communication-oriented textbooks. In GartonS.GravesK. (Eds.), International perspectives on materials in ELT (pp. 253–269). Palgrave Macmillan.
25.
HutchinsonE.G. (1996). What do teachers and learners actually do with textbooks? Teacher and learner use of a fisheries-based ELT textbook in the Philippines. Unpublished PhD thesis, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
26.
KissT.RimbarH. (2021). English language teacher agency in rural Sarawak: Exploiting teaching materials. The English Teacher, 50, 142–156. https://doi.org/10.52696/DCVU6828
27.
LiD. (2024). Material use for EFL teacher learning in classroom ecology: A perturbation or affordance?Language, Culture and Curriculum, 37, 186–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2023.2288132
LiZ.HarfittG.J. (2017). An examination of language teachers’ enactment of curriculum materials in the context of a centralized curriculum. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 25, 403–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2016.1270987
30.
LiZ.XuY. (2020). Unpacking the processes of materials use: An interdisciplinary perspective of language teachers’ use of materials in China. Sage Open, 10, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020977875
31.
LinJ.ZhanJ. (2015). ‘活动’中的英语写作教材评估与使用: 来自高校英语教师的声音 [College English teachers’ assessment and use of EFL writing textbooks: An activity theory account]. Modern Foreign Languages, 6, 790–801.
32.
LiyanageI.WalkerT. (2023). English teachers’ identity-agency and curriculum reform policies in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 22, 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-023-09343-6
33.
MaleyA. (2011). Squaring the circle-reconciling materials as constraint with materials as empowerment. In TomlinsonB. (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (2nd ed., pp. 379–402). Cambridge University Press.
34.
McDonoughJ.ShawC. (2003). Materials and methods in ELT: A teacher’s guide. John Wiley.
35.
McDonoughJ.ShawC.MasuharaH. (2013). Materials and methods in ELT (3rd ed.). John Wiley.
36.
McGrathI. (2013). Teaching materials and the roles of EFL/ESL teachers: Practice and theory. Bloomsbury.
37.
McGrathI. (2016). Materials evaluation and design for language teaching (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press.
38.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2020). 普通高中英语课程标准（2017 年版 2020 年修订）
[English Curriculum Standards for General Senior High Schools (2017 edition, 2020 revision)]. People’s Education Press.
39.
PriestleyM.BiestaG.RobinsonS. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury.
40.
RathertS.CabaroğluN. (2024). Teachers as slaves or masters to their coursebooks: An in-depth study on two English language teachers’ coursebook utilization. Language Teaching Research, 28, 1816–1841. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211036239
41.
RemillardJ. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211
42.
RichardsJ.C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
43.
RichardsJ.C. (2014). The ELT textbook. In GartonS.GravesK. (Eds.), International perspectives on materials in ELT (pp. 19–36). Palgrave Macmillan.
44.
RichardsJ.C.MahoneyD. (1996). Teachers and textbooks: A survey of beliefs and practice. Perspectives, 8, 40–63.
45.
ShawerS. (2010). Classroom-level curriculum development: EFL teachers as curriculum-developers, curriculum-makers and curriculum-transmitters. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.015
46.
StakeR. (2005). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press.
47.
SuD. (2023). 教育生态理论视角下的中国外语教材理论体系构建 [Chinese foreign language textbooks research from an ecological perspective]. Journal of Foreign Languages, 46, 20–32.
48.
TaoL.WengT. (2026). Dancing with shackles: Exploring two Chinese high school English teachers restricted agency in implementing core competencies from an ecological lens. TESOL Quarterly, 60, 218–260. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.70034
49.
TasseronM. (2017). How teachers use the global ELT coursebook. In MasuharaH.MishanF.TomlinsonB. (Eds.), Practice and theory for materials development in L2 learning (pp. 290–311). Cambridge Scholars.
50.
The State Council. (2018). 关于全面深化新时代教师队伍建设改革的意见 [Opinions on comprehensively deepening the reform on the building-up of teacher team in the new era]. Xinhua News Agency. Available at: https://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2018-01/31/content_5262659.htm (accessed March 2026).
51.
TomlinsonB.MasuharaH. (2018). The complete guide to the theory and practice of materials development for language learning. John Wiley.
52.
WangQ. (2015). Reframing ’public lessons’ to support English language teacher education. In WrightT.BeaumountM. (Eds.), Experiences of second language teacher education (pp. 126–152). Palgrave Macmillan.
53.
WangQ. (2018).《普通高中英语课程标准（2017 年版)》六大变化之解析 [Interpreting the six major changes of the Senior High School English Curriculum 2017]. Foreign Language Education in China (Quarterly), 2, 11–19.
54.
WetteR. (2010). Professional knowledge in action: How experienced ESOL teachers respond to feedback from learners within syllabus and contextual constraints. System, 38, 569–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.09.017
55.
XuJ.FanY. (2017). 大学英语教师使用教材任务的策略与动机 [Exploring the strategies and motives of using textbook-based tasks by college English teachers]. Modern Foreign Languages, 40, 91–101.
56.
XuY.LiK. (2025). Teacher engagement and learning in materials development: A qualitative study of four primary school English teachers’ experiences. System, 133, Article 103751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103751
57.
YanC. (2015). ‘We can’t change much unless the exams change’: Teachers’ dilemmas in the curriculum reform in China. Improving Schools, 18, 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480214553744
58.
YinR. (2018). Case study research: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.
59.
YuH. (2005). 教材选用取向与不同的教材观 [Textbook selecting orientation and outlook]. Theory and Practice of Education, 16, 42–44.
60.
YuanR. (2017). Appropriating national curriculum standards in classroom teaching: Experiences of novice language teachers in China. International Journal of Educational Research, 83, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.02.011
61.
ZhangH.LiH.HeX. (2021). 高校英语教材使用及其影响因素调查研究 [Investigating the use of English language textbooks and its influencing factors in Chinese universities]. Foreign Language Education, 4, 64–69. https://doi.org/10.16362/j.cnki.cn61-1023/h.2021.04.011
62.
ZhangH.LiuW.LiH. (2024). English-as-a-foreign-language teachers’ beliefs and coursebook adaptation practices: A latent profile analysis. RELC Journal, 55, 640–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882221143184
